Small Steps for Nature

A review of progress towards the National Objectives and Targets for Biological Diversity Conservation 2001-2005

Prepared by Griffin NRM Pty Ltd

August 2004 First published in August 2004

© WWF Australia and Humane Society International

ISBN: 1 875941 76 2

Authors: Griffin NRM Pty Ltd

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of WWF Australia nor Humane Society International.

For bibliographic purposes, this report should be cited as: Griffin NRM Pty Ltd. 2004. Small steps for nature: A review of progress towards the National Objectives and Targets for Biological Diversity Conservation 2001-2005. WWF Australia and Humane Society International: Sydney.

For copies of this report, please contact WWF Australia at [email protected] or call 1800 032 551.

2 Contents

INTRODUCTION...... 5 Background ...... 5 Acknowledgments...... 5 Methods...... 5

KEY FINDINGS ...... 7 Table A Summary of overall assessments for each target ...... 11 KEY ACTION 1: PROTECT AND RESTORE NATIVE VEGETATION AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS ...... 18

OBJECTIVE 1.1 REVERSE THE LONG TERM DECLINE IN THE QUALITY AND EXTENT OF AUSTRALIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND THE ECOSYSTEMS THEY PROVIDE ...... 18 Target 1.1.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have mechanisms in place, including regulations, at the State and regional levels that: ...... 18 Summary assessment ...... 18 Background to Target 1.1.1...... 19 Australian Government measures...... 19 Progress towards Target 1.1.1 in the jurisdictions ...... 20 Control across land tenures...... 22 Protected vegetation and exemptions...... 23 Mechanisms for assessment of clearing applications...... 24 Regional initiatives in native vegetation management ...... 24 Historic influences...... 26 Main trends- tightening controls and coverage ...... 26 Main trends- integration with wider biodiversity policy ...... 27 Table 1 Recent initiatives that strengthen clearing regulations and their coverage...... 28 Main trends- application rates ...... 29 Main trends- actual clearing rates...... 30 Table 2.1 Trends in clearing...... 31 Table 2.2 Clearing figures from selected jurisdictions ...... 31 Target 1.1.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have mechanisms in place, including regulations, at the State and regional levels that: ...... 32 • prevent clearance of ecological communities with an extent below 10 per cent of that present pre-1750 ...... 32 Table 3 Legislation to protect at risk biodiversity...... 33 Challenges ...... 34 Target 1.1.2 By 2003 all jurisdictions: ...... 36 •Have clearing controls in place that prevent clearance of ecological communities with an extent below 30% of that present pre 1750 ...... 36 Target 1.1.2 By 2003 all jurisdictions: ...... 37 •Have programs in place to assess vegetation condition...... 37 Target 1.1.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions have programs in place to protect areas of high quality vegetation ...... 38 Table 4 Conservation covenants in several jurisdictions ...... 39 Target 1.1.4 By 2001, all jurisdictions have clearing controls in place that will have the effect of reducing the national net rate of land clearance to zero...... 40 Table 5 Clearing policy in the jurisdictions...... 42

OBJECTIVE 1.2 PROTECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF AUSTRALIA’S TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS ...... 42 Target 1.2.1 By 2001, management plans are developed and implemented for:...... 42 Table 6 Summary of management plan status for formal reserves...... 43 Target 1.2.2 By 2001, ANZECC has developed an action plan for the National Reserves System which includes targets for the protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems on indigenous owned estates and private land ...... 45 Target 1.2.3 By 2005, a representative sample of each bioregion (as specified by the ANZECC action plan) is protected within the Natural Reserves System or network of indigenous protected areas or as private land managed for conservation under a conservation agreement ...... 46 Table 7 Representativeness of reserves according to IBRA regions (CAPAD 2002) ...... 46 Indigenous estate...... 48 Private land ...... 48 Target 1.2.4 By 2003, all jurisdictions have in place: ...... 49 • Native vegetation restoration programs to recover ecological communities that are below 10% of that present pre 1750 or are nationally listed as critically endangered ...... 49 Table 8 Legislation to protect at risk biodiversity...... 50 • Effective incentives targeted to bioregions, provinces and/or catchments to support the protection of unreserved biodiversity and all threatened ecosystems ...... 52

OBJECTIVE 1.3. PROTECT THREATENED SPECIES AND ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ...... 53 Target 1.3.1 By 2002, all jurisdictions have effective legislation to protect threatened species and ecological communities and to provide for recovery planning ...... 53 Target 1.3.2 By 2004 recovery plans are in place for all nationally listed critically endangered and endangered species and ecological communities...... 54 Target 1.3.3 By 2005, have incorporated the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities into integrated catchment/regional management plans...... 55

KEY ACTION 2: PROTECT AND RESTORE FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS ...... 57

OBJECTIVE 2.1 ACHIEVE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF AUSTRALIA’S WATER RESOURCES AND WATER-DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS ...... 57 Target 2.1.1 By 2001: all jurisdictions have, in accordance with the CoAG Water Reform Framework, completed implementation of environmental allocation for all river systems which have been over allocated or are deemed to be stressed ...... 57 • The majority of waterways substantially conform to the relevant standards in the guidelines o the National Water Quality Management Strategy, including those for chemical composition, turbidity and temperature...... 59

2 • Water resource management plans which include flow allocations for the environment and address in-stream barriers to movement of fauna are in place in the majority of catchments...... 60 Target 2.1.2 By 2005: water resource management plans which include and emphasise ecologically sustainable use of groundwater resources are in place in relevant catchments...... 62

OBJECTIVE 2.2 MANAGE THREATS, PREVENT DEGRADATION AND MAINTAIN THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTER OF AUSTRALIA’S NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT WETLAND DEPENDENT AND WATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS ...... 63 Target 2.2.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have identified wetlands of national and international significance ...... 63 Target 2.2.2 By 2003, Management plans for 85% of internationally significant wetlands listed under the Convention of Wetlands are prepared and implemented consistent with the Australian Ramsar Management Principles (regulation 10.02 – Environment Protection and biodiversity Conservation (2000)...... 64 Target 2.2.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions have effective legislation and management plans in place to protect wetlands of national significance ...... 64

OBJECTIVE 2.3 PROTECT SIGNIFICANT HABITAT FOR MIGRATORY WATERBIRDS ...... 65 Target 2.3.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have identified important areas of habitat for migratory waterbirds ...... 65 Target 2.3.2 By 2003, all jurisdictions has programs in place, both on and of reserve, to protect significant habitats for migratory waterbirds ...... 65

KEY ACTION 4: CONTROL INVASIVE SPECIES ...... 67

OBJECTIVE 4.1 PREVENT OR CONTROL THE INTRODUCTION AND SPREAD OF FERAL ANIMAL AND WEED SPECIES ...... 67 Target 4.1.1 By 2001 The import of all new live organisms is subject to a risk based assessment process that identifies the conditions necessary to minimise threats to the environment...... 67 Target 4.1.2 By 2001, no new non-native species are deliberately introduced into Australia unless assessed as being of low risk to the environment...... 68 Target 4.1.3 By 2003, all naturalised non-native species have been assessed and assigned to broad-based threat categories according to their threat to biodiversity...... 68 Target 4.1.4 By 2005 All regional/catchment management plans include actions to address the threat to biodiversity from naturalised non-native species ...... 69 Target 4.1.5 By 2005, Programs are in place to manage invasive species that are major threats to biological diversity at sites of national environmental significance...... 71

OBJECTIVE 3.1 PROTECT AND RESTORE MARINE AND ESTUARINE ECOSYSTEMS...... 72 Target 3.1.6 By 2003, a national comprehensive system for prevention and management of introduced marine pests is in place...... 72

KEY ACTION 5: MITIGATE DRYLAND SALINITY ...... 74

OBJECTIVE 5.1 PROTECT AND RESTORE NATIVE BIODIVERSITY THROUGH RETENTION AND IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF NATIVE VEGETATION, AND REVEGETATION AIMED AT REVERSING LOST AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY, DETERIORATING WATER QUALITY AND DAMAGE TO NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS CAUSED BY DRYLAND SALINITY ...... 74 Target 5.1.1 National standards will be developed and agreed under a COAG inter-government agreement to implement the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and associated water flows and stream and terrestrial biodiversity...... 74

KEY ACTION 6: PROMOTE ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE GRAZING...... 75 OBJECTIVE 6.1 PROTECT AREAS OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE AT RISK OF UNSUSTAINABLE GRAZING PRESSURE ...... 75 Target 6.1.1 By 2002, all jurisdictions have identified threatened native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance that may be subject to unsustainable grazing pressure ...... 75 Target 6.1.2By 2003, all jurisdictions have identified sustainable levels of grazing by domestic animals within threatened native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance that may be subject to unsustainable grazing pressure ...... 76 Target 6.1.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions have incorporated into integrated catchment/ management plans, the protection of threatened native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance which may be subject to grazing pressure...... 77

KEY ACTION 7: MINIMISE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON BIODIVERSITY ...... 78

OBJECTIVE 7.1 MINIMISE THE IMPACTS OF HUMAN INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ...... 78 Target 7.1.1 By 2003, ANZECC has developed an action plan to identify the potential impacts of climate change on Australia’s biodiversity and measures to address these impacts...... 78

4 Introduction

Background This report outlines the findings of a national review of the National Objectives and Targets for Biological Diversity Conservation 2001-2005 (2001) under the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (1996). The review was undertaken from January to May 2004 based on information available in the public domain at that time.

Acknowledgments Staff of State and Territory and Australian Governments contributed significantly to this review. Although most jurisdictions were not able to provide detailed responses, at all times, requests for specific information to relevant agencies were met with extremely helpful responses. Much of the data required for the review is constantly changing as the jurisdictions progress towards their biodiversity targets and objectives. Many of the statistics provided are likely to change in the near future. We acknowledge that this review will be current for a short period only. The review is current to May 2004.

Methods The review is based on an evaluation of progress towards meeting the specific targets and objectives of the National Objectives and Targets for Biological Diversity Conservation 2001- 2005. A framework for evaluating progress was prepared and forwarded to all jurisdictions for comment. Only the Australian Government, ACT and Western Australia provided detailed responses. The framework draws on plausible process methodology, which aims to assess progress against a set of plausible indicators. Plausible indicators measure what we would expect to be in place if the objectives are to be achieved. Comprehensive jurisdiction reports were prepared for all jurisdictions based on information provided by the jurisdictions and research in the public domain. The jurisdiction reports formed the basis of the main report and the summary report. The findings in the jurisdiction reports were analysed and collated to determine national progress against the biodiversity targets and objectives. Not all jurisdictions have signed on to the National Objectives and Targets for Biological Diversity Conservation 2001-2005. The Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland have not agreed to meet these specific targets and objectives. Targets that are clearly not achieved or clearly are achieved are noted. Regardless of the status, progress towards the targets is recorded. Assessment of progress towards most of the targets and objectives is based on a summary of progress in all jurisdictions. For many targets, some jurisdictions have particular significance and their progress carries particular weight. These relative impacts on overall national outcomes are noted where relevant. The objectives and targets are intended to apply consistently across jurisdictions even though the particular circumstances in the jurisdictions may not warrant this. These differences and their overall impact on national outcomes are noted where relevant. The summary tables provided in this report were compiled from a range of sources including government reports and data, research reports and information directly provided by the jurisdictions. The comprehensive jurisdiction reports prepared for this review, list detailed

5 source material. The reader is referred to these reports for further information and detailed sources.

6 Key findings

The main report of this review outlines the detailed findings for each target examined. A summary table, setting out an overall assessment for the targets is provided below (Table A). The assessments summarised in Table A should be viewed against the detailed background material provided in the main report. The main report reviews progress for all targets including those that are not yet met. The overall assessments in Table A are an attempt to synthesise this material but they are not necessarily indicative of the significant progress made towards many of the targets, especially those that are not yet met.

Overall assessment of progress against targets

The 29 targets reviewed have an overall national assessment rating as follows: Met within the timeframe 10% Largely or likely to be met in timeframe 28% Not met in the timeframe 52% Undetermined 10% The targets that could not be determined are those relating to the regional NRM plans in the NAP and NHT2 regions. These plans could not be assessed comprehensively as they are still in progress and not all have been accredited. The targets that are met or are largely/likely to be met in the timeframe are mostly process type targets, including policy, regulations or plans that need to be put in place in order to progress towards an outcome target.

The big picture

In addition to the findings regarding the specific targets, the review found a number of notable trends and outcomes relating to the major biodiversity themes encompassed by the targets and objectives that deserve to be highlighted.

National trends in biodiversity policy The jurisdictions have developed a wide range of responses to the threats to biodiversity, based on their own assessments of risk, and their obligations under various national agreements. The Australian Government is exerting influence in relation to the major threats through the national agreements (particularly the integrated regional NRM frameworks NAP and NHT2, and CoAG agreements). Not all jurisdictions completely agree with Australian Government policy on some aspects of biodiversity conservation and how it applies to them. All jurisdictions are implementing a range of programs according to their assessments of risks and threats. However, there is a trend towards increasing conformity between jurisdictions, largely as an outcome of the bilateral agreements for regional NRM, and other inter-government agreements including CoAG water reform agreements. The overwhelming trend in all jurisdictions and across the nation is towards increasingly stringent and comprehensive regulation of threats to biodiversity. In some aspects, such as native vegetation management and threatened species/ecological communities protection, biodiversity emerges as a major theme driving policy. In others, including water reform and integrated regional NRM, biodiversity is one of the themes but not a major driver of policy.

7 Tackling the biggest threats – land clearing The summary table provided in this document indicates patchy progress at best towards several of the national biodiversity objectives. However this summary tends to mask the significant and highly important progress that has been made towards one of the key threats to biodiversity- clearing. Of all the targets reviewed, progress in controlling clearing is probably the most outstanding. If currently proposed and enacted regulations are properly implemented, this major threat will be effectively controlled in most jurisdictions by 2010, including the jurisdictions still actively engaged in broadscale clearing. These changes have been brought about in a highly contested and politicised setting and have involved difficult negotiations and tradeoffs between the various stakeholders. Australia is still some distance from achieving a no net loss target for native vegetation, but the recent policy and regulatory interventions should ensure that all future clearing proposals are subject to appropriate levels of assessment relative to the conservation status of the vegetation community. This outcome is a significant advancement on the situation a decade ago and goes a long way towards meeting the native vegetation targets (but not within the prescribed timeframes). The gains for biodiversity will be substantial.

Threatened species and ecological communities The types of policy and regulatory approaches that have successfully delivered reform in native vegetation management have been less successful in relation to protecting threatened species and ecological communities. Most jurisdictions have the appropriate legislation in place to protect at risk biodiversity, including overarching Australian Government legislation, but it would seem that these regulations are not yet supported by effective implementation mechanisms. The outcome is that there are numerous listed species and communities but few of these are effectively managed under recovery plans, particularly if they are outside the protected areas system. Rapid growth in the identification and listing of threatened species and ecological communities in many jurisdictions has not been matched by a concomitant expansion in resources available for management, specifically resources for on ground management. There are criticisms that the identification and listing of ecological communities under the EPBC Act (1999) is too slow relative to statutory guidelines under the Act. A major challenge in most jurisdictions is the limited legislative mandate provided under threatened species legislation, which tends to liimit authority to address key threatening processes such as habitat loss through land clearing and other development. The dispersed and patchy nature of threatened species habitat and endangered ecological communities add to the administrative challenges in implementing recovery plans. Although reserving the relevant areas of habitat and threatened communities is the most secure way to protect them under current arrangements, their distribution and nature do not fit well with the protected areas management model based around discrete national parks and reserves. There is growing interest in mechanisms to encourage landholders to conserve biodiversity on private land, including binding conservation covenants and less formal co-management agreements. While there are as yet insufficient monitoring data to enable an assessment of the effectiveness of private conservation arrangements, it is likely that such arrangements will become an increasingly important mechanism, especially in jurisdictions that retain substantial unreserved biodiversity on private land. These arrangements have an important role in complementing the reserves system and in augmenting efforts to protect at risk biodiversity. They need to be targeted and resourced appropriately. At present, the mechanisms available for management of threatened species and ecological communities are limited: • Acquisition into the reserves and protected areas system • Conservation covenants on private land or other cooperative cost sharing arrangements for conservation on private and leasehold land, including through private foundations

8 • Regional integrated NRM frameworks drawing on the range of NHT programs Effective management will be dependent on: • Adequately funded protected areas management agencies in all jurisdictions • Landholders and community groups supported through NHT and ongoing funding programs to conserve biodiversity on private land

Water reform The water management theme encompassed by the targets and objectives is the focus of considerable current debate and policy development. While many of the specific targets relating to water management have not yet been met, all jurisdictions are working towards comprehensive water reforms that are expected to deliver biodiversity benefits. In relation to allocation of environmental flows, most jurisdictions have carried out legislative reform that recognises environmental flows. Most are still struggling, however, to deal with stressed and over-allocated systems, and to balance the competing demands of urban supply (eg WA) and irrigation (eg NSW, Victoria) with demands for environmental health.

Targets and monitoring

The summary assessments provided in this document are influenced by the tight timeframes embodied in the targets themselves. In this context, the targets and how they are framed and measured are deserving of comment. Target setting is an inexact but nonetheless critically important process in policy development, implementation and review. As a general rule, targets should be driven by a clear vision and be set in realistic and achievable timeframes. Some of the targets reviewed in this report have very constrained timeframes, relative to biodiversity policy in the jurisdictions, and given the ordinary pace of public policy implementation. Even well defined targets are only useful if they are underpinned by a logical, focused monitoring program that efficiently measures trends. Few of the targets reviewed in this report are supported by good, consistent monitoring. In many cases, data are not collected or are not readily available. For several targets, the review became a lengthy and laborious process of searching for relevant data that could indicate progress, however indirectly. It is clearly apparent that no jurisdiction is in a position to accurately report on all of the targets, notwithstanding a discernible trend towards improved data coverage and monitoring systems for several targets (eg the terrestrial native vegetation targets with the exception of condition monitoring). For other targets (eg the invasive species and threatened species recovery targets) the information needed to monitor progress is not readily available and this does not seem to be improving in general. The States and Territories are required, under a range of inter-government agreements, to report on myriad sets of targets relating to biodiversity. Some examples include: • State of Environment Reporting targets (Saunders et al, 1998) • National Framework for NRM Standards and Targets (developed for NAP and NHT2, 2003) • National Framework for Management and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation (2001) targets for reporting progress in workplans • National Objectives and Targets for Biological Diversity Conservation 2001-2005 • Murray Darling Basin Commission targets for Integrated Catchment Management (2001) The existing biodiversity monitoring systems are not sufficient to enable national reporting within reasonable timeframes. These systems will be further tested when the integrated regional NRM programs are fully operational along with their additional reporting requirements. The reporting obligations of the jurisdictions are furthermore made unnecessarily onerous by large measures of redundancy and duplication between the various inter-government reporting systems.

9 There would be considerable benefit in establishing a single set of national biodiversity targets that could apply across the range of inter-government programs. This set of targets would need to be supported by a well designed and focused monitoring system that can efficiently deliver the required information to policy makers and administrators so that they can review and adapt to the outcomes in a timely manner. While the benefits of a single set of national biodiversity targets are clear, the indicators of the targets in such a system should be flexible and adaptive so that they can reflect the diversity and variability between jurisdictions. National targets require a setting that accommodates different rates and types of progress in different jurisdictions. They are of limited value if they lack this flexibility. For example, the nation can have a national target of no net loss of native vegetation but this may be achieved through a balance of net gain policy in some well developed jurisdictions (eg Victoria) and limited controlled clearing for land development in others (eg NT). Any system that fails to enable such variability is a system will not be a useful tool for national policy makers.

10 Table A Summary of overall assessments for each target Key action 1: Protect and restore native vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems Objective 1.1 Reverse the long term decline in the quality and extent of Australia’s native vegetation and ecological communities and the ecosystems they provide Target Trends and overall assessment Target 1.1.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have mechanisms in place, The trend in clearing regulation nationally is towards increasingly stringent controls. including regulations, at the State and regional levels that: Comprehensiveness and consistency of regulations across tenures are also increasing. • prevent decline in the conservation status of native vegetation This target is not yet met but some jurisdictions, including the biggest clearers communities as a result of land clearance; and (Queensland and NSW), are on track to meet the target in the next 5 years.

• prevent clearance of ecological communities with an extent The primary trend in clearing regulation nationally is towards tighter and more below 10 per cent of that present pre-1750. comprehensive controls. This target is only specifically met in Queensland but the outcome of regulatory regimes to control clearing in several other jurisdictions would be similar (SA; Victoria; NSW-depending on regional vegetation planning outcomes; Tasmania- for forest areas only). Target 1.1.2 By 2003 all jurisdictions: Clearing controls nationally are providing a growing level of protection for at risk communities. However, no jurisdiction has specifically met this target. • Have clearing controls in place that prevent clearance of Queensland is likely to meet the target in the next five years if new regulations are effectively ecological communities with an extent below 30% of that present implemented. Regulatory regimes in Victoria, SA and NSW are likely to provide the desired pre 1750* level of protection sought by the target although not specifically relative to a pre 1750 baseline. Challenges remain in Tasmania (non-forest communities), NT and WA to demonstrate that existing clearing controls are sufficient to protect at risk biodiversity. • Have programs in place to assess vegetation condition This target is not yet met.

Target 1.1.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions have programs in place to: The target is partly met in most jurisdictions since a number of programs are in place • protect areas of high quality vegetation across the country to protect vegetation of high conservation value. Their effectiveness was not assessed in this review. Programs that specifically target areas of high quality vegetation are limited by the lack of comprehensive and consistent mapping and monitoring of condition. Target 1.1.4 By 2005, all jurisdictions have programs in place: Taking probable revegetation gains in other jurisdictions into account, it is unlikely that • Clearing controls that will have the effect of reducing the national target 1.1.4 will be met by 2005 since Queensland will permit broadscale clearing of up to net rate of land clearance to zero 500,000 ha to December 2006. NSW provisions are also unlikely to fully impact by 2006 (depending on rates of regional vegetation planning and building capacities in the catchment management authorities charged with administering the controls).

11 Target Trends and overall assessment (depending on rates of regional vegetation planning and building capacities in the catchment management authorities charged with administering the controls).

Objective 1.2 Protect a representative sample of Australia’s terrestrial ecosystems Target Trends and overall assessment Target 1.2.1 By 2001, management plans are developed and Management planning is an ongoing process but some jurisdictions have a persistent low implemented for: rate of coverage of management plans for their NRS areas. • Protected areas in the National Reserves System; • Informal protected area networks; • Indigenous estates; • Private land covered by formalised conservation arrangements Target 1.2.2 By 2001, ANZECC has developed: This target is not yet met. • an action plan for the National Reserves System which includes targets for the protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems on indigenous owned estates and private land Target 1.2.3 By 2005, a representative sample of each bioregion (as Despite ongoing progress and enhanced targeting of acquisitions, this target is unlikely to specified by the ANZECC action plan): be met by 2005, assuming a target of 15% representation of IBRA in IUCN category protected areas. • is protected within the Natural Reserves System or network of indigenous protected areas or as private land managed for All jurisdictions are progressively enhancing their reserve systems according to CAR conservation under a conservation agreement. principles. Recent acquisitions in NSW for example, have included significant areas in the Western Division, which is not well represented. Target 1.2.4 By 2003, all jurisdictions have in place: Recovery plans are not yet in place for communities that are nationally listed as critically endangered. This part of the target is not yet met. • Native vegetation restoration programs to recover ecological communities that are below 10% of that present pre 1750 or are The effectiveness of incentives and other measures for protection of unreserved biodiversity nationally listed as critically endangered; and such as covenants is very difficult to assess beyond looking at trends in areas covered. Better recording of the communities under conservation management on private land would Effective incentives targeted to bioregions, provinces and/or • enable an assessment of the contribution of these areas to meeting CAR principles. catchments to support the protection of unreserved biodiversity Monitoring of conservation values in the areas (eg vegetation condition) would provide and all threatened ecosystems insight to best management practices.

Objective 1.3 Protect threatened species and ecological communities Target Trends and overall assessment Target 1.3.1 The EPBC Act (1999) enables national listing and recovery planning and therefore • By 2002, all jurisdictions have effective legislation to protect meets the target for areas of national significance. However, listing and recovery threatened species and ecological communities and to provide planning processes are slow relative to statutory guidelines. for recovery planning. 12 Target Trends and overall assessment threatened species and ecological communities and to provide planning processes are slow relative to statutory guidelines. for recovery planning. In the jurisdictions, ACT, Victoria and NSW meet Target 1.3.1. WA, SA, NT, Tasmania and Queensland do not provide for listing of threatened ecological communities under their existing legislation (WA and SA have proposed legislation that will enable these listings at State level). Queensland specifically protects ecosystems <10% (endangered) and <30% (of concern) relative to pre European extent through their clearing controls, but do not provide for listing or recovery planning under biodiversity protection legislation Target 1.3.2 No jurisdiction completely meets this target, including the Australian Government. • By 2004 recovery plans are in place for all nationally listed However, various programs are being implemented in the jurisdictions to recover critically endangered and endangered species and ecological endangered species. communities Target 1.3.3 Regional NRM planning for accreditation through NHT2 is in progress. Not all plans have • By 2005, have incorporated the recovery of threatened species been accredited, and investment plans are in their early stages in most regions. It is too early and ecological communities into integrated catchment/regional to assess the extent to which recovery actions for threatened species and ecological management plans* communities are incorporated into the management plans generally. Early indications are that there is wide variation between regions in the focus given to biodiversity.

Key action 2: Protect and restore freshwater ecosystems Objective 2.1 Achieve ecologically sustainable management of Australia’s water resources and water-dependent ecosystems Target Trends and overall assessment Target 2.1.1 By 2001: All jurisdictions are undertaking water reform to comply with the CoAG Water Reform • all jurisdictions have, in accordance with the CoAG Water Framework. Reforms include legislative changes to enable environmental flows, to provide Reform Framework, completed implementation of environmental for water management planning and to secure allocations for environmental flows. No allocation for all river systems which have been over allocated or jurisdiction has completed their proposed water resources planning or finalised are deemed to be stressed environmental flow allocations for all stressed and over allocated rivers (except ACT and NT, which do not consider that they have over allocated rivers). • the majority of waterways substantially conform to the relevant The jurisdictions are progressively implementing the NWQMS but the majority of standards in the guidelines o the National Water Quality waterways would not as yet substantially conform to the standards and guidelines. Management Strategy, including those for chemical composition, turbidity and temperature • water resource management plans which include flow Water resource management plans that include flow allocations for the environment allocations for the environment and address in-stream barriers to are not yet in place for the majority of catchments. Progress in water management movement of fauna are in place in the majority of catchments planning to implement CoAG reforms has been slower than anticipated in several jurisdictions but most are in the process of developing plans for priority (stressed and over allocated or at risk) catchments. The current drought will have a negative impact on the implementation of plans to address and allocate environmental flows.

13 Target Trends and overall assessment allocated or at risk) catchments. The current drought will have a negative impact on the implementation of plans to address and allocate environmental flows. Target 2.1.2 By 2005: As for surface water, water management planning for ground water in relevant • water resource management plans which include and catchments is not complete. emphasise ecologically sustainable use of groundwater resources are in place in relevant catchments

Objective 2.2 manage threats, prevent degradation and maintain the ecological character of Australia’s nationally and internationally significant wetland dependent and water dependent ecosystems Target Trends and overall assessment Target 2.2.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions: The inventories of national and international wetlands are a work in progress. • Have identified wetlands of national and international More wetlands are likely to be nominated as the inventories progress. significance Target 2.2.2 By 2003: This target is met. Internationally listed wetlands are afforded greater protection than State • Management plans for 85% of internationally significant and Territory listed wetlands (which are given no specific protection unless in reserves or wetlands listed under the Convention of Wetlands are prepared listed under biodiversity protection legislation). However, some stakeholders express and implemented consistent with the Australian Ramsar concern that the management plans do not completely address Ramsar issues. Management Principles (regulation 10.02 – Environment Protection and biodiversity Conservation (2000) Target 2.2.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions: This target is not met. Wetlands listed under State and Territory legislation are not • Have effective legislation and management plans in place to specifically protected. Management plans are not specifically required. However, the States protect wetlands of national significance and Territories apply a range of programs to protect wetlands of particular significance and the trend is towards increasing levels of protection against major threats such as clearing and development. The major gaps are in addressing other significant threats including over- allocation of water and invasive species at wetlands of national significance.

Objective 2.3 Protect significant habitat for migratory waterbirds Target Trends and overall assessment Target 2.3.1 Important habitat for migratory birds is included in the criteria for nominating wetlands for • By 2001, all jurisdictions have identified important areas of national and international listing but there is no comprehensive national inventory of habitat for migratory waterbirds migratory bird habitat. Wetland inventories are ongoing. This target is not met. Target 2.3.2 This target is partially met. Internationally listed wetlands are afforded specific protection • By 2003, all jurisdictions has programs in place, both on and of (Ramsar) but State and Territory listed wetlands are not specifically protected in all reserve, to protect significant habitats for migratory waterbirds jurisdictions.

14 Key action: Control invasive species Objective 4.1 Prevent or control the introduction and spread of feral animal and weed species Target Trends and overall assessment Target 4.1.1 By 2001: This target is not met. Full risk assessment is only applied to organisms that are not on a permitted list. The current permitted seed list contains thousands of genera and potentially The import of all new live organisms is subject to a risk based • permits the legal importation of problem weeds not present in Australia without any form of assessment process that identifies the conditions necessary to Weed Risk Assessment minimise threats to the environment Target 4.1.2 By 2001: Species on a permitted list may be imported without risk assessment. This target is not met. • No new non-native species are deliberately introduced into Australia unless assessed as being of low risk to the environment. Target 4.1.3 By 2003: This target is met. However, inconsistencies persist across state borders in relation to the management of species in different threat categories. • All naturalised non-native species have been assessed and assigned to broad-based threat categories according to their threat to biodiversity Target 4.1.4 By 2005: It is too early to assess the extent to which the regional catchment plans include actions to address threats to biodiversity from naturalised non-native species. • All regional/catchment management plans include actions to address the threat to biodiversity from naturalised non-native species • Programs are in place to manage invasive species that are This target is likely to be met for national parks, World Heritage Areas and RAMSAR major threats to biological diversity at sites of national wetlands. It is unlikely to be met for threatened ecological communities listed separately environmental significance. under the EPBC Act (1999) unless those communities are within the protected areas system or under RAMSAR protection. Target 4.1.5 A national comprehensive system for prevention and management of introduced marine • By 2003, a national comprehensive system for prevention and pests is not yet in place. This target is not met. management on introduced marine pests is in place

15 Key Action 5: Mitigate dryland salinity

Objective 5.1 Protect and restore native biodiversity through retention and improved management of native vegetation, and revegetation aimed at reversing lost agricultural productivity, deteriorating water quality and damage to native ecosystems caused by dryland salinity Target Trends and overall assessment Target 5.1.1 This target is met. • National standards will be developed and agreed under a COAG inter-government agreement to implement the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and associated water flows and stream and terrestrial biodiversity

Key action 6: Promote ecologically sustainable grazing Objective 6.1 Protect areas of high conservation value at risk of unsustainable grazing pressure Target Trends and overall assessment Target 6.1.1 This target is not met. Grasslands in general are not as well surveyed or classified for • By 2002, all jurisdictions have identified threatened native conservation purposes and are generally afforded lower levels of protection than native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance that may forest communities. be subject to unsustainable grazing pressure Target 6.1.2 This target is not specifically met but there is a range of programs in progress in the • By 2003, all jurisdictions have identified sustainable levels of jurisdictions to identify and protect native grasslands. grazing by domestic animals within threatened native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance that may be subject to unsustainable grazing pressure Target 6.1.3 Regional NRM planning is in progress across Australia. It is too early to assess the extent • By 2005, all jurisdictions have incorporated into integrated to which protection of native grasslands is incorporated in the plans. However, a number of catchment/ management plans, the protection of threatened initiatives are being implemented to support regional planning that will contribute to native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance, identification and protection of native grasslands. which may be subject to grazing pressure.

Key Action 7: Minimise impacts of climate change on biodiversity Objective 7.1 Minimise the impacts of human induced climate change on biological diversity Target Trends and overall assessment Target 7.1.1 This target is not yet met but is likely to be met in 2004 or 2005. • By 2003, ANZECC has developed an action plan to identify the potential impacts of climate change on Australia’s biodiversity and measures to address these impacts.

16 Target Trends and overall assessment and measures to address these impacts.

Summary assessment of progress towards the targets

Met in the timeframe Largely or likely to be met in the Not met in the timeframe Undetermined timeframe Target 2.2.2 Target 1.1.3 Target 1.1.1 Target 1.3.3 Target 4.1.3 Target 1.2.1 Target 1.1.2 Target 4.1.4a Target 5.1.1 Target 1.3.1 Target 1.1.4 Target 6.1.3 Target 2.2.1 Target 1.2.2 Target 2.3.2 Target 1.2.3 Target 4.1.4b Target 1.2.4 Target 6.1.2 Target 1.3.2 Target 7.1.1 Target 2.1.1 Target 2.1.2 Target 2.2.3 Target 2.3.1 Target 4.1.1 Target 4.1.2 Target 4.1.5 Target 6.1.1

17 Key action 1: Protect and restore native vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems

Objective 1.1 Reverse the long term decline in the quality and extent of Australia’s native vegetation and ecological communities and the ecosystems they provide

Target 1.1.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have mechanisms in place, including regulations, at the State and regional levels that: The 1996 and 2001 Australian State of Environment Reports identify clearing of native vegetation and its consequences, as the most significant threat to terrestrial biodiversity. The National Land and Water Resources Audit (the Audit) assessment of biodiversity (2002) found that vegetation clearing is the most significant threat to species and ecosystems in eastern Australia1. There are two major elements to Target 1.1.1: • mechanisms are in place at state and regional levels that control clearing in the major land tenures • these mechanisms will prevent the decline in conservation status of native vegetation

Summary assessment Broadscale clearing has essentially ceased in all jurisdictions except NSW, Queensland and small areas of Tasmania and NT. In these jurisdictions, the pressure for clearing is concentrated in areas with productive development potential (Brigalow Belt; Tasmanian eastern forests, Litchfield and Douglas Daly agricultural areas in NT). Remnant vegetation in all jurisdictions remains under threat from fragmentation and declining condition. Vegetation communities that are particularly scarce and fragmented are most at risk. These occur across the nation, primarily in heavily cleared agricultural areas. All jurisdictions now have regulatory regimes to control broadscale clearing. None aim to prevent clearing entirely but all are structured to ensure that most clearing is subject to assessment and that approved clearing meets jurisdiction and, to some extent, Australian Government environment and biodiversity protection standards. The predominant trend in clearing regulation nationally is towards progressive tightening of controls and more comprehensive coverage of controls across different land tenures. Rates of clearing are stable or falling in most jurisdictions (Table 2). Rates of clearing are rising only in NT.

1 NLWRA (2002) Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment, NHT. C of A

18 Background to Target 1.1.1 2001 Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity In a 2001 review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity, ANZECC concluded in relation to clearing that the following measures were operating2: • Bushcare agreements under NHT commit the States and Territories to prevent clearing in endangered ecological communities, any clearing which changes the conservation status of a vegetation community and any clearing that is inconsistent with sustainable management of biodiversity at a regional scale. • The National Framework for Management and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation provides a mechanism through which the State and Territory commitments can be achieved. It sets out best practice measures for native vegetation management based on a suite of State and Territory defined regulation, planning, incentives, monitoring and evaluation measures. The report noted that many significant gaps in the management of native vegetation remained (p 96). The report identifies progress towards achieving the objectives of reversing the decline in remnant native vegetation and control of broadscale clearing of native vegetation so that regional biological diversity is not compromised, but concludes that objectives would not be met Australia wide if practices current in 2001 continued (p 95).

Australian Government measures Management of native vegetation rest primarily with the states and territories The Australian Government: • Produces national standards, guidelines, policy documents for environmental values, • Establishes and delivers programs, for example the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT), • Enters into bilateral environmental management agreements with the States and Territories, and • Implements domestic legislation, for example the EPBC Act (1999) A number of policies and programs are relevant to native vegetation management across the nation. These include: The National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation (1998) is designed to provide a mechanism through which the native vegetation management commitments agreed to by all Australian Governments can be progressed. The agreed outcomes are3: • limiting broad-scale clearance of native vegetation to those instances in which the proponent can clearly demonstrate that regional biodiversity objectives are not compromised, and • no clearing of endangered or vulnerable vegetation communities, critical habitat for threatened species, or other threatened species or communities listed under State or Australian Government legislation, or identified through the NRMMC or other government processes A review of progress under the National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation (2000) found that many of the mechanisms in place in the jurisdictions are progressing towards achieving the objectives, but that several of the objectives would not be met without additional measures.4 The National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001-2005 (2001) sets targets for priority outcomes including specific regulatory actions such as clearing controls5.

2 ANZECC (2001) Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 1996. C of A 3 ANZECC (2001) The National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation. C of A 4 URS & Griffin NRM Pty Ltd (2000) Independent Evaluation of the National Framework for Management and Monitoring of Australia’s Native Vegetation Jurisdiction Work Plans. 5 ANZECC (2001) National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001-2005. C of A

19 The EPBC Act (1999) enables listing and protection of threatened species and communities: • Environmental protection and an integrated framework for the conservation of biodiversity, • Environmental assessment and approvals of nationally significant issues, • Development of bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and State/Territory governments for the accreditation of State assessment and approval processes, • Cooperative identification and monitoring of biodiversity and bioregional planning, • Listing threatened species, ecological communities and threatening processes and development and implementation of recovery/threat abatement plans, and • Management of Australian Government reserves, conservation zones, World Heritage Areas and wetlands of international importance. In April 2001, land clearance was listed as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act (1999). However, the Minister determined that a threat abatement plan for this threat was not appropriate. The NHT and National Action Plan (NAP) for Salinity and Water Quality fund a range of NRM programs that include objectives relating to native vegetation conservation and management. The bilateral agreements with the states and territories encompass Australian Government policy and objectives relating to native vegetation management. Under the Framework for the Extension of the NHT (NHT2, 2002) the jurisdictions undertake to implement effective measures to control clearing of native vegetation, including: • prevent clearing of endangered and vulnerable vegetation communities and critical habitat for threatened species, and • limit broadscale clearing to those instances where regional biodiversity objectives are not compromised. Under the NAP, the jurisdictions agree to prohibit clearing of native vegetation where this would lead to unacceptable land and water degradation.

The negotiations for NHT2 and NAP resulted in several significant commitments in relation to regulation of clearing and protection of threatened species and threatened ecological communities (see detailed jurisdiction reports). The commitments will generally bring the jurisdictions closer into line with Australian Government policy and targets.

Progress towards Target 1.1.1 in the jurisdictions All jurisdictions have mechanisms in place to control clearing of native vegetation. Some jurisdictions have specific legislation and procedures that target protection of remnant native vegetation from clearing: • SA Native Vegetation Act (1991) and the Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act (2002) • NSW Native Vegetation Act (2003) • Queensland Vegetation Management Act (1999) applying to freehold land; the Land Act (1997) applying to leasehold and state land and the new Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (2004) which will apply to both lease and freehold land • ACT Nature Conservation Act (1980) providing protection for unleased land and partial protection for leased land. Other jurisdictions have introduced regulatory provisions to control clearing of native vegetation as part of more general development approvals, environment protection, and land protection processes: • Victoria Planning and Environment Act (1989)

20 • Western Australia Environmental Protection Amendment Act (2003) • Tasmania Forest Practices Act (1985) as amended in 2001 relating to forested land; and the Land Use and Planning Approvals Act (1993) providing limited protection to non forest vegetation • NT Planning Act (1999) Interim Development Control Order (2002) applying to freehold land; the Pastoral Land Act (1996) applying to pastoral leases; and the Soil Conservation and Land Utilisation Act (1995) providing protection based on land conservation considerations. The different regulatory regimes largely reflect an evolution of responses to assessed risk, at both national and state levels, in the different jurisdictions.

Recent changes to clearing controls in Queensland The introduction of clearing controls for freehold land in Queensland during 1999-2000 had the effect of stimulating a significant increase in clearing rates, particularly in the central west region (Brigalow Belt). The rate of clearing jumped from an average of 289,000 ha per annum in the period 1991-1995, to 758,000 ha in 1999-2000. Clearing rates have dropped to around average levels for the 1990s since the introduction of a moratorium in 2003. In addition, the impending clearing controls led landholders to clear regrowth prematurely before it became defined as remnant vegetation or endangered habitat under the legislation. A recent Productivity Commission inquiry found that the impact of the legislation on landholders in endangered REs and in areas of high conservation value has been negative.6 The inquiry found that there was significant loss in productivity especially in areas where regrowth and thickening of cleared woody vegetation is rapid. Those with substantial uncleared areas were predicted to be most adversely affected. These trends, together with growing concern about illegal clearing (without a permit) post 2000, led the Queensland government to amend the Vegetation Management Act (1999) and the Land Act (1994) to simplify the system, to clarify provisions, to provide assistance to affected landholders and to improve enforcement provisions. The Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (2004) introduced to parliament in March 2004, aims to implement the following measures in order to achieve a phasing out of broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation by December 2006, as promised by the Beattie government prior to the 2004 State election: • Phasing out broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation by 31 December 2006; • Protecting “of concern” remnant vegetation on freehold land; • Providing a ballot for broadscale clearing applications to receive an allocation under a transitional cap as part of the phase out process; • Allowing applications for clearing for particular but limited purposes to be considered outside the cap; • Permitting clearing of most regrowth vegetation; • Providing the opportunity for greater certainty to landholders through creating property maps of assessable vegetation, which delineate assessable and non-assessable vegetation at the property scale; • Declaring areas; • Clarifying the exemptions from the need for a permit; and • Combining vegetation clearing provisions previously under the Land Act 1994 and Vegetation Management Act 1999 under the one Act

6 Productivity Commission (2004) Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations, PC Inquiry No 29, 8 April 2004

21 New clearing regulations for NSW The NSW Native Vegetation Act (2003 ) will supersede the existing NSW Native Vegetation Conservation Act (1997), once regulations and guidelines are drawn up to support implementation of the new Act. The 2003 Act will be implemented in conjunction with the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) and will be administered by the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources and his/her delegates. The Native Vegetation Conservation Act (1997) was criticised for its contested definitions, for failing to address uncertainty in relation to the private forest industry and for ambiguity in the exceptions to consent. The 2001 SOE report on the outcomes of the legislation found a very high level of approvals (although these were generally conditional), difficulties in enforcement and an unwillingness to prosecute under the Act7. The SOE report found overall that these problems reduced the effectiveness of the legislation in controlling clearing of native vegetation. The new (Native Vegetation Act 2003) sets out a framework for regulating clearing of native vegetation that is closely linked with a strengthened regional NRM infrastructure. The regional NRM arrangements are part of state-wide reforms that implement the findings of a review of native vegetation management in NSW carried out in 2002-03 and chaired by Ian Sinclair8. The new NRM arrangements focus on regional Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) that are formally constituted as statutory authorities and have strengthened responsibilities and accountabilities in relation to administration of relevant State legislation and programs9. The Native Vegetation Act (2003) provides for10: • No regulatory control of regrowth. Regrowth is defined as: • Vegetation regrown since 1990; and since 1983 in the Western Division • Remnant vegetation can only be cleared with approval of the Minister or through a Property Vegetation Plan that is approved by the Minister or the regional CMA. Remnant vegetation is defined as: • All vegetation existing before 1990; or 1983 in the Western Division • Clearing of protected regrowth requires development consent or approval through a PVP. Protected regrowth can be younger than 1990 or 1983. • Remnant vegetation or regrowth cannot be cleared for new land use (considered as broad scale clearing). • No consent is required for specified routine agricultural management activities that do not constitute broadscale clearing. • Other exemptions are specified (eg for fire management).

Control across land tenures Clearing controls are not consistent across all land tenures in all jurisdictions. The most comprehensive controls across different tenures are South Australia’s provisions under the Native Vegetation Act (1991). The provisions of this Act apply to all land tenures (except inner metropolitan Adelaide, which is covered by tree protection regulations).

7 Williams, J. (2001) State of the Environment Australia 2001 Biodiversity Theme Report. CSIRO Publishing C of A 8 DIPNR (2003) Native Vegetation Reform Implementation Group Final Report 9 DIPNR (2003) Natural Resource Management Reform: A New Approach to Natural Resource Management 10 DIPNR (2003) Native Vegetation Management in NSW: Native Vegetation Act 2003 Fact Sheet

22 In other jurisdictions, different regulatory and supporting mechanisms apply to different tenures. For example, most jurisdictions with significant state forests (NSW, WA, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria), do not apply native vegetation clearing controls to these areas. Native vegetation management in state forests is managed under forestry legislation, Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) and codes of practice. Private native forestry is also treated differently in the new NSW native vegetation protection provisions. NSW private forests are to be managed through a specific code of practice. In SA, Victoria and NSW, the primary legislation that protects native vegetation from clearing applies fairly consistently across both leasehold and freehold tenures. Clearing controls in Western Australia, Tasmania, NT, ACT and (until recently) Queensland, in contrast, are clearly different for leasehold and freehold tenures. For example, until recently, Western Australia regulated clearing on pastoral leases through the Land Administration Act (1997) and controlled development on private land (including clearing) through the Environment Protection Act (1986). A recent amendment (Environmental Protection Amendment Act (2003)) will apply to both leasehold and freehold land. In the ACT, a license is required to clear on unleased land but 0.5 ha can be cleared on rural leases without a permit. Queensland recently (March 2004) introduced the Vegetation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (2004), which applies to assessable vegetation on both leasehold and freehold land and incorporates the pre-existing provisions of the Native Vegetation Act (1999) relating to freehold and the Land Act (1997) applying to leasehold land. The NT has three separate regulatory regimes to control clearing in different tenures but there are no clear regulatory arrangements controlling clearing in Aboriginal lands (comprising 43.9% of the NT): • Pastoral leases: clearing is subject to a permit system under the Pastoral Land Act (1996) • General freehold land: subject to consent under the Planning Act (1999) for clearing of areas greater than 1 ha • Litchfield Shire: subject to the Litchfield Area Plan allowing clearing of up to 50% of allotments without a permit.

Protected vegetation and exemptions Clearing controls are not consistent for all vegetation types across all jurisdictions. Again, SA has the most comprehensive provisions under their Native Vegetation Act (1991). The SA regulations encompass all native plants. Native vegetation is defined as all vegetation with a native component, including all remnant vegetation regardless of modification to the understorey and all native vegetation regrowth that is five years of age or older. NSW, Victoria and Western Australia define native vegetation as grasses and groundcover as well as trees. The Queensland provisions under their vegetation protection legislation are limited to woody vegetation. Tasmanian clearing controls focus on forests and are not generally applicable to non-forest vegetation. “Clearing” for the purposes of clearing controls, is generally defined as felling, removing or destroying by any means (other than grazing). Victoria includes lopping of branches in the definition. In Tasmania, the Forests Practices Act (1985) as amended in 2001 requires a permit for harvesting of timber for both forestry and agriculture purposes. There is no legislation, however, that specifically protects native vegetation outside the forested areas (except under the general development control provisions of the Land Use and Planning Approvals Act (1993). Vegetation that is considered exempt from clearing controls also varies across the jurisdictions. The new NSW legislation specifically protects remnant woody vegetation,

23 which is defined as “all vegetation existing before 1990; or 1983 in the Western Division.” In Queensland, assessable remnant vegetation is defined as having 50% of predominant pre clearing canopy; 70% height of predominant pre clearing canopy and the same floristics as pre clearing. The Victorian legislation provides exemption for regrowth that is less than 10 years old. SA legislation protects all regrowth more than 5 years old. Thinning of thickened native vegetation is exempt in NSW and can be approved in Queensland. In all jurisdictions, exemptions for operations such as fire breaks, general safety, pest and weed control, minor infrastructure, roads, utilities etc are generally provided. ACT allows 0.5 ha to be cleared without a permit in rural leases. NT allows 50% of rural allotments in the Litchfield Shire to be cleared without a permit and allows one hectare to be cleared on freehold land without a permit.

Mechanisms for assessment of clearing applications The mechanisms for assessing clearing applications vary considerably between the jurisdictions. In SA, applications to clear are assessed by a specifically established State committee (the Native Vegetation Council which must follow prescriptive principles under which vegetation should not be removed). In Victoria, WA, Queensland (for freehold land) and NT (for freehold land), assessments are made through the development approvals process in line with local, regional or state codes and plans: • In Victoria, applications are generally assessed at local government level but are referred to state level if the area involve exceeds 10 ha. • In WA, until recently, the provisions for freehold land required landowners to submit a notice of intent to clear to the state agency but the onus was on the agency to object within 90 days. Recent amendments (2003) replaced the notice of intent system with one in which landowners must apply for a permit to clear that is subject to assessment by EPA under environment protection legislation. Proposals that are likely to have a significant impact can eb referred for a full environmental assessment. • In Queensland, clearing applications for freehold land were assessed under the Integrated Planning Act (1997) up to May 2003, when a moratorium on applications came into effect. • In NT, clearing applications on freehold land are assessed under a temporary Interim Development Control Order issued under the Planning Act (1999). In NSW clearing applications are to be assessed by regional catchment management authorities (NSW), as delegated by the relevant minister. In NSW, Victoria and Queensland, the assessments are to be underpinned by Regional Vegetation Management Plans that will gradually replace state codes as they are completed. In some jurisdictions, clearing can only be approved as part of a property vegetation management plan (eg NSW Property Vegetation Plans, Queensland Property Vegetation Management Plans; Tasmania Forest Practices Plans).

Regional initiatives in native vegetation management In most jurisdictions, several of the programs that could impact on native vegetation management and biodiversity conservation have been drawn into an integrated regional NRM framework. Programs funded under NHT2 and the NAP are to be delivered through accredited regional catchment plans. The bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and the jurisdictions to implement NHT2 and the agreements to implement the NAP include specific commitments to biodiversity conservation. The agreements bring the jurisdictions into line with the Australian Government EPBC Act (1999) in relation to biodiversity policy and protection and include commitments to implement an effective regulatory regime to control clearing where this was not already in place or sufficiently comprehensive. For example, WA agreed to develop biodiversity protection policy and

24 legislation that is consistent with the Australian Government EPBC Act (1999) and to put in place a more comprehensive regulatory system for controlling clearing. The NT agreed to introduce measures that would: • allow the broadscale clearing of native vegetation only where the proponent can clearly demonstrate that regional biodiversity objectives are not compromised; and • prevent clearing of endangered or vulnerable vegetation communities and critical habitats for threatened species and communities listed under the Northern Territory or Australian Government legislation. At regional level, NSW is in the process of devolving administration of clearing controls to the newly constituted CMAs and will underpin the process with regional vegetation mapping and property level vegetation plans. Likewise, regional catchment management authorities in Victoria are charged with development of regional vegetation management plans, assisted by regional vegetation committees. Once approved, the plans will guide the local government approvals process for vegetation clearing. In Queensland, the assessment of clearing applications is based on regional ecosystems mapping and property level vegetation management plans. In SA, regional biodiversity plans (see box) are being developed to provide a strategic approach to management of biodiversity at regional level; including guidance for assessment of clearing applications and siting of revegetation and rehabilitation efforts.

Regional Biodiversity Planning in South Australia Regional Biodiversity Plans are being developed for South Australia as a part of its commitment to the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity 1996. The South-East plan was published in November 1999 and draft biodiversity plans are assembled for Northern Agricultural District, Eyre Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, SA Murray- Darling Basin and metropolitan Adelaide.

Preparation of a plan for the Mount Lofty Ranges began in January 2001. These plans provide a strategic approach for the conservation and management of biodiversity within a region, as well as considering land management and agricultural goals.11 Surveys covering most South Australian bioregions have been undertaken by the Department for Environment and Heritage. The Biological Survey now covers over half of South Australia.

The regional vegetation management planning in those jurisdictions undertaking it, will be applied to target native vegetation programs and projects funded under NAP and NHT2. The programs of particular relevance include Bushcare, Land for Wildlife, the National Reserves Program and the programs supporting conservation covenants on private land. In jurisdictions not specifically undertaking regional vegetation mapping, regional or sub- regional natural resource management strategies are being developed produced with vegetation elements. The regional catchment agencies are preparing plans that include integrated natural resource. The bilateral agreements are in place but the regional planning is largely still in progress in most jurisdictions. Plans that are already accredited for NHT2 (eg Glenelg Hopkins in

11 A Regional Biodiversity Planning Program was established in 1997 to develop plans based on the bioregions of South Australia. The Plans are intended to provide a guide to priority on-ground actions for the conservation, management and rehabilitation of species and vegetation communities and provide a framework for integrating biodiversity conservation with agricultural production. Through a pilot project a Biodiversity Plan for the South East of SA has been prepared and development of plans for other regions is proceeding using the South East as a model.

25 Victoria) are now being implemented but the slower than expected pace overall of the accreditation process has resulted in delays in implementation of both NHT and NAP. It is too early to assess the likely impacts of the regional NRM framework approach although some jurisdictions (eg WA) are making progress in meeting commitments under the bilateral agreement towards development of biodiversity policy and in strengthening regulatory regimes to control clearing across all land tenures.

Historic influences Many of the differences between jurisdictions reflect past histories of clearing and assessments of ongoing risk from clearing. Victoria for example, experienced around 80% loss of native vegetation in the agricultural areas and retains only 34% of pre 1750 vegetation cover state-wide. Most of the remaining native vegetation is in reserves or on other public land and only 13% remains on private land. However, some of the remnants on private land are under represented in reserves. Victoria is in a situation of holding the line in several bioregions. Victoria’s response to this situation was to: • progressively tighten clearing controls since the late 1980’s; • adopt a “net gain” principle to guide native vegetation management; and • put resources into identification of high value remnants and implementing a range of mechanisms to protect these and prevent further decline in condition. Broadscale clearing is no longer occurring in Victoria and while the net gain objective has not yet been achieved, the current mechanisms will ensure a very low and relatively stable net rate of clearing. This scenario differs significantly from the situation in NSW and Queensland. The later, while similar to Victoria in that early clearing was concentrated in the agricultural areas, differ in that they retain extensive expanses of remnant vegetation, much of which is on private land and much is potentially productive for agriculture. There is ongoing pressure in some agricultural regions of Queensland and NSW for land development and broadscale clearing. These jurisdictions are struggling to implement regulatory measures that aim to end broadscale clearing and to meet the widely different expectations of their urban and rural constituents in relation to native vegetation management. The NT and Tasmania perceive the risks of adverse impacts from proposed clearing in their jurisdictions to be low and are actively pursuing development opportunities that will involve clearing of native vegetation to establish new land uses (agriculture in the NT and plantation forestry in Tasmania). NT is managing the development through the creation of special development areas (eg Litchfield Shire) which are subject to development planning controls but in which clearing controls do not prohibit agricultural development and land use change. Tasmania is managing the development of plantation forests through the Regional Forests Agreement which reserves significant native forest areas and is structured to provide a permanent forest estate so that the remaining forest land would not be subject to protracted battles over it’s management for plantation and native forest production.

Main trends- tightening controls and coverage All jurisdictions now have regulatory regimes to control broadscale clearing. None aim to prevent clearing entirely but all are structured to ensure that most clearing is subject to assessment and that approved clearing meets jurisdiction and, to some extent, Australian Government environment and biodiversity protection standards.

26 The standards vary between jurisdictions. In Victoria and SA the regulations require or encourage a net gain (through revegetation offsets). In Queensland, clearing should not lead to a decline in the conservation status of the regional ecosystem. In NSW, regional vegetation management objectives must be met and approvals are contingent on property level vegetation management plans that demonstrate no net adverse outcomes. The NT has a framework to allow clearing by consent and subject to conditions but NT is also setting aside zones of agricultural development in which the clearing controls are more relaxed than those that apply generally (eg Litchfield Shire). WA is building a more comprehensive set of controls across land tenures but only recently regulated clearing on freehold land and adopted a no net loss policy towards management of native vegetation. Tasmania only specifically regulates clearing in forested areas in compliance with RFA and best forest practice codes. ACT clears minor areas (mainly for urban development), although the ACT State of Environment Report (2004) states that up to 660ha of endangered yellow box–red gum woodlands, 530 ha of other woodland fragments and 600ha of paddock trees are at risk of being cleared.12 The predominant trend in clearing regulation nationally is towards progressive tightening of controls and coverage. Examples of recent amendments and new legislation to tighten clearing regulations are outlined in Table 1. Coverage across tenures is generally increasing and consistency across tenures is increasing. Clearing controls were historically stronger over leasehold land in those jurisdictions having significant land under pastoral leases (Qld, NT, WA). These jurisdictions have all recently strengthened controls over freehold tenures (see Table 1). The least stringent controls are in Tasmania, WA, NT and ACT. The least comprehensive and consistent regimes across tenures are in Tasmania and NT.

Main trends- integration with wider biodiversity policy Most of the regulatory regimes protecting native vegetation are now incorporated with wider biodiversity protection policy eg: • NSW Biodiversity Strategy 1999; • Victoria Native Vegetation Framework 2002; • Tasmania Threatened Species Strategy and Nature Conservation Strategy; • ACT Draft Lowland Woodland Conservation Strategy 2003; • Queensland Biodiveristy Policy Framework: Sustaining Our Natural Wealth 2002. Most jurisdictions, including the Australian Government, also have biodiversity protection legislation that aims to protect endangered ecological communities and critical habitat for threatened species. These measures are discussed in detail in the following section relating to prevention of clearance in ecological communities with an extent less than 10%. In several jurisdictions, the assessment of clearing applications is based on or will be guided by regional vegetation mapping that is consistent with state policy (NSW, Queensland, Victoria, SA).

12 Baker J (2004) ACT State of the Environment Report Govt ACT

27 Table 1 Recent initiatives that strengthen clearing regulations and their coverage Jurisdiction Recent initiative

Queensland The Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (2004) aims to phase out broadscale clearing by 2006, imposes an interim cap on clearing of 500,000 ha after which there will be no more permits issued for broadscale clearing, and provides a compensation package to assist landholders who are adversely affected. The Bill is a significant tightening of existing regulations for freehold land, which do not protect “of concern” ecosystems (<30%). It is more comprehensive, applying to both freehold and leasehold land, which are currently managed under different provisions and policy.

NSW The Native Vegetation Act (2003) aims to end broadscale clearing and provides that remnant vegetation and protected regrowth cannot be cleared for new land use. It strengthens the provisions of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act (1997) (which was criticised for its contested definitions, for failing to address uncertainty in relation to the private forest industry and for ambiguity in the exceptions to consent), and it sets out a framework for regulating clearing of native vegetation that is closely linked with a strengthened regional NRM infrastructure. The regional NRM arrangements are part of state-wide reforms that implement the findings of a review of native vegetation management in NSW carried out in 2002-03 and chaired by Ian Sinclair13.

SA The Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act (2002) strengthens existing provisions by prohibiting broadscale clearing of intact vegetation, by making clearing conditional on significant environmental gain (eg through revegetation off sets) and imposes much stricter penalties for illegal clearing.

WA The recent Environment Protection Amendment Act (2003) introduces a permit system for clearing that takes account of impacts on land and biodiversity and adopts a no net loss policy to remnant vegetation. It significantly strengthens existing provisions and is more comprehensive in that it applies to leasehold and freehold land in both rural and urban areas.

NT The Interim Development Control Order No 12 issued in November 2002 prohibits without consent clearing of more than one hectare of native vegetation. It introduces clearing control to freehold land (excluding various areas that are already covered by legislation or plans). It is in place for two years as an interim measure while the Territory government reviews the Planing Act with a view to introducing consistent clearing controls for the 53% of the Territory that is not pastoral land or in urban areas.

13 DIPNR (2003) Native Vegetation Reform Implementation Group Final Report

28 Queenslands Regional Ecosystem and Regional Vegetation Mapping Freehold land: The Vegetation Management Act (1999) was introduced after a review of native vegetation management on freehold land, following signing of the NHT agreement in 1997 (Regulation Framework Taskforce for Vegetation Management). The Vegetation Management Act (1999) made clearing of remnant woody vegetation assessable under the Integrated Planing Act (1997). Clearing applications are assessed against State policy that provides codes for assessment according to the conservation status of the vegetation (State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land14). The codes are based on Regional Ecosystems mapping (REs) which maps extent and indicates conservation status per bioregion. Assessments are more recently guided by Regional Vegetation Management Plans (RVMPs) that will gradually replace state wide codes, as the regional planning is completed. RVMPs have been released for comment for 20 of Queensland’s 24 bioregions covering the central west; north; south east and south west of the State15. RMVPs are negotiated through a consultative process. They may reflect regional objectives but most at least achieve the outcomes of the State policy. RE mapping is carried out by the Queensland Herbarium at 1:100,000. RE mapping indicates remnant vegetation and conservation status, based on current extent in the bioregion. The remnant vegetation categories under the legislation are: • Endangered (<10% of pre clearing extent or 10-30% of pre clearing where the remnant is < 10,000 ha in extent) • Of Concern (10-30% of pre clearing extent or >30% of pre clearing extent if the remnant is < 10,000 ha in extent • Not of Concern (>30 in the remnant is >10,000 in extent) Remnant vegetation is defined as: • 50% of predominant pre clearing canopy • 70% height of predominant pre clearing canopy • Same floristics as pre clearing Regrowth is exempt from assessment under the permit system. Regrowth is defined as any vegetation not mapped as remnant on RE mapping or remnant mapping or not considered to be remnant in areas lacking mapping. Other exemptions include clearing for fodder harvesting, safety, fire and pest management and maintenance of roads and utilities.

Main trends- application rates Application rates for clearing permits are falling in some jurisdictions. For example, in SA, the number of applications fell from 189 in 1996/97 to 84 in 2000/01. In WA, there was a significant increase in the proportion of notices of intent that raised objections between 1986 (12%) and 2000 (88%) and the area approved for clearing fell in this period from 30,467 ha to 1,034. Queensland introduced a moratorium on new applications in May 2003 (see box below) following a spate of panic clearing prior to the enactment of proposed clearing controls for freehold land. The NT introduced a similar measure to halt clearing in the Daly River Region while a plan for land use was developed for the region.

14 Department of Natural Resources (2000) State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land. Govt of Queensland 15 Department of Natural Resources and Mining (2003) Annual Report 2002-2003. Govt of Queensland

29 Queensland’s Moratorium on Clearing Applications In the period leading up to the enactment of the Vegetation Management Act (1999) clearing escalated in some Queensland regions, as landowners attempted to clear before the restrictions came into effect. In 1999-2000, clearing jumped 78% on the pre Vegetation Management Act (1999) rate16. Much of the clearing took place in the south east and central Brigalow Belt (already heavily cleared) and 50-60% of it was in areas mapped as remnant and therefore requiring a permit under the Vegetation Management Act (1999). By August 2002, 369 (33%) of Queensland’s 1130 REs were classed as “of concern” and 96 (9%) were classed as “endangered”. The Queensland government introduced a moratorium on clearing applications in May 2003; not affecting existing applications or exempt areas. The moratorium was enabled through the Vegetation (Application for Clearing) Act (2003)

Main trends- actual clearing rates Rates of clearing are stable or falling in most jurisdictions (Table 2). Table 2.1 provides a summary of estimated average annual rates of clearing for each jurisdiction, as a range in hectares. These figures are provided as rough estimates only as not all jurisdictions provide regular data on rates of clearing, and some provide data only for certain tenures and certain vegetation types and for certain periods17. For instance, data on clearing in freehold tenures is difficult to access for the NT and Tasmania. The average rates in Table 2.1 for these jurisdictions are based on figures for leasehold land plus estimates based on available evidence of clearing rates in freehold tenures. The estimates are derived from a range of sources including government reports and vegetation surveys. For most jurisdictions, the estimates are determined from clearing permit approvals data, supplemented where possible by vegetation surveys. Comprehensive vegetation survey data are only available fro Queensland (SLATS) (for woody vegetation).

The recent Productivity Commission Inquiry into impacts of biodiversity and vegetation regulations summarises estimates of clearing rates and these are also taken into account in Table 2.118, along with data from other sources and provided directly by the jurisdictions.

The estimates in Table 2.1 only include the impact of revegetation offsets where these are specifically available (Victoria). All other estimates are based on clearing only.

16 Australian Government Productivity Commission (2004) Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations. PC Inquiry Report No 29 8 April 2004 17 Australian Government Productivity Commission (2004) Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations. PC Inquiry Report No 29 8 April 2004 18 Australian Government Productivity Commission (2004) Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations. PC Inquiry Report No 29 8 April 2004

30 Table 2.1 Trends in clearing Jurisdiction Annual rate range Trend Queensland19 100,000+ ha Stabilising before expected to fall post 2006 NSW20 10,000- 100,000 ha Falling and expected to fall further after enactment of new regulations21 Tasmania22 10,000-100,000 ha Stable NT23 10,000+ Rising WA24 <10,000 ha Stable Victoria25 <10,000 ha Falling due to revegetation offsets SA26 <10,000 ha Stable ACT27 <10,000 ha Stable National 100,000+ ha Falling

Not all jurisdictions provide regular updates on rates of clearing that indicate trends over time. Table 2.2 sets out specific figures that are available in the public domain for selected jurisdictions. The figures for SA, WA, Victoria and Tasmania are based on clearing approvals. Data for Queensland are based on vegetation surveys (SLATS).

Table 2.2 Clearing figures from selected jurisdictions Jurisdiction Year Area cleared (ha per annum) Qld28 1991-95 289,000 1997-99 425,000 1999-00 758,000 2000-01 378,000 SA29 1996-2002 Average 1832 WA30 1986/87 30,467 2000/01 1,034 Victoria31 1972-87 15,000 2003 10,400 off set by revegetation to 2,500 Tasmania32 2002-03 15,000 ha forest conversion to plantations 1500 conversion to agriculture

19 Department of Natural Resources and Mining (2003). Annual Report 2002-2003. Govt of Queensland 20 Benson, J (1999) Setting the scene: The Native Vegetation of NSW. The Native Vegetation Advisory Council of NSW; Williams, J. (2001) State of the Environment Australia 2001 Biodiversity Theme Report. CSIRO Publishing C of A; NLWRA (2002) Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment. C of A 21 Estimates of land clearing in NSW post 1995 vary widely (15,000-150,000 ha pa). Recent clearing approvals data suggest that annual rates are falling below 50,000 ha. 22 These areas are based on gross areas approved for clearing by the Forest Practices (RPDC 2002, p. 62). 23 Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories 1995, Native Vegetation Clearance, Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Decline, Biodiversity series paper no. 6, Biodiversity Unit, National Capital Printing, Canberra. 24 CALM WA (2004 ) data from various sources. 25 DNRE (2002) Native Vegetation Management:-A Framework for Action, Melbourne. 26 State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003, p. 113. 27 Baker J (2004) ACT State of the Environment Report Govt ACT 28 Department of Natural Resources and Mining (2003). Annual Report 2002-2003. Govt of Queensland 29 State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003, p. 113. 30 CALM WA (2004 ) data from various sources. 31 Woodgate, P. and Black, P. 1988, Forest cover changes in Victoria 1869–1987, Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Melbourne.; DNRE (2002) Native Vegetation Management:-A Framework for Action, Melbourne. 32 These areas are based on gross areas approved for clearing by the Forest Practices (RPDC 2002, p. 62).

31 Target 1.1.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have mechanisms in place, including regulations, at the State and regional levels that: • prevent clearance of ecological communities with an extent below 10 per cent of that present pre-1750 Target 1.1.1 not only requires that regulatory measures are in place to control clearing (discussed in the previous section) but that these measures prevent a decline in the conservation status of native vegetation communities. All jurisdictions provide greater protection for vegetation communities that are assessed to be at risk than for other vegetation. The two main mechanisms are: • through clearing controls • under biodiversity protection legislation Queensland is the only jurisdiction that aims under the general clearing regulatory regime to specifically protect ecosystems that are endangered regionally according to the pre 1750 baseline. Assessment of clearing applications in Queensland is based on regional ecosystems (REs) mapping. REs are assessed relative to pre clearing native vegetation extent. Those with <10% pre clearing extent are highly protected under legislation in both leasehold and freehold land (classed as “endangered”). This category also includes small remnants within an RE even if the whole RE is not “endangered”. Clearing is not specifically prevented in the “endangered” category but would not normally be approved. Other jurisdictions use clearing controls to protect at risk communities but not based on pre 1750 status. Most jurisdictions do not have complete mapping of pre 1750 extent. Most use regional mapping and assessments of current extent and conservation status. SA’s assessment guidelines for applications to clear under the Native Vegetation Act (1991) specify that clearing should not be approved if the vegetation comprises whole or part of a plant community that is rare, vulnerable or endangered based on regional biodiversity surveys and vegetation mapping of native vegetation. South Australia is currently mapping pre European vegetation in the intensively-used zone.33 The south-eastern region (from the South East to Murray Mallee and Midnorth) will be completed within the next three years,34 while the northern Mid North, Eyre and York Peninsula do not yet have completion dates. The mapping will be used to target revegetation efforts. Victoria’s classification system for the conservation status of native vegetation is not based on a pre 1750 baseline but on bioregional vegetation mapping. Vegetation classed as high conservation status (nationally significant sites and habitat) is highly protected from clearing under the state’s clearing legislation and clearing is generally not permitted for vegetation classed as high-medium. Victoria’s Native Vegetation Framework indicates that the bioregional classification will, however, include pre 1750 criteria for determinations under the net gain principle. Victoria has estimated pre European distribution. In NSW Clearing controls protect all remnant vegetation older than 1990 (1983 in the Western Division), and assessments are not relative to pre 1750 extent. The Tasmania forest management process is based on a 1996 benchmark. The RFA process identified threshold cover levels relative to the 1996 benchmark, which must be maintained as a minimum standard: • 80% retention of 1996 forest cover state-wide • 50% retention regionally

33 Intensively-used zone refers to the agricultural area of Australia where the predominant land uses are cropping (both irrigated and rainfed) and improved grazing, with introduced grasses and legumes (Hamblin 2001). 34 Pre-European Vegetation Mapping for the South East Region of South Australia was prepared as part of the Biodiversity Plan for the South East of South Australia 1999 produced by Planning SA (http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/biodiversity/pdfs/bioplans/)

32 • 60-80% retention based on forest communities • 100% retention for some small threatened areas (rare and endangered communities) Tasmania has a moratorium on clearing of rare and endangered forest communities and the State government protects all rare, endangered and vulnerable forest communities on private land (encompassing 107,000 ha in 2003). WA, ACT and NT do not provide specific protection for at risk vegetation communities under their clearing regulations but applications involving communities that have been identified would most likely raise objections. In the ACT, there is only one community with an extent <10% pre 1750 and there has been no recent clearing in this community. In addition to the clearing controls, most jurisdictions protect at risk vegetation communities under specific biodiversity protection legislation (Table 3). Victoria, NSW, ACT, Tasmania, and Queensland provide for declaration of threatened ecological communities under biodiversity protection acts. SA legislation does not provide for listing of threatened communities but has produced a provisional list of threatened ecosystems. The WA legislation only provides limited protection to flora and fauna but is to be replaced by a significantly more comprehensive Act that will enable listing of threatened communities. NT legislation does not provide for listing and protection of threatened communities. Further protection is available for threatened communities listed under the Australian Government EPBC Act (1999). The Act enables the listing of nationally endangered ecological communities, generally taken to be less than 10% of pre European extent and in addition to requiring a recovery plan, they act as a trigger for impact assessment and approval. While the Australian Government has the potential to regulate clearing of communities through these provisions, clearing may still be permitted. There is concern that EPBC Act (1999) lists of endangered ecological communities are not yet comprehensive.

Table 3 Legislation to protect at risk biodiversity Jurisdiction Legislation Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) Government NSW Threatened Species Conservation Amendment Act 2002 Tasmania Threatened Species Protection Act (1995) Queensland Nature Conservation Act (1992) Victoria Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988) ACT Nature Conservation Act (1980) NT Territory parks and Wildlife Act (1977) SA National Parks and Wildlife Act (1972); Proposed new Biodiversity Conservation legislation WA Wildlife Conservation Act (1950)- to be replaced by the Biodiversity Conservation Bill (2003)

At regional levels, regional vegetation mapping in the relevant jurisdictions (NSW, Victoria, Queensland and SA) is expected to inform the development of regional vegetation management plans. These in turn will identify priorities for biodiversity conservation under the NHT2 and NAP programs, including location of at risk communities. At risk communities can then be targeted through the various NHT programs such as Bushcare, Land for Wildlife and formal conservation covenants that aim to protect biodiversity on private land. They may

33 also be nominated for listing under Australian Government or state biodiversity protection legislation or proposed for acquisition under the National Reserves Program. The target relating to protection of communities having <10% pre 1750 extent remaining is only specifically met in Queensland although regulatory regimes in SA, Victoria and NSW would produce a similar outcome. Measures to protect at risk communities are weakest in NT, WA (about to change with the introduction of new biodiversity protection legislation) and Tasmania outside forested areas.

Challenges There are several key challenges to meeting Target 1.1.1. These are discussed briefly below. Monitoring trends in clearing In most jurisdictions, monitoring programs are not sufficient to enable them to evaluate the effectiveness of clearing controls on actual clearing rates. Vegetation mapping is taking place in most jurisdictions leading to a gradual improvement in coverage of vegetation extent, and programs to produce regional vegetation maps are under way in several jurisdictions (Queensland, NSW, SA, Victoria). However, there are major gaps in coverage (see box below). With the exception of Queensland (for woody vegetation), SA (at least for pastures), and possibly Tasmania (forest cover) regular monitoring of vegetation cover is not generally carried out. The Queensland Statewide Landcover and Trees Survey (SLATS) which began in 1995 is the only regular survey carried out in Australia that can detect changes in tree cover at a scale and frequency which can be analysed to assess clearing trends. SLATS monitors woody vegetation and tree clearing. Funding for the program was increased in 2003 to enable annual surveys (previously every 2 years)35. In the absence of consistent, regular monitoring, most jurisdictions rely on clearing application statistics to indicate trends in clearing. Trends in NT, WA, Tasmania and ACT are particularly difficult to determine since clearing application systems are very recent and/or not consistent across tenures. Even in NSW, which recently upgraded their vegetation mapping program, estimates of annual clearing extent are based on a range of disparate sources, vary widely and are not reliable.

Vegetation mapping in NSW Currently across NSW there are major gaps in mapping of vegetation extent and limited data on vegetation condition. While much of the State is mapped for some vegetation attributes, there are large inconsistencies in coverage, scale and accuracy that constrain state-wide assessments and priority setting36. A listing of mapping carried out in NSW and major gaps up to 1999is provided in Benson (1999).37 The Native Vegetation Mapping Program is a whole-of-government initiative following the introduction of The Native Vegetation Conservation Act (1997). This legislation requires Regional Vegetation Committees to be supported by vegetation mapping at 1:100,000 scale. The Committees will be incorporated into the new regional NRM structure and will advise CMAs on vegetation data needs and management The Program is funded to provide maps within priority areas in NSW. These maps show details of the extent and distribution of native vegetation at a 1:100 000 scale. The program also aims to map pre-European vegetation at a finer level of detail across the State. New mapping of vegetation extent at 1:250,000 under the Native Vegetation Mapping Program will improve the baseline for monitoring native vegetation cover across NSW in future. Standards for this mapping are in place and several priority areas are newly mapped.

35 Department of Natural Resources and Mining (2003). Annual Report 2002-2003. Govt of Queensland 36 NLWRA (2001) Native Vegetation Assessment. C of A 37 Benson, J (1999) Setting the scene: The native vegetation of NSW. Advisory Council of NSW

34 Regulatory regimes and compliance The issue of illegal clearing is raised in several jurisdictions and most have relatively strong penalties for infringements. However, without regular monitoring, it is not possible to comprehensively determine the extent of illegal clearing. Queensland is possibly the only jurisdiction in which this can be achieved on an annual basis for tree cover and woody vegetation (through SLATS). In other jurisdictions, levels of reporting of breaches indicate that illegal clearing has the potential to undermine regulatory controls unless measures are implemented to achieve better compliance. Jurisdictions in which responsibility for administering clearing regulations is devolved to regional levels (NSW) may benefit from having enforcement responsibilities closer to the ground but will need to address the possible conflict that regional catchment agencies may face in executing an enforcement roles

Enforcement of the NSW Native Vegetation Conservation Act (1997) “In 2002, the Audit Office of New South Wales (AONSW 2002, p. 22) found that there is currently no program in place to systematically monitor changes in native vegetation. While the DIPNR has instigated a program to improve its mapping capability, the program will not be able to provide complete coverage of New South Wales for many years (AONSW 2002, p. 20). Since the introduction of the NVC Act ‘the number of alleged breaches reported to the DLWC each year has increased steadily, to the point that in 2001 there were more than 200 alleged breaches of the Act (AONSW 2002, p. 44). Once a breach is detected, there are several alternatives available to address violations of the Act, including warning letters and stop-work orders, through to prosecution of the offence in the Land and Environment Court. In the period since the introduction of the NVC Act in January 1988 until April 2002, there were 705 reported breaches. Of these, no further action was taken in approximately 70 per cent of cases, 21 per cent of breaches resulted in the issuance of a warning letter and in just under 1 per cent of cases, the DLWC commenced prosecution (AONSW 2002, p. 45).”38

Resolving equity issues A 2003 Productivity Commission inquiry into the impacts of native vegetation and biodiversity regulations found that there were significant equity issues in that the regulations in most jurisdictions impacted more adversely on some landholders than on others and that some landholders have been significantly affected. The inquiry found that: • “The effectiveness of restrictions on clearing of native vegetation has been compromised by a lack of clear objectives, negative incentives for landholders to retain and care for native vegetation; and the inflexible application of targets and guidelines across regions with differing characteristics such that perverse environmental outcomes often result. • Many landholders are being prevented from developing their properties, switching to more profitable land use, and from introducing cost-saving innovations. Restrictions on clearing regrowth and woodland thickening are reducing areas that can be used for agricultural production.”39

38 Productivity Commission (2003) Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations. Draft Report. December 2003, p 284 39 Productivity Commission (2003) Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations. Draft Report. December 2003, Overview p XXII

35 The inquiry found that the community should pay for the provision of environmental services such as biodiversity conservation. It recommends that the government purchase additional conservation services from landholders, preferably through voluntary transactions such as negotiated contracts or auctions. Some jurisdictions have negotiated compensation packages to assist landholders who are adversely affected (eg Queensland $150 million to assist landholders in implementing the new clearing provisions. NSW has indicated that $120 million will be spent on management of native vegetation under NHT2, and it can be assumed that much of these funds will be allocated to augment implementation of the recently strengthened native vegetation clearing measures).

Target 1.1.2 By 2003 all jurisdictions:

• Have clearing controls in place that prevent clearance of ecological communities with an extent below 30% of that present pre 1750 No jurisdiction has specifically met this target. As with the target relating to protection of ecological communities <10% of pre 1750 extent, most jurisdictions do not use the 1750 baseline in their clearing controls. Queensland is the only jurisdiction that specifically protects “of concern” communities classed as having an extent <30% of the pre 1750 baseline and these controls will not take effect in freehold land until the recent proposed legislation to end broadscale clearing comes into effect in December 2006. Other jurisdictions control clearing according to regional vegetation mapping and assessments of regional biodiversity or conservation status. SA regulates clearing of all intact native vegetation based on bioregional mapping, and would generally protect communities at less than <30% of 1750 extent unless revegetation offsets are provided. Victoria protects remnant vegetation based on bioregional conservation classifications and would not normally permit clearing in communities at <30% of pre 1750 extent unless revegetation offsets are provided. NSW provisions aim to prevent all broadscale clearing based on regional vegetation plans and are likely to protect these communities. Tasmania specifically controls clearing in forest communities relative to a 1996 baseline, but is less specific in non forested areas. Tasmania has a moratorium on clearing of rare and endangered forest communities and the State government protects all rare, endangered and vulnerable forest communities on private land (encompassing 107,000 ha in 2003). NT, WA and ACT do not specifically protect communities that may be at risk but applications for clearing of these communities would most likely raise objections. Under the EPBC Act (1999), ecological communities reduced to less than 30% of pre European extent can be protected in the ‘vulnerable’ category and once listed, recovery plans are required. However, the EPBC Act does not regulate the clearing of vulnerable communities as they are not a trigger for impact assessment. This is considered a major omission in the view of some stakeholders. The protection provided for communities that are not endangered and listed under State or Australian Government biodiversity protection legislation is significantly lower in all jurisdictions.

36 Target 1.1.2 By 2003 all jurisdictions:

• Have programs in place to assess vegetation condition There are several programs in place at national level (the Audit) and in the jurisdictions to assess vegetation condition. However, these do not yet enable a consistent or comprehensive assessment of condition in any jurisdiction or across the nation. There is as yet no comprehensive national assessment of vegetation condition. Agreements on protocols are being sought through the National Vegetation Information System (NVIS) of the Audit. The Audit also conducts relevant assessments of biodiversity status, landscape health, river health etc.40 The Audit’s Native Vegetation Assessment (2001) includes data on vegetation type, extent and condition. Mapping of surrogates including salinity, land degradation, weed distribution etc is commonly used to indicate vegetation status and condition. This mapping is available for several parts of the country and formed the basis of a national assessment of landscape health carried out by the Audit in 2001.41 The National Forest Inventory and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Database provide data for assessment of areas under the EPBC Act (1999). In the jurisdictions, condition assessments are carried out in specific high priority areas (eg the RFA mapping which to some extent takes account of condition; ACT woodlands and grasslands; River Murray assessment of condition in SA; SA pastoral leases). There are also many isolated or small area intensive studies that include condition assessments in all jurisdictions, for example the Lachlan region study in NSW (CSIRO). Mapping and assessments of surrogates including salinity, land degradation and weed distribution is available for several areas in the jurisdictions. Apart from these, several jurisdictions have reasonably comprehensive bioregional assessments and classification of conservation status. Others have limited coverage that could assist in assessment of condition. • In Victoria 74% of the state is mapped to ecological vegetation classes (June 2003) and assigned bioregional conservation status. • SA has completed bioregional surveys for around 75% of the State and has a pastoral condition assessment covering 40% of the State (see box). • Most of Queensland is covered by regional ecosystems mapping including conservation status relative to pre clearing extent. • ACT has a complete condition assessment of woodlands and grasslands • Bioregional surveys are conducted progressively in WA to identify areas of high conservation value. Surveys conducted to date include Eastern Goldfields, Nullarbor, Kimberley Rainforests and the Southern Carnarvan Basin. Surveys of the Wheatbelt and Pilbara are in progress • NSW is extending their vegetation mapping through the Native Vegetation Mapping Program and is conducting several bioregional assessments (eg Darling Riverine Plains) and conservation assessments under the National Reserves Program (NRP) (eg Riverina and the Cobar Peneplain). • Tasmania has comprehensively classified forested areas according to conservation status. Tasmania is extending their mapping program to non-forest areas. • The NT and WA carry out regular assessments of pasture condition.

Assessing vegetation condition in SA

40 NLWRA (2004) Atlas of Australia’s Natural Resources C of A 41 NLWRA (2001) Landscape Health in Australia C of A

37 The Biological Survey Program of South Australia commenced in 1971 with the intention of providing a systematic survey of South Australia's flora and fauna. The program's goal is to achieve a complete survey and map coverage of the State by 2015. Primary objectives of the program are to significantly improve knowledge about South Australian ecosystems and to allow identification of trends in ecosystem health. The quality and coverage of the information collected as part of the Biological Survey gives South Australia one of the most complete inventories of native flora and fauna in Australia. The Biological Survey Program of South Australia has conducted biological inventories and established monitoring baselines across approximately 75% of the State. In the pastoral areas of the SA, the Pastoral Lease Assessment Program has completed the first round of property based condition assessment, establishing vegetation and soil monitoring points in every paddock of every pastoral property in the last 14 years, representing about 40% of the State. These were set up to provide a baseline to monitor the condition of soil and vegetation resources over time. These monitoring points form the basis for the calculation of a land condition index (LCI) for each lease in the sheep country south of the Dog Fence. The LCI ranks pastoral leases as having high, moderate or low ‘disturbance’ or departure from original (pristine) condition. The completion of the rangeland assessment process allows for ongoing monitoring of change in soil and vegetation condition, improved grazing management and the rehabilitation of degraded areas In the agricultural regions of the State, measures to assess the condition of native vegetation in Heritage Agreements, other protected areas and unprotected areas are under development. A program to monitor the condition and ecological integrity of Heritage Agreement areas began in June 2000. A small number of areas have been monitored since then. Condition assessments have been conducted along the River Murray in SA in line with the River Murray Act (2003). The intention of this Act is to give the Government clear powers over the way in which the river is used and to better manage planning, irrigation practices, pollution and rehabilitation programs. In 2003, the distribution and condition (or health) of the vegetation on the entire South Australian River Murray floodplain has been comprehensively documented and mapped for the first time.

Target 1.1.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions have programs in place to protect areas of high quality vegetation A number of programs are in place nationally and in the jurisdictions to protect areas of high quality vegetation. They have the overall effect of providing higher levels of protection for high priority vegetation, especially if it is rare or significant. A major weakness is in the coverage of mapping and surveys that can consistently and comprehensively enable assessment of quality and conservation status to focus strategic protection of high priority areas. Coverage is reasonably good in some jurisdictions and is improving in most. However, protection of high quality areas tends to remain skewed towards the better known and more frequently surveyed areas (eg for Ramsar sites). The programs that are providing protection for areas of high quality vegetation are outlined below. Many of the programs target threatened and at risk communities rather than areas of high quality vegetation. The formal reserves systems in each jurisdiction and the National Reserves Program funding by the Australian Government enables strategic conservation assessments and acquisition of high priority areas. The jurisdictions through the NRS are committed to CAR principles that apply state wide. Under these principles, vegetation quality is not necessarily a key criterion in the ongoing development of the reserves system. Nonetheless, many

38 acquisitions have involved areas of high quality native vegetation of high conservation status. Programs to encourage conservation of high quality native vegetation on private land operate in most jurisdictions. The mechanisms range from formalised and legally binding conservation covenants that are attached to the land title to less formal agreements (eg Land for Wildlife) that provide a lesser level of protection. The programs provide incentives to private landholders to protect areas of vegetation that are considered to be of high quality and of high conservation value (worth protecting). Substantial areas are managed under conservation covenants and informal schemes in some jurisdictions and the areas are growing (eg NSW had 9,569 ha at June 30 2003 in binding conservation covenants (up from 4,875 ha in 1998) (Table 4). The less formalised Land for Wildlife and Wildlife Refuges on private land are in NSW are much more extensive (1.65 million ha) but these are not covered by formal management plans.

Table 4 Conservation covenants in several jurisdictions Jurisdiction Conservation covenant Area 2003 ACT Rural Conservation Fund 80% rural leases have Land Land Management Agreements management Agreements in Place WA Natural Resources Adjustment ? Scheme (1997-2000) Bush Broker Tasmania Private Forests Reserve Program 31,629 ha Protected Areas on Private Land Small no of threatened communities NSW Voluntary Agreements 9,569 ha Victoria Trust for Nature 417 covenants covering 18,000 ha SA Heritage Agreements 564,000 ha Queensland Nature Refuge 97 over 61,948 ha

Conservation covenants are becoming increasingly popular and innovative. The WA Bush Broker and Victorian Bush Tender programs are examples of a new approach in which landholders tender for funds to manage bush on private land.

Other measures to identify and protect high quality vegetation include: • National biodiversity policy and legislation (the EPBC Act 1999) provides for listing and protection through management plans, of significant and high conservation value sites (eg Ramsar wetlands, World Heritage Areas). Nationally significant sites are identified through a nomination and scientific assessment process. • State listings of ecological communities and threatening processes under State biodiversity protection legislation also provides higher levels of protection for listed sites. The State legislation varies in the protection it provides and not all jurisdictions are required to managed listed areas under management plans. In most cases, listed sites would be given special consideration in relation to development and clearing applications. • Several jurisdiction have specific programs to assist in identifying areas for protection. Examples include the WA Bush Forever (1997-2010) which nominates native vegetation areas for protection; and the SA Nature Links program which identifies elements such as native vegetation

39 remnants that can be integrated and managed for conservation at a landscape scale (eg corridors). • The regulatory systems controlling clearing in the jurisdictions enable identification and protection of high quality vegetation through bioregional and regional mapping and classifications of conservation status. Surveys and mapping to underpin classifications of conservation status are well advanced in several jurisdictions (Queensland, SA, Victoria, ACT, WA) and mapping is being augmented in NSW (regional vegetation mapping) and Tasmania (extension of mapping to non forest communities). • Several jurisdictions have programs that provide specific protection for high priority areas. Examples include WA’s Environment Protection Policies (EPPs) and NSW State Environment Protection Policies (SEPPs)42. These instruments apply to specific areas (or types of sites eg wetlands) that are of high conservation value and may not receive sufficient protection under general environmental assessment processes. The Swan Coastal Plain in WA is covered by a specific EPP. Another example is the ACT MOUs with Australian Government agencies within the ACT (Defence, CSIRO, National Capital Authority) which provide for protection of listed sites under the EPBC Act (1999). • The National and State biodiveristy strategies aim to identify and protect areas of high priority vegetation by drawing on the range of Australian Government, State and regional programs (eg NHT) that assess and protect native vegetation. • Regional vegetation planning will assist in identifying areas for protection under the range of regional initiatives (including NHT and NAP) and the regional catchment planning is required under the NHT2 bilateral agreements to address biodiversity priorities and targets.

South Australia’s Heritage Agreements The Heritage Agreement scheme, launched in 1980, sets out to protect significant parts of the State’s biodiversity that lie outside of the formal reserves system. Since 1980, over 1300 landholders have entered into Agreements with the State Government to protect areas of native vegetation in perpetuity.43 In 1998, 503,251 hectares were protected via Heritage Agreements, and in 2003 this rose to 564,000 hectares, a 12% increase. Although Heritage Agreements comprise only 0.6% of the State, in some regions they protect relatively significant proportions of native vegetation communities.44 Most of the Heritage Agreements are scattered widely in the agricultural regions of the State. Financial grants are provided to assist holders of Heritage Agreements with the conservation management of their land. The grants fund projects such as fencing to protect areas from stock damage, mapping vegetation types and important native species and weeds, and repairing damaged land. In addition to these initiatives, more emphasis is required to develop and implement ongoing management plans for Heritage Agreement areas to ensure biodiversity conservation in the long term.45

Target 1.1.4 By 2001, all jurisdictions have clearing controls in place that will have the effect of reducing the national net rate of land clearance to zero Clearing rates nationally have continued to be positive and actually trended upwards in the late 1990s as key jurisdictions moved towards introduction of more stringent clearing

42 The NSW SEPPs relating to clearing of native vegetation have been superseded by recent vegetation protection legislation but other SEPPs remain relevant to native vegetation at particular sites (eg wetlands) 43 State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003, p. 114-115; State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003 Supplementary Report, p. 30. 44 State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003, p. 115; State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003 Supplementary Report, p. 31. 45 State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003, p. 115; State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003 Supplementary Report, p. 31.

40 controls (Table 1, 5). Much of the clearing is taking place in Queensland (accounting for around 80% of native vegetation clearing nationally) and NSW where broadscale clearing continues. Smaller areas are cleared in Tasmania and in parts of the NT. Other jurisdictions do not contribute significantly to national clearing rates. Both Queensland and NSW have recently introduced legislation that aims to end or phase out broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation in the next few years. Accurate assessments of net change in vegetation cover are hampered by the lack of comprehensive and consistent data on actual clearing extent and trends in all jurisdictions with the exception of Queensland (for woody vegetation). Broad trends are apparent. Likewise, revegetation programs are implemented in all jurisdictions but the extent and effectiveness of these and the impact on overall vegetation cover change are very difficult to assess. There area a large number of different programs, many of which are not monitored. Expenditure on Bushcare, the primary NHT program targeting revegetation and protection of native vegetation was $346.5 million from 1996-2002. The areas involved and the total revegetation outcomes are very difficult to assess because of the lack of baseline and monitoring data. In Victoria estimates of annual revegetation are around 8,000 ha. In SA, 6233 ha of revegetation was planned to offset clearing approvals in the period 1996-2002. Neither State has yet achieved a net gain. Taking probable revegetation gains in other jurisdictions into account, it is unlikely that target 1.1.4 will be met by 2005 since Queensland will permit broadscale clearing up to 500,000 ha to December 2006. NSW provisions are also unlikely to fully impact by 2006 (depending on rates of regional vegetation management planning and building capacities in the catchment management authorities charged with administering the controls).

41 Table 5 Clearing policy in the jurisdictions Jurisdiction Policy Victoria Net gain SA Clearing only approved where a net gain is demonstrated. WA No net loss ACT No net loss Queensland Phase out broadscale clearing NSW Phase out broadscale clearing Tasmania Clearing for plantation development will continue net loss NT Clearing for agricultural development will continue net loss

The Net Gain States Victoria has adopted a “net gain” approach to native vegetation. While still experiencing a small net loss, the rates of land clearance in Victoria are falling or stabilising and are unlikely to trend upwards again. Victoria aims, through rehabilitation and revegetation programs, to achieve a net gain in the near future. Priority sites for revegetation are determined through bioregional mapping and classifications of conservation status, and relative to pre 1750 estimates of extent. SAs new amendments to the Native Vegetation Act (1991) require that clearing of intact native vegetation should be approved unless a net gain is demonstrated. The State Revegetation Strategy (2001) supports programs to identify priority areas for revegetation.

Objective 1.2 Protect a representative sample of Australia’s terrestrial ecosystems

Target 1.2.1 By 2001, management plans are developed and implemented for:

• Protected areas in the National Reserves System; • Informal protected area networks; • Indigenous estates; • Private land covered by formalised conservation arrangements

Management plans are developed in all jurisdictions for areas protected in the formal reserves system and for covenants on private land. Plans are developed as an ongoing process as new areas are acquired and added to the protected areas estate. The proportion of areas with operational management plans fluctuates as new areas are added.

42 For example, in Victoria: • At June 2003, 93% of national parks declared under the National Parks Act (1975) (national, wilderness and State parks) had operational management plans in place. • As at March 2004, 66% (77) of all parks and reserves declared under the main schedules of the National Parks Act (1975). Management plans are in preparation for a further 14% (16). Management plans are yet to commence for the remaining 20% (24). These include 5 new national parks and 5 new state parks. In a few instances, more than one park is covered by a single management plan. A summary of available information on management plans for the formal reserves system (including binding conservation covenants) is outlined in Table 6. The percentages in Table 6 are estimated. They are not particularly accurate as more than one reserve may be covered by a single management plan but this is not always apparent in the available data, either based on areas or numbers of reserves and plans. The information is indicative of progress in the jurisdictions towards coverage of formal reserves with operational management plans.

Table 6 Summary of management plan status for formal reserves Jurisdiction Protected areas Proportion covered by management plans 2004 (unless stated) Australian 21 Australian Government areas are 100% of declared reserves Government declared under the EPBC Act (1999) comprising: Plans for National parks jointly managed by their traditional owners 8 Australian Government national • (Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee parks National Parks) place emphasis on 13 Australian Government marine • joint management arrangements and protected areas focus on maintenance and 2 Botanical gardens • presentation of Aboriginal culture.

WA 17 million ha in WA is managed in 22.4% of reserved land conservation reserves- 6.6% of the 100% of conservation covenants State. Victoria 4.1 million ha or 17% of the State in 66% of all parks and reserves formal reserves declared under the main schedules of the National Parks Act (1975) were • 39 national parks fully covered by operational • 13 marine national parks management plans (77 of 117). • 11 marine sanctuaries • 3 wilderness parks Management plans are in preparation • 30 state parks for a further 14% (16). Management • 37 metropolitan parks plans are yet to commence for the • 63 other parks (including regional and reservoir parks) remaining 20% (24). These include 5 new national parks and 5 new state • 2,785 natural features reserves and conservation reserves parks. In a few instances, more than one park is covered by a single • 8,400 Aboriginal Affairs Victoria registered Indigenous cultural management plan. heritage sites/places 100% of covenants have plans • 2,500 (non-Indigenous) historic places Trust for Nature voluntary legally binding agreements (417 covenants covering 18,000 ha)

43 Jurisdiction Protected areas Proportion covered by management plans 2004 (unless stated) 18,000 ha) Tasmania 2.6 million ha of formal reserves or 38% 12% (49 of 398) of national parks and of the State reserves managed under the National Parks and Reserves Management Act Management pans are only required for (2002). Plans are in preparation for a reserves under the National Parks and further 13% Reserves Management Act (2002) and the Forestry Act (1920) 100% (191) of reserves managed under the Forestry Act (1920) have management plans.

NSW 5.9 million ha or 7.26% of the State in At June 2003 29% of formal reserves formal reserves had approved plans. Plans are • 169 National parks exhibited for a further 18% • 376 Nature reserves • 68 State conservation areas • 10 Regional parks • 4 Karst conservation reserves • 15 Historic sites • 11 Aboriginal areas 100% of formal conservation covenants have plans 9589 ha formal conservation covenants ACT 56% of the Territory is reserved 100% have plans

40% of rural leases have Land Management Plans that contain vegetation protection agreements

Queensland 7.2 million ha in formal reserves or 18% of formal reserves have 4.16% of the State approved management plans. • National Park: 212 parks; 6,710,715 ha; 93% of Qld protected areas Queensland released a Master Plan estate for Queensland National Parks in • National Park (scientific): 7; 52,176 2001 ha; 0.7% of Qld protected areas estate • Conservation Park; 176; 42,329 ha; 0.6% of Qld protected areas estate • Resources Reserve: 39; 347,858 ha; 4.8% of Qld protected areas estate 100% of conservation covenants have 97 Nature Refuge covenants (61,948 ha) plans SA 21.3 million ha or 25.5% of State ?? 66.6% of reserves managed under the National Parks and Wildlife Reserves System that are required to have management plans (282 of a total 332 are required to have plans) (reserves under Crown Lands Act do not require and do not have)

4 Indigenous Protected Areas under EPBC Act do not yet have plans (including 4 Indigenous Protected Areas under EPBC Act comprising 3.2% of the ?% of covenants have plans State)

44 Jurisdiction Protected areas Proportion covered by management plans 2004 (unless stated)

564,000 (0.6% of State) under Heritage Agreements NT 5.1 million ha or 3.81% of the Territory 100% of Territory national Parks (??) • 10 National Parks (??) Aboriginal National Parks • 4 Aboriginal National Parks 100% of Australian Government • 4 Australian Government National National Parks Parks

In all jurisdictions, protected areas legislation requires that management plans be prepared for the highest categories of reserves (the NRS categories). Australian Government legislation requires that management plans are prepared for Australian Government reserves, Indigenous Protected Areas and for significant sites such as World Heritage Areas proclaimed under the EPBC Act (1999). In several jurisdictions, there is no legal requirement for management plans in some categories of reserves (see Table 6). The categories not requiring plans are not formally included in the NRS and tend to be areas that are multi purpose but managed primarily for conservation (for example, SA multiuse conservation areas). At March 2004, Tasmania, Queensland, WA, NSW had management plans in place for less than 50% of formal reserves (NRS). All jurisdictions have plans or management agreements in place for formal conservation covenants. At June 2003, a total of 17 areas covering 13,785 million ha were declared under the Indigenous Protected Areas program. Funding is available under the program to support development and implementation of management plans.

Target 1.2.2 By 2001, ANZECC has developed an action plan for the National Reserves System which includes targets for the protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems on indigenous owned estates and private land The Australian Government is responsible for coordination of the National Reserves system (NRS), which is agreed by all jurisdictions. The Australian Government (in consultation with the National Parks and Protected Area Management Committee) recently produced:”Directions for the National Reserves System- A partnership Approach” to guide government and non-government agencies in building the NRS. A draft action plan was released for public comment in February in 2004. The target is not yet met but there are several programs in place that focus on protection and restoration of terrestrial ecosystems on indigenous owned estates and private land. Key funding areas targeted under the NRS program are: • Land acquisition by State and Territory conservation agencies. • Land acquisition for management by community groups. • Voluntary establishment of protected areas on private land. • Voluntary establishment of indigenous protected areas. • Development and implementation of best practice protected area management. In 2002-03, 935,721 ha covering 43 properties was approved for addition to the NRS. Eleven proponents were non-government environment organisations or local government and the remainder were state park agencies. Expenditure, including the Indigenous Protected Areas component was $13.5 million.46

46 DEH (2003 2002-2003 Annual Report

45 Target 1.2.3 By 2005, a representative sample of each bioregion (as specified by the ANZECC action plan) is protected within the Natural Reserves System or network of indigenous protected areas or as private land managed for conservation under a conservation agreement No jurisdiction as yet meets the CAR principles adopted under the NRS agreements (Table 7). All jurisdictions are progressively enhancing their reserve systems according to CAR principles. Recent acquisitions in NSW for example, have included significant areas in the Western Division, which is not well represented. In 2002-03, 935,721 ha covering 43 properties was approved for funding under the NRS Program. All new declarations contain ecosystems that are poorly or not represented in the NRS. Of the total 260 ecosystems represented in new reserves, 78 are under-represented or recognised as under threat. Many of the declared properties have species or communities that are listed under the EPBC Act 1999 (88 species; one listed community; 3 wetlands of national importance). In all jurisdictions, the reserve system is not particularly comprehensive in agricultural areas. Those jurisdictions that retain significant remnant vegetation on private land (NSW, Queensland) are working towards augmenting the reserves system through conservation covenants. Victoria, which retains little remnant vegetation on private land, is aiming to protect remnants in poorly represented bioregions through covenants.

Table 7 Representativeness of reserves according to IBRA regions (CAPAD 2002) Jurisdiction Percentage representation by bioregion (based on 15 % target) 2002 Queensland 15 of the 19 IRBA regions in Queensland are under represented relative to the 15% target. Eleven have <5% representation. NSW 13 0f the 17 IBRA bioregions do not meet the 15% target. Nine have less than 5% reserved. NT 15 of the 20 IBRA regions in the NT do not meet the 15% target. 16 have < 5% reserved. Tasmania Four of the nine IBRA bioregions in Tasmania do not meet the 15% target. One has <5% reserved. Victoria Six of the 11 IBRA regions in Victoria have <15% representation. SA Eight of the 17 IBRA regions in SA do not meet the 15% target. Four have <5% reserved. WA Of the 26 IBRA regions in WA, 20 have <15% of the land area protected in IUNC category reserves. A further 8 have 10-15% of the land area managed in IUCN category reserves, and 8 have <5% of the land area protected in IUCN category reserves47. ACT The two IBRA regions represented in the ACT meet the 15% target within the ACT. National Of the 85 national IBRA regions, 60 have <15% reserved; 25 meet the 15% target and 33 have <5% reserved.

47 DEH (2002) Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database. C of A

46 Progress in the WA reserve system The WA reserve system is being augmented through: • the Government’s Protecting our old-growth forests policy (30 additional reserves in forests); • the Gascoyne Murchison Strategy (3.17 million ha of pastoral lands); and • earlier acquisitions in the rangelands are expected to see almost 700,000 hectares of the south- west forests and 4.2 million hectares of former pastoral leasehold land brought into the conservation reserve system. This will bring the total area reserved to 21.7 million ha, or 8.5% of the State.48 It will substantially improve the representativeness of the WA reserves system49.

Recent additions to the NSW reserves system The NSW Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (1998) refers to t 10 year plan to guide progress towards meeting the CAR objectives of the National Reserves System. NSW made substantial additions to the formally reserved area over the 5 years to 2003. Reserved land managed by NPWS now totals 7.36% of the total land area. Much of the recently reserved area is in the north east and south east forests, an outcome of the RFA process. However, 2003 also saw a significant area reserved in the western divisions (326,766 ha), in which representation is low, leading to an improvement in the comprehensiveness of the reserve system overall.

Tasmania’s forest reserves

The Regional Forest Agreement (RFA), signed by the Tasmanian and Australian Governments in 1997, established a framework for the management and conservation of forest native vegetation over a 20-year period. A key element of the RFA was the establishment of a CAR reserve system for native forest vegetation. The RFA has helped to improve the representativeness of the reserve system for forests in Tasmania. The CAR reserve system under the Regional Forest Agreement has resulted in 458,000 ha of new reserves containing 293,000 ha of forest.50 A framework has also been established through the Regional Forest Agreement to retain 80% of the 1996 area of forest Statewide. Within each bioregion, 50% of the 1996 area of each forest community needs to be retained. In the RFA, it was noted that many of the elements of the CAR reserve system could not be adequately reserved on public land because some elements are (substantially or exclusively) found on privately-owned land (RPDC 2002, p. 14). To meet CAR reserve elements on private land, the Private Forest Reserve Program (PFRP) was established. Under the PFRP, funds are provided to secure CAR reserves on private land through the negotiation of voluntary agreements with landholders. The most common form of agreement is a perpetual covenant, which places restrictions on the use of reserved land. Other private land conservation incentives include the Protected Areas for Private Land program and the Land for Wildlife program.

48 WA Department of Conservation and Land Management (2003). WA Conservation Reserves: A snapshot. Govt of WA 49 WA Department of Conservation and Land Management (2003). Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Terrestrial Conservation Reserve System in Western Australia. Govt of WA 50 Resource Planning and Development Commission 2002, Inquiry on the Progress with Implementation of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (1997) Draft Recommendations Report, Resource Planning and Development Commission, Hobart.

47 The Private Forests Reserve Program, the Protected Areas on Private Land Program, and the North Facing Slopes Project are all under the Natural Heritage Trust. Under the RFA, CAR Values may be applied to private land by agreement with the landholder. Private lands are then managed in accordance with the Forest Practice Code (Tas), which requires certified management plans for all forestry activities pursuant to the Forest Practices Act 1985. The CAR reserve system on public and private land in Tasmania currently exceeds 2.7 million hectares. Within the reserve system, about 1.3 million hectares of forested land, or approximately 40 per cent of Tasmania’s native forests, are protected in formal reserves. This represents an increase of 30 per cent on the area of forest reserved in 1996 (Forest Practices Board 2002b). 21% of land in Tasmania is in formal Reserves (National Parks, Nature Reserves, State Reserves, Aboriginal Sites and Historic Sites). A further 6.4% is protected as Conservation Areas.

Indigenous estate At June 2003, a total of 17 areas covering 13,785 million ha were declared under the Indigenous Protected Areas program. Funding is available under the program to support development and implementation of management plans.

Indigenous Protected Areas in SA Indigenous Protected Areas cover around 3.14 million hectares, or 3.2% of the State. An Indigenous Protected Area is an area of land over which traditional Aboriginal owners have entered into a voluntary agreement for the purposes of promoting biodiversity and protecting heritage under the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 51 They are considered part of the National Reserve system.52 There are currently four Indigenous Protected Areas in South Australia: • Nantawarrina in the northern Flinders Ranges; • Yalata on the edge of the Nullabor Plain; • Walalkara in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands to the north-west of Coober Pedy; • Watarru in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands to the north-west of Coober Pedy. The South Australian Government, together with the other Murray-Darling Basin jurisdictions, is also actively negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Murray-Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations to establish a framework for the participation of the Indigenous Nations in the management of the natural resources of the Murray and Darling River catchments. Indigