1 BIOC-D-14-00498_R1 2 3 Title: Improving policy efficiency and effectiveness to save more species: a case 4 study of the megadiverse country . 5 6 7 Corresponding author 8 Jane McDonald 9 [email protected] 10 School of Biological Sciences 11 12 St Lucia, 4072 13 , Australia 14 Telephone: + 61 410 204 880 15 16 Author addresses 17 Dr Josie Carwardine 18 CSIRO, Ecosystem Sciences 19 Boggo Rd, Dutton Park 20 Brisbane 4102 21 Australia 22 23 Dr Liana Joseph 24 Global Conservation Program 25 Wildlife Conservation Society 26 Bronx, New York 10460 27 USA 28 29 School of Biological Sciences 30 University of Queensland 31 St Lucia Queensland 4072 32 Australia 33 34 Dr Carissa Klein 35 School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management 36 University of Queensland 37 St Lucia Queensland 4072 38 Australia 39 40 Dr Tracy Rout 41 School of Biological Sciences 42 University of Queensland 43 St Lucia Queensland 4072 44 Australia 45 46 Associate Professor James Watson 47 Global Conservation Program 48 Wildlife Conservation Society 49 Bronx, New York 10460

1 50 USA 51 52 School of Biological Sciences and School of Geography, Planning and 53 Environmental Management, 54 University of Queensland 55 St Lucia Queensland 4072 56 Australia 57 58 Professor Stephen Garnett 59 Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods 60 Charles Darwin University 61 Ellengowan Drive 62 Casuarina NT 0909 63 Australia 64 65 Associate Professor Michael McCarthy 66 School of Botany 67 University of Melbourne 68 Parkville Victoria 3010 69 Australia 70 71 Professor Hugh Possingham 72 School of Biological Sciences 73 University of Queensland 74 St Lucia Queensland 4072 75 Australia 76 77 78

2 79 Abstract 80 Native flora and fauna species continue to decline in the megadiverse, wealthy, 81 economically and politically stable nation of Australia despite current efforts in 82 policy and management. Ongoing research is examining these declines, their 83 causes, and the adequacy of current policy, but strategies for improving the 84 outcomes for threatened species have attracted less attention. We discuss 85 several key aspects of Australia’s national threatened species management 86 approach that potentially hinder the efficiency and effectiveness of management: 87 the threatened species listing process is lengthy and biased; recovery plan 88 development is resource intensive, restricted to a subset of species and often not 89 effective; funding for threatened species management is not allocated efficiently 90 or transparently; and management is not designed to incorporate uncertainties 91 and adapt to changing future threats. Based on these issues we recommend four 92 changes to current process: rationalize listing and assessment processes; 93 develop approaches to prioritize species-based and threat-based responses cost- 94 effectively; estimate funds required to recover species and secure longer term 95 funding; and, accommodate uncertainties and new threats into the current 96 planning framework. Cost-effective prioritization for species and threats 97 identifies which actions are likely to achieve the greatest benefits to species per 98 unit cost, thereby managing more species and threats with available funds. These 99 improvements can be made without legislative reform, additional funding or 100 socio-economic shifts. If implemented, we believe more Australian threatened 101 species will benefit from current efforts. Many of the challenges facing Australia 102 are analogous to issues in other countries including the United States, Canada 103 and the United Kingdom and these recommendations could assist in improving 104 threatened species management. 105 106 Key words: , prioritisation, policy, cost-effective, threatened 107 species, Australia. 108 109 Introduction

110 Policy interventions in Australia have been unable to halt the loss of species and 111 prevent further (Environment and Communications References 112 Committee 2013; Garnett et al. 2011; Woinarski et al. 2014). It is likely the 113 challenges facing policy makers will be even greater with accelerating climate 114 change, continued population growth and land use change targeted towards 115 increased food and fibre production (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). 116 Considerable research has measured species loss in Australia, identified causes 117 of declines, and assessed the effectiveness of current management and policy 118 (Bottrill et al. 2011; Evans et al. 2011; Ford et al. 2001; Garnett et al. 2011; Kelly 119 et al. 2003; Kingsford et al. 2009; Moseby & Read 2006; Ritchie 2013; Ritchie et 120 al. 2013; Short & Smith 1994; Steffen et al. 2009; Szabo et al. 2012; Taylor et al. 121 2011; Walsh et al. 2012; Watson et al. 2011; Woinarski et al. 2011). The recently 122 released Action Plan for Australian Mammals, for example, warns that as well as 123 the highest modern record of mammalian extinctions a large proportion of 124 extant mammals are under threat and urges urgent and targeted actions to avoid 125 further extinctions (Woinarski et al. 2014). Although Australia is not alone in 126 experiencing unprecedented rates of (Mace 2005), it presents a

3 127 compelling example of how efforts to manage threatened species in a 128 megadiverse country can be ineffective in avoiding species loss despite economic 129 wealth, relatively good governance and globally recognized scientific expertise. 130 We believe this situation needs urgent attention and recommend four feasible 131 ways to improve national management of threatened species in Australia.

132 The need for improved threatened species management in Australia is urgent 133 (Lindenmayer 2008; Woinarski et al. 2014). Over 10% of mammal species (29) 134 have already become extinct since European settlement in the late 17th Century 135 (Woinarski et al. 2014) and 15% of remaining mammals are listed as threatened 136 (State of the Environment Committee 2011). There is mounting evidence that 137 small mammal populations in northern Australia – a region that is considered to 138 contain the largest area of intact tropical savanna left in the world - are in rapid 139 decline (Woinarski et al. 2011). Recently two species on Christmas Island in the 140 Indian Ocean, a microbat (Pipistrellus murrayi) and a lizard Emoia nativitatis are 141 now presumed to be extinct (Beeton 2010; Woinarski & Cogger 2013). The iconic 142 Orange-bellied Parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) is close to extinction in the wild 143 and 23 species of have become extinct and at least four other bird species 144 are also possibly extinct since European settlement of Australia in 1788 (Garnett 145 et al. 2011). The large majority of listed bird species continue to decline (Garnett 146 et al. 2011). The few that have recovered (Gould’s Petrel Pterodroma leucoptera 147 leucoptera and Lord Howe Woodhen sylvestris, for example) represent 148 significant success stories of what can be achieved when adequate resources and 149 expertise are applied. When assessments are conducted, it has been found that 150 very significant proportions of once common widespread amphibians, reptiles 151 and plants are threatened with extinction (up to 52%, 37% and 30% 152 respectively; (State of the Environment Committee 2011). The extinction of the 153 Christmas Island Pipistrelle and the poor outlook for threatened species in 154 general has been the subject of renewed debate. In response, the Australian 155 Senate established an inquiry in 2012-3 into the effectiveness of threatened 156 species management in Australia to which the recommendations in this paper 157 were submitted (Environment and Communications References Committee 158 2013). Recently the Australian Government also appointed a Threatened Species 159 Commissioner with a mandate to prevent further extinctions (Environment 160 Department 2014; 161 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/commissioner).

162 The major threats to threatened species in Australia include habitat loss, 163 introduced species, inappropriate fire regimes, over-exploitation and disease 164 (Evans et al. 2011). In the long-term, protection and recovery of threatened 165 species in Australia depends on trends in socio-economic drivers such as 166 population growth, per capital consumption and economic growth (Millennium 167 Ecosystem Assessment 2005; State of the Environment Committee 2011), the 168 strength of regulatory protection (Environment and Communications References 169 Committee 2013; Kingsford et al. 2009), the funds to enact protection and 170 amelioration of impacts (Carwardine et al. 2012; McCarthy et al. 2008) and 171 governance arrangements to ensure implementation (Hajkowicz 2009; Morrison 172 et al. 2010). Changing the level of any of these factors is a significant 173 undertaking, requiring shifts in social and economic trends, increased political

4 174 will, more funds and legislative reform. There are, however, gains to be made for 175 threatened species that are feasible within the current policy arrangements and 176 achievable in the short term at no extra cost. By improving the effectiveness and 177 efficiency of Australia’s existing national approach to threatened species, we 178 propose the outcomes for threatened species can be increased and thereby 179 extend the reach of current protection to more species.

180 Threatened species (synonymous with “endangered species” in the United 181 States) have been protected by national legislation since 1993 although evidence 182 suggests more can be done to improve the current approach (Bottrill et al. 2011; 183 Coates & Atkins 2001; Possingham et al. 2002b; Walsh et al. 2012). The current 184 national legislation is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 185 Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and requires approvals for any activity likely to significantly 186 impact nationally listed threatened species. In this way the federal government 187 can regulate impacts from developments such as new mining, agriculture, 188 housing estates etc. Threatened species habitat is also protected to a degree in 189 the protected area network and under the Native Vegetation Framework 190 (Environment and Communications References Committee 2013). Threatened 191 species are also protected under state and territory legislation. Recovery of 192 nationally listed species is guided through Conservation Advices, a document 193 assessing of the status, threats and priority actions of each species or a Recovery 194 Plan, a more comprehensive recovery framework. Recovery actions for 195 threatened species are not automatically funded. There is no dedicated funding 196 for threatened species (Environment and Communications References 197 Committee 2013) and the level of funding and the projects funded are dependent 198 on governments’ environmental objectives and priorities. Outcomes to date 199 indicate many species are becoming more threatened with few recovering 200 (Watson et al. 2010). Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (2010-2030) 201 and the recently appointed Threatened Species Commissioner are attempts by 202 consecutive governments to develop an effective, efficient approach to 203 biodiversity conservation and threatened species management (Department of 204 Environment 2014; Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2010).

205 To date the likely inefficiencies in threatened species management include the 206 bias towards large, charismatic species in the listing and recovery process 207 (Possingham et al. 2002b; Walsh et al. 2012), the resource-intensive 208 development of recovery plans (Walsh et al. 2012), the ineffectiveness of many 209 recovery plans (Bottrill et al. 2011), paucity of information on threatened species 210 management effectiveness (Taylor et al. 2011), inherent uncertainties in 211 threatened species management (Burgman et al. 1999; McDonald-Madden et al. 212 2010), politicization of decisions (Morrison et al. 2010), a lack of short term 213 funding (Kirkpatrick 2011) and the general lack of feasibility and cost 214 considerations in prioritization (Coates & Atkins 2001; Joseph et al. 2009; 215 Possingham et al. 2002b). In addition, from now on, these issues will need to be 216 considered in the context of the synergistic and additive impacts of rapid climate 217 change (Garnett & Franklin 2014; Kingsford et al. 2009; Lindenmayer 2008; 218 McAlpine et al. 2009). Australian environmental programs have not yet managed 219 to establish adaptive management processes (Lockwood et al. 2009; Morrison et 220 al. 2010) to assist managers of threatened species and policy makers, a major

5 221 problem considering they are faced with unprecedented scenarios that will arise 222 out of the most optimistic climate change scenarios (Watson et al. 2013).

223 In this paper we review these issues, all of which hinder the potential of national 224 threatened species management in Australia. Based on our assessment, we make 225 four recommendations: (1) rationalise the species listing and assessment 226 systems, (2) apply cost-effectiveness approaches for prioritizing species-based 227 and threat-based responses, (3) estimate the funding levels required to stabilize 228 biodiversity loss and develop mechanisms for longer term funding and (4) invest 229 in actions as part of adaptive management programs, considering uncertainties 230 and the dynamics of change, updated with improved information. These 231 recommendations to improve the efficiency of the Australian threatened species 232 management could be relevant to improving or creating threatened species 233 legislation in other countries.

234 1. Improving the assessment and listing of species

235 Australia’s national environmental legislation aims to identify, classify and list 236 species that are threatened with extinction so that threats are abated and 237 recovery is undertaken. While the EPBC Act intends to encompass all aspects of 238 biodiversity, the threatened species list is biased toward particular taxa and 239 charismatic species (Walsh et al. 2012) reflecting the prevalent social and 240 economic preferences (Tisdell et al. 2007); 12-24% of Australia’s , 241 amphibians and mammals are listed as threatened, while only 0.04% of known 242 invertebrates are listed (under comprehensive listing this figure is expected to 243 be 4000 times higher) (Walsh et al. 2012). Less than 8% of the species that are 244 threatened might actually be listed (Walsh et al. 2012). Threatened species lists 245 are designed to assess risk but often influence which species receive funding and 246 regulatory protection (Farrier et al. 2007). The consequence of a biased list can 247 be that it becomes a default prioritization approach, without regard to unlisted 248 species, recovery potential, costs of recovery or likelihood of success (Farrier et 249 al. 2007; Harvey et al. 2002). In this case, the number of species that receive 250 attention with the limited funds available will be less because the more 251 threatened species typically require greater recovery effort with smaller chances 252 of successful recovery (Possingham et al. 2002b). This problem is common in 253 other countries, including the United States (Metrick & Weitzman 1996), Canada 254 (Findlay et al. 2009) and the United Kingdom (Laycock et al. 2009).

255 To resolve the issues around bias and incomplete lists, the process of listing 256 species can be rationalised. Current listing efforts occur at many overlapping 257 scales: global, national, state/province, often using different criteria. Firstly, 258 guidelines for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and the current national 259 list could be aligned. Current EPBC Act guidelines for listing differ from those of 260 the IUCN in several small but important ways such as omitting IUCN criterion 261 Vulnerable D2 and category Near Threatened and including the category 262 Conservation Dependent. Secondly, one consolidated listing process would 263 immediately improve the timeliness of listing and the comprehensiveness of the 264 lists. National listing will then benefit from assessments done at a global scale.

6 265 2. Prioritizing cost-effective actions for species-based and threat-based 266 responses 267 The two broad groups of approaches for prioritizing species conservation are a 268 species-based response (targeting species-specific actions) (Joseph et al. 2009) 269 and a threat-based response (mitigating threats to benefit a group of species) 270 (Carwardine et al. 2012). Site-based responses are inherently a location-specific 271 version of one or both. Prioritization, using one of these approaches, is part of 272 the decision-making process. The efficacy of employing species-based responses 273 versus a more landscape-wide, threat-based response to threatened species 274 management has been debated in the literature (Likens & Lindenmayer 2012; 275 Simberloff 1998) and successive Australian governments have preferred one to 276 the other. For example, the last government actively moved away from the 277 species-based response model of the previous government to “a whole-of- 278 ecosystem approach” (Garrett 2009). As there are many processes that threaten 279 several species (e.g. feral cat predation, altered fire regimes (Evans et al. 2011) 280 there are likely to be benefits in managing threats to multiple species in the 281 landscape (Carwardine et al. 2012). There are also risks associated with this 282 approach as threatened species can require specific and sometimes conflicting 283 management actions (Caughley et al. 1996). Both species-based and threat-based 284 response actions can be prioritized using a cost-effectiveness analysis approach 285 (Marris 2007), where the expected benefit to the species is divided by the 286 expected cost of the response action. Given that it is likely that a combination of 287 these approaches is better that just one or the other (Likens & Lindenmayer 288 2012), the following sections detail both the species-based and threat-based 289 response to preventing extinctions and declines.

290 2.1 A species-based response to prevent extinctions

291 The current approach to species-based responses is an unsystematic actioning 292 and funding of Recovery Plans and management based on Conservation Advices. 293 Recovery plans collate information about the species’ biology, distributions and 294 threats and should identify objectives of recovery and management responses 295 within a set timeframe. Once the plan is adopted, stakeholders or the 296 conservation agencies may use Recovery Plans to guide decisions about 297 management actions for which to seek funding. Because state and federal 298 governments did not have the time or resources to meet their legislative 299 commitment to produce recovery plans for all listed species, in 2007 it became at 300 the discretion of the Minister to develop a plan. A new, shorter documents, 301 Conservation Advices, have been developed for all nationally listed species 302 (Commonwealth of Australia 2010). Their effectiveness is yet to be determined 303 but there is evidence that, to date, the more comprehensive Recovery Plans have 304 rarely improved a species' status (Bottrill et al. 2011).

305 Total conservation outcomes can be maximized for a limited budget if planning 306 simultaneously considers ecology, technical constraints and economics for 307 ranking management of species conservation actions (Briggs 2009; Joseph et al. 308 2009; McCarthy et al. 2008; McCarthy et al. 2010; Szabo et al. 2009). An example 309 of such an approach is the Project Prioritization Protocol (PPP) (Joseph et al. 310 2009), a structured decision-making framework that utilizes cost-effectiveness

7 311 analysis. The highest-ranked projects are those with the largest expected 312 conservation benefit per dollar. It considers the species’ values and the costs, 313 benefits and likelihood of success of management actions. Joseph et al. (2009) 314 demonstrated that this process, which has been implemented in New Zealand 315 and New South Wales in Australia, substantially increased the number of species 316 that could be managed with the threatened species budget compared with 317 ranking species by threat status or value alone. This process was rapid, 318 inexpensive and transparent, took less than three years to develop and cost only 319 NZ$600,000 to devise and rank actions for ~660 of New Zealand’s most 320 threatened species (less that $900 per species). Each step in the approach and 321 the resulting list of management priorities can be examined transparently, 322 highlighting gaps in knowledge of the species and uncertainty in the success of 323 threat mitigation. It also can provide a tool to evaluate successes, failures of 324 management and research priorities.

325 2.2 Threat-based response to prevent declines

326 Threats to species and ecosystems pervade the majority of landscapes in 327 Australia (Evans et al. 2011). For example, introduced herbivores and predators 328 cover over 60% of the landscape, there are 400 alien invasive plant species 329 (NRMMC 2006) and 44% of Australia’s listed species are threatened by 330 inappropriate fire regimes (Evans et al. 2011). While threatened biodiversity 331 often requires specific responses, restoring and maintaining intact landscapes 332 across tenure types can be useful for managing threatened species and 333 ecosystems and avoiding declines in more common ones (Woinarski et al. 2007). 334 Broad-scale threat management can be used alongside species- or ecosystem- 335 specific actions to achieve overall conservation goals.

336 Significant efforts are invested in threat-based management responses in 337 Australia (DEWHA 2009). However, these initiatives are rarely informed by cost- 338 effectiveness approaches for prioritizing when, where and how to implement 339 mitigation actions based on expected benefits to biodiversity (Carwardine et al. 340 2012; Wilhelm‐Rechmann & Cowling 2011). Hence, current efforts and funds 341 could be spent more efficiently for achieving biodiversity outcomes. As with 342 species prioritization, a cost-effectiveness approach to threat management 343 would indicate which mitigation strategies, in which locations, are likely to 344 achieve the greatest benefits to species and/or ecosystems per unit cost, and 345 how much it will cost to avoid species declines within a particular region. For 346 example, an analysis of threat management strategies in the Kimberley region of 347 north-western Australia estimated that the likely functional loss of 45 species 348 across the region could be avoided with an investment of $40 million per year 349 over 20 years, with an additional $95 million in the first year, strategically spent 350 on fire, introduced herbivores, predators and weeds (Carwardine et al. 2012). 351 Threat-based approaches typically focus on existing threats, but there is an 352 increasing need to consider the dynamic threat of climate change.

353 There are significant opportunities for managing landscape-scale threats cost- 354 effectively to improve threatened species persistence, without adverse impacts 355 on existing economic land usage. Whilst at a global scale agricultural

8 356 intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss (Tilman et al. 2001), at a 357 landscape scale agriculture often benefits from native biodiversity and 358 contributes to biodiversity conservation (Tscharntke et al. 2005). With careful 359 examination of the trade-offs and synergies between threat management, 360 ecosystem services provision and production activity, threat-based responses 361 can generate a range of co-benefits such as improved agricultural production, 362 increased ecosystem services and opportunity for employment (Carwardine et 363 al. 2011; Possingham et al. 2002a). For example, landscape wide fire 364 management can result in increased production, reduced carbon dioxide 365 emissions, income opportunities for the local community and improved 366 outcomes for threatened species. With a unified, defensible threat management 367 prioritization approach, Australia can maximize the maintenance of functioning 368 landscapes with intact species, populations and ecosystems (Watson et al. 2009). 369 Further, it is likely to be much less expensive to protect existing healthy 370 populations of species than to recover these species once they are declining or 371 down to low numbers of individuals (Garnett et al. 2003).

372 3. Transparent recovery resourcing

373 Although investment in the environment more generally has increased 374 dramatically over the last few decades (Hajkowicz 2009), Australia has followed 375 the course of most countries and not allocated sufficient resources to 376 biodiversity conservation to halt species declines (Balmford et al. 2003; Garnett 377 et al. 2003; McCarthy et al. 2012). Australia is ranked in the bottom 40 countries 378 in the world for the funding of its proportion of global biodiversity given its 379 governance, size and wealth (Waldron et al. 2013). A comprehensive estimate of 380 the funds and efforts required to recover all threatened species in Australia and 381 prevent further declines does not exist. An estimate of the total costs to 382 undertake all species-specific management and threat-based management can be 383 made evident by carrying out species-based and threat-based prioritization 384 analyses as described above. Partial funding, assuming all other necessary 385 factors are in place, while often the reality, can only ever result in partial security 386 of species. The diminishing returns of securing the most threatened and most 387 difficult to recover species (Garnett et al. 2003; Possingham et al. 2002b) means 388 it might not be feasible to fully fund the recovery of all threatened species. 389 Nevertheless, this should be explicit in funding decisions and on the public 390 record so the true consequences of these budgetary decisions and political 391 priorities are clear (Miller et al. 2002).

392 The processes that result in a species becoming threatened often take decades. It 393 follows that recovery can take just as long – quick fixes are rare. For example, it 394 took over three decades of research and management to improve the status of 395 the Noisy Scrub-bird (Atrichornis clamosus) (Danks 1997). Threatened species 396 projects are often not funded for a sufficient length of time to allow recovery 397 (Environment and Communications References Committee 2013; Kirkpatrick 398 2011). For threatening processes any gap in funding can undo much of the good 399 work done previously. For instance, seedlings of the invasive prickly mimosa 400 (Mimosa pigra) must be removed annually for at least ten years after removal of 401 adults otherwise re-infestation cannot be prevented (Likitsch & Elliott 2012).

9 402 Guaranteed funding for threatened species projects for 8-10 years with rolling 403 reviews and the potential for renewals may allow recovery programs to deal 404 with problems at a scale commensurate with that needed to remediate most 405 threats.

406 4. Uncertainty in implementation and the future

407 Natural systems are complex, dynamic, and incompletely observable, which 408 means uncertainty needs to be considered in decisions relating to managing 409 natural systems (McCarthy et al. 2010). Australia’s environmental programs 410 have so far lacked the mechanisms and sufficient funds to foster an adaptive 411 management approach (Lockwood et al. 2009; Morrison et al. 2010; State of the 412 Environment Committee 2011). Within the planning process, uncertainty may 413 arise because of lack of information about a species’ status (abundance, trends), 414 lack of information about the benefit or probability of success of different 415 management actions, or because of the inherent complexity, dynamism and 416 unpredictability of the system. New threats, such as human-induced climate 417 change, only exacerbate this. Such uncertainties can be accommodated in 418 decision making (McCarthy et al. 2010), but for planning processes to be 419 effective into the future, management should be implemented as part of an 420 adaptive, iterative framework that acknowledges these uncertainties and uses 421 new information as it becomes available (Runge 2011; Walters 1986).

422 Within each iteration of the planning process, we recommend decisions are 423 made using the best available information, based on the most likely outcomes, 424 and with explicit statements of uncertainty. Outcome-focused monitoring should 425 then be used to estimate the effectiveness of management actions, the current 426 status and dynamics of species, and to identify new threats and management 427 challenges. This should be integrated with prior information, ready for the next 428 iteration of the planning process. Managing adaptively not only reduces 429 uncertainty through time, but also assists with the challenges of managing 430 dynamic systems and is particularly useful when facing unpredictable and 431 irreversible effects of novel threats such as climate change (Conroy et al. 2011; 432 Watson et al. 2013). It also helps focus research on aspects of the recovery 433 process where a reduction in uncertainty will make the greatest difference to 434 minimizing risk.

435 Discussion

436 We have identified four major potential improvements to the effectiveness of 437 threatened species management: rationalizing listing, introducing cost-effective 438 prioritization of management actions, increasing funding transparency and 439 accountability for what can be achieved with those funds, and incorporating 440 uncertainty. There are clearly many other facets of species recovery that can be 441 improved to avoid extinctions (e.g. increasing funds and public engagement.). 442 Fortunately, evidence indicates that if funds are spent effectively, a relatively 443 modest increase in Australia can make a real difference (Carwardine et al. 2012; 444 McCarthy et al. 2010). For example, one study showed increasing the resources 445 allocated to Australia’s threatened bird species from $3 million to $10 million

10 446 per year could significantly reduce the number of species facing extinction over 447 the next 80 years (McCarthy et al. 2008). Approximately 70% of Australia is 448 under private tenure, and many threatened species depend on non-federal land 449 for habitat (Natural Heritage Data Centre Network 1993). This means that the 450 success of implementing any federal act is contingent on how well people are 451 engaged in and support species management (Balmford & Cowling 2006; Brook 452 et al. 2003; Cocklin et al. 2007; Stokstad 2005). Other challenges to address 453 include: assessing the most effective governance arrangement to implement 454 threatened species interventions (Hajkowicz 2009); assessing the best ways to 455 tackle pervasive threats like cat predation (Woinarski et al. 2014); analyzing 456 how funds should be divided between ecosystem and species-based responses 457 (Likens & Lindenmayer 2012); and, determining how many extinctions will be 458 avoidable if the drivers of change continue on their trajectory (Millennium 459 Ecosystem Assessment 2005)? Whilst addressing these challenges are key to 460 improving the overall capacity of threatened species management to save 461 species, the recommendations in this essay will help reach the potential of what 462 can be implemented immediately with available policy provisions and funds.

463 Although developed to address specific issues in Australia, we believe these 464 recommendations could be useful for other countries with threatened species 465 legislation. The United States, for example, faces very similar challenges to 466 Australia, with continuing threats to species, increasing numbers of listed species 467 and few recoveries, inherent and increasing uncertainties, un-transparent 468 species prioritisation and a constrained budget (Restani & Marzluff 2001; Rohlf 469 1991; Stokstad 2005). In the United States, species whose recovery conflicts with 470 economic interests receive a higher priority (Restani & Marzluff 2001). This 471 effectively increases the economic burden of species recovery (Restani & 472 Marzluff 2001). The Endangered Species Act has the potential to conserve more 473 species with available funding if species that cost less to recover were prioritized 474 (Brown & Shogren 1998), rather than those that cost more, as is the current 475 approach (Restani & Marzluff 2001). Australia may potentially also learn from 476 the successes of the Endangered Species Act experience in the United States where 477 a higher number of species have a recovery plan (83% of the species listed by the 478 United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 32% by National Marine Fisheries 479 Service compared to 31% by the EPBC Act) and more species have their critical 480 habitat protected (44% compared to 0.3%) (DoE 2013a, b; Suckling & Taylor 481 2005; USFWS 2013; Walsh et al. 2012). The relative effectiveness of the 482 Endangered Species Act and the EPBC Act implementation in species recovery 483 needs further investigation before any clear lessons for the alternate Act can be 484 deduced.

485 Australia is well placed economically to fund and manage biodiversity. Spending 486 available funds cost-effectively using the best available information should 487 improve the success of threatened species management. Future biodiversity 488 efforts should aim to avoid the criticism of previous biodiversity programs, that 489 there has been no discernible outcome for the public expenditure (The Auditor 490 General 2008). Successful recovery has certainly occurred in Australia. Adopting 491 rational, transparent, cost-effective decision-making and implementation of

11 492 conservation management responses could increase the number of these 493 successes and help avoid further extinctions.

494 Acknowledgements 495 This research was conducted with funding support from the Australian 496 Government’s National Environmental Research Program and the Australian 497 Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions. J.M is 498 supported by the National Environmental Research Program. C. J. Klein is 499 supported by an Australian Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship 500 (Project number DP110102153). R. Maloney also provided valuable assistance. 501 We are grateful to A. Sheppard, F. Brown, M. Lonsdale and A. Whitten for 502 providing comments and suggestions. 503

12 504 Literature cited 505 Balmford, A., and R. M. Cowling. 2006. Fusion or Failure? The Future of 506 . Conservation Biology 20:692-695. 507 Balmford, A., K. J. Gaston, S. Blyth, A. James, and V. Kapos. 2003. Global variation 508 in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet 509 conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 510 100:1046-1050. 511 Beeton, B., Burbridge, A., Grigg, G., How, R., McKenzie, N. and Woinarski, J.C.Z. 512 2010. Final Report Christmas Island Expert Working Group to Minister 513 for the Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. 514 Bottrill, M. C., J. C. Walsh, J. E. M. Watson, L. N. Joseph, A. Ortega-Argueta, and H. P. 515 Possingham. 2011. Does recovery planning improve the status of 516 threatened species? Biological Conservation 144:1595-1601. 517 Briggs, S. V. 2009. Priorities and paradigms: directions in threatened species 518 recovery. Conservation Letters 2:101-108. 519 Brook, A., M. Zint, and R. De Young. 2003. Landowners' responses to an 520 Endangered Species Act listing and implications for encouraging 521 conservation. Conservation Biology 17:1638-1649. 522 Brown, G. M., and J. F. Shogren. 1998. Economics of the endangered species act. 523 The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12:3-20. 524 Burgman, M. A., D. A. Keith, and T. V. Walshe. 1999. Uncertainty in Comparative 525 Risk Analysis for Threatened Australian Plant Species. Risk Analysis 526 19:585-598. 527 Carwardine, J., T. O'Connor, S. Legge, B. Mackey, H. Possingham, and T. Martin 528 2011. Priority threat management to protect Kimberley wildlife. CSIRO 529 Ecosystem Sciences Brisbane. 530 Carwardine, J., T. O’Connor, S. Legge, B. Mackey, H. P. Possingham, and T. G. 531 Martin. 2012. Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity 532 conservation. Conservation Letters 5:196-204. 533 Caughley, G., A. Gunn, and K. Ralls 1996. Conservation biology in theory and 534 practice. Blackwell Science Cambridge, MA. 535 Coates, D. J., and K. A. Atkins. 2001. Priority setting and the conservation of 536 Western Australia's diverse and highly endemic flora. Biological 537 Conservation 97:251-263. 538 Cocklin, C., N. Mautner, and J. Dibden. 2007. Public policy, private landholders: 539 Perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management. 540 Journal of Environmental Management 85:986-998. 541 Commonwealth of Australia. 2010. Conservation Advices. Department of the 542 Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia. 543 Conroy, M. J., M. C. Runge, J. D. Nichols, K. W. Stodola, and R. J. Cooper. 2011. 544 Conservation in the face of climate change: the roles of alternative 545 models, monitoring, and adaptation in confronting and reducing 546 uncertainty. Biological Conservation 144:1204-1213. 547 Danks, A. 1997. Conservation of the Noisy Scrub-bird: a review of 35 years of 548 research and management. Pacific Conservation Biology 3:341. 549 Department of Environment. 2014. Threatened Species Commissioner - Terms of 550 Reference in Australian Government, editor. 551 DEWHA. 2009. Chapter 6: Managing the threats to Australia’s biodiversity. 552 Assessment of Australia’s Terrestrial Biodiversity 2008. Report prepared

13 553 by the Biodiversity Assessment Working Group of the National Land and 554 Water Resources Audit for the Australian Government. Department of the 555 Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) Australian 556 Government, Canberra. 557 DoE. 2013a. Register of Critical Habitat in Australian Department of 558 Environment, editor. Biodiversity - Species Profiles and Threat Databases. 559 Australian Department of Environment,. 560 DoE. 2013b. SPRAT EPBC Threatened Species Lists in Species Profile and Threats 561 Database. Page http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Department of 562 the Environment, Canberra, Australia. 563 Environment and Communications References Committee. 2013. Senate Inquiry 564 - Effectiveness of threatened species and ecological communities' 565 protection in Australia. Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra. 566 Evans, M. C., J. E. Watson, R. A. Fuller, O. Venter, S. C. Bennett, P. R. Marsack, and 567 H. P. Possingham. 2011. The spatial distribution of threats to species in 568 Australia. Bioscience 61:281-289. 569 Farrier, D., R. Whelan, and C. Mooney. 2007. Threatened species listing as a 570 trigger for conservation action. Environmental Science & Policy 10:219- 571 229. 572 Findlay, C. S., S. Elgie, B. Giles, and L. Burr. 2009. Species listing under Canada's 573 species at risk act. Conservation Biology 23:1609-1617. 574 Ford, H. A., G. W. Barrett, D. A. Saunders, and H. F. Recher. 2001. Why have birds 575 in the woodlands of Southern Australia declined? Biological Conservation 576 97:71-88. 577 Garnett, S., G. Crowley, and A. Balmford. 2003. The Costs and Effectiveness of 578 Funding the Conservation of Australian Threatened Birds. Bioscience 579 53:658-665. 580 Garnett, S., and D. Franklin. 2014. Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Australian 581 Birds. 582 Garnett, S., J. Szabo, and G. Dutson. 2011. Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. 583 Garrett, P. M. 2009. Opening address Tenth International Congress of Ecology. 584 Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, INTECOL, Brisbane. 585 Hajkowicz, S. 2009. The evolution of Australia's natural resource management 586 programs: towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. 587 Land Use Policy 26:471-478. 588 Harvey, E., J. M. Hoekstra, R. J. O'Connor, and W. F. Fagan. 2002. Recovery plan 589 revisions: progress or due process? . Ecological Applications 12:682-689. 590 Joseph, L. N., R. F. Maloney, and H. P. Possingham. 2009. Optimal allocation of 591 resources among threatened species: a project prioritization protocol. 592 Conservation Biology 23:328-338. 593 Kelly, C. L., C. M. Pickering, and R. C. Buckley. 2003. Impacts of tourism on 594 threatened plant taxa and communities in Australia. Ecological 595 Management & Restoration 4:37-44. 596 Kingsford, R., J. Watson, C. Lundquist, O. Venter, L. Hughes, E. Johnston, J. 597 Atherton, M. Gawel, D. Keith, and B. Mackey. 2009. Major conservation 598 policy issues for biodiversity in Oceania. Conservation Biology 23:834- 599 840. 600 Kirkpatrick, J. 2011. The political ecology of soil and species conservation in a 601 ‘Big Australia’. Geographical Research 49:276-285.

14 602 Laycock, H., D. Moran, J. Smart, D. Raffaelli, and P. White. 2009. Evaluating the 603 cost-effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan. 604 Biological Conservation 142:3120-3127. 605 Likens, G. E., and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2012. Integrating approaches leads to more 606 effective conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 607 21:3323-3341. 608 Likitsch, B., and L. Elliott. 2012. Developing solutions to evolving weed problems. 609 18th Australasian Weeds Conference. Weed Science Society of Victoria 610 Inc., Frankston, Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 611 Lindenmayer, D. 2008. Ten commitments: reshaping the lucky country's 612 environment. CSIRO PUBLISHING. 613 Lockwood, M., J. Davidson, A. Curtis, E. Stratford, and R. Griffith. 2009. Multi-level 614 environmental governance: lessons from Australian natural resource 615 management. Australian Geographer 40:169-186. 616 Mace, G. 2005. Biodiversity in Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Current State 617 and Trends. Pages 79-115. Nature Publishing Group. 618 Marris, E. 2007. Conservation priorities: what to let go. Nature 450:152-155. 619 McAlpine, C., J. Syktus, J. Ryan, R. Deo, G. McKeon, H. McGowan, and S. Phinn. 620 2009. A continent under stress: interactions, feedbacks and risks 621 associated with impact of modified land cover on Australia's climate. 622 Global Change Biology 15:2206-2223. 623 McCarthy, D. P., P. F. Donald, J. P. W. Scharlemann, G. M. Buchanan, A. Balmford, J. 624 M. H. Green, L. A. Bennun, N. D. Burgess, L. D. C. Fishpool, S. T. Garnett, D. 625 L. Leonard, R. F. Maloney, P. Morling, H. M. Schaefer, A. Symes, D. A. 626 Wiedenfeld, and S. H. M. Butchart. 2012. Financial Costs of Meeting Global 627 Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs. 628 Science 338:946-949. 629 McCarthy, M. A., C. J. Thompson, and S. T. Garnett. 2008. Optimal investment in 630 conservation of species. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1428-1435. 631 McCarthy, M. A., C. J. Thompson, C. Hauser, M. A. Burgman, H. P. Possingham, M. L. 632 Moir, T. Tiensin, and M. Gilbert. 2010. Resource allocation for efficient 633 environmental management. Ecology Letters 13:1280-1289. 634 McDonald-Madden, E., W. J. M. Probert, C. E. Hauser, M. C. Runge, H. P. 635 Possingham, M. E. Jones, J. L. Moore, T. M. Rout, P. A. Vesk, and B. A. 636 Wintle. 2010. Active adaptive conservation of threatened species in the 637 face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 20:1476-1489. 638 Metrick, A., and M. L. Weitzman. 1996. Patterns of behavior in endangered 639 species preservation. Land Economics:1-16. 640 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being - 641 Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 642 Miller, J. K., J. M. Scott, C. R. Miller, and L. P. Waits. 2002. The endangered species 643 act: Dollars and sense? Bioscience 52:163-168. 644 Morrison, T., C. McAlpine, J. Rhodes, A. Peterson, and P. Schmidt. 2010. Back to 645 the future? Planning for environmental outcomes and the new Caring for 646 our Country program. Australian Geographer 41:521-538. 647 Moseby, K., and J. Read. 2006. The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit exclusion 648 fence designs for threatened species protection. Biological Conservation 649 127:429-437.

15 650 Natural Heritage Data Centre Network. 1993. Perspective on the Species 651 Imperilment: A Report fromthe Natural Heritage Data Centre Network. in 652 T. N. Conservancy, editor, Arlington, VA. 653 Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. 2010. Australia’s Biodiversity 654 Conservation Strategy 2010-2030. Australian Government, Department of 655 Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 656 Canberra. 657 NRMMC. 2006. Australian Weeds Strategy – A national strategy for weed 658 management in Australia. Natural Resource Management Ministerial 659 Council (NRMMC) developed by the Australian Weed Committee. 660 Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water 661 Resources, Canberra, ACT. 662 Possingham, H., S. Ryan, J. Baxter, and S. Morton. 2002a. Setting Biodiversity 663 Priorities - A paper prepared as part of the activities of the working group 664 producing the report Sustaining our Natural Systems and Biodiversity for 665 the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. 666 Possingham, H. P., S. J. Andelman, M. A. Burgman, R. A. Medell n, L. L. Master, and 667 D. A. Keith. 2002b. Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends in 668 Ecology & Evolution 17:503-507. ı́ 669 Restani, M., and J. M. Marzluff. 2001. Avian conservation under the Endangered 670 Species Act: Expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conservation 671 Biology 15:1292-1299. 672 Ritchie, E. G. 2013. Conservation: Relaxed laws imperil Australian wildlife. 673 Nature 498:434-434. 674 Ritchie, E. G., C. J. Bradshaw, C. R. Dickman, R. Hobbs, C. N. Johnson, E. L. Johnston, 675 W. F. Laurence, D. Lindenmayer, M. A. McCarthy, and D. G. Nimmo. 2013. 676 Continental-Scale Governance Failure Will Hasten Loss of Australia’s 677 Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 27:1133-1135. 678 Rohlf, D. J. 1991. Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn't 679 work—and what to do about it. Conservation Biology 5:273-282. 680 Runge, M. C. 2011. An introduction to adaptive management for threatened and 681 endangered species. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 2:220-233. 682 Short, J., and A. Smith. 1994. Mammal decline and recovery in Australia. Journal 683 of Mammalogy:288-297. 684 Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single-species 685 management passé in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83:247- 686 257. 687 State of the Environment Committee. 2011. State of the Environment. 688 Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for 689 Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 690 DSEWPaC, Canberra. 691 Steffen, W., A. A. Burbidge, L. Hughes, R. Kitching, D. Lindenmayer, W. Musgrave, 692 M. S. Smith, and P. A. Werner 2009. Australia's biodiversity and climate 693 change. Csiro Publishing. 694 Stokstad, E. 2005. What's Wrong With the Endangered Species Act? Science 695 309:2150-2152. 696 Suckling, K. F., and M. Taylor. 2005. Critical Habitat and Recovery. Page 75 in D. 697 D. Goble, J. M. Scott, and F. W. Davis, editors. The Endangered Species Act 698 at Thirty: Renewing the Conservation Promise. Island Press.

16 699 Szabo, J. K., S. V. Briggs, R. Lonie, L. Bell, R. Maloney, L. N. Joseph, I. Hunter, and H. 700 P. Possingham. 2009. The feasibility of applying a cost-effective approach 701 for assigning priorities for threatened species recovery with a case study 702 from New South Wales, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 15:238. 703 Szabo, J. K., S. H. M. Butchart, H. P. Possingham, and S. T. Garnett. 2012. Adapting 704 global biodiversity indicators to the national scale: A Red List Index for 705 Australian birds. Biological Conservation 148:61-68. 706 Taylor, M. F., P. S. Sattler, M. Evans, R. A. Fuller, J. E. Watson, and H. P. 707 Possingham. 2011. What works for threatened species recovery? An 708 empirical evaluation for Australia. Biodiversity and Conservation 20:767- 709 777. 710 The Auditor General. 2008. Regional Delivery Model for the Natural Heritage 711 Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. Audit 712 Report 21 2007-08 Performance Audit. Department of the Environment, 713 Water, Heritage and the Arts, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and 714 Forestry, Canberra. 715 Tilman, D., J. Fargione, B. Wolff, C. D'Antonio, A. Dobson, R. Howarth, D. Schindler, 716 W. H. Schlesinger, D. Simberloff, and D. Swackhamer. 2001. Forecasting 717 agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292:281-284. 718 Tisdell, C., H. S. Nantha, and C. Wilson. 2007. Endangerment and likeability of 719 wildlife species: How important are they for payments proposed for 720 conservation? Ecological Economics 60:627-633. 721 Tscharntke, T., A. M. Klein, A. Kruess, I. Steffan‐Dewenter, and C. Thies. 2005. 722 Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity– 723 ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8:857-874. 724 USFWS. 2013. Listing and Critical Habitat | Critical Habitat | Frequently Asked 725 Questions. Pages http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/critical- 726 habitats-faq.html in United States Fish and Wildlife Service, editor. 727 Endangered Species. 728 Waldron, A., A. O. Mooers, D. C. Miller, N. Nibbelink, D. Redding, T. S. Kuhn, J. T. 729 Roberts, and J. L. Gittleman. 2013. Targeting global conservation funding 730 to limit immediate biodiversity declines. Proceedings of the National 731 Academy of Sciences 110:12144-12148. 732 Walsh, J. C., J. E. Watson, M. C. Bottrill, L. N. Joseph, and H. P. Possingham. 2012. 733 Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened 734 species: an Australian case study. Oryx 1:1-10. 735 Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Blackburn 736 Press, Caldwell, USA. 737 Watson, J. E., M. C. Bottrill, J. C. Walsh, L. N. Joseph, and H. P. Possingham. 2010. 738 Evaluating threatened species recovery planning in Australia. Prepared 739 on Behalf of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the 740 Arts by the Spatial Ecology Laboratory, University of Queensland, 741 Brisbane. 742 Watson, J. E., R. A. Fuller, A. W. Watson, B. G. Mackey, K. A. Wilson, H. S. Grantham, 743 M. Turner, C. J. Klein, J. Carwardine, and L. N. Joseph. 2009. Wilderness 744 and future conservation priorities in Australia. Diversity and 745 Distributions 15:1028-1036.

17 746 Watson, J. E., T. Iwamura, and N. Butt. 2013. Mapping vulnerability and 747 conservation adaptation strategies under climate change. Nature Climate 748 Change. 749 Watson, J. E. M., M. C. Evans, J. Carwardine, R. A. Fuller, L. N. Joseph, D. B. Segan, 750 M. F. J. Taylor, R. J. Fensham, and H. P. Possingham. 2011. The Capacity of 751 Australia's Protected-Area System to Represent Threatened Species. 752 Conservation Biology 25:324-332. 753 Wilhelm‐Rechmann, A., and R. M. Cowling. 2011. Framing biodiversity 754 conservation for decision makers: insights from four South African 755 municipalities. Conservation Letters 4:73-80. 756 Woinarski, J., A. Burbidge, and P. Harrison 2014. The Action Plan for Australian 757 Mammals 2012. CSIRO PUBLISHING. 758 Woinarski, J., and H. Cogger. 2013. Australian endangered species: Christmas 759 Island Forest Skink. The Conversation. 760 Woinarski, J., B. Mackey, H. Nix, and B. Traill 2007. The Nature of Northern 761 Australia: Its Natural Values, Ecological Processing and Future Prospects. 762 ANU E Press. 763 Woinarski, J. C. Z., S. Legge, J. A. Fitzsimons, B. J. Traill, A. A. Burbidge, A. Fisher, R. 764 S. C. Firth, I. J. Gordon, A. D. Griffiths, C. N. Johnson, N. L. McKenzie, C. 765 Palmer, I. Radford, B. Rankmore, E. G. Ritchie, S. Ward, and M. Ziembicki. 766 2011. The disappearing mammal fauna of northern Australia: context, 767 cause, and response. Conservation Letters 4:192-201. 768 769

18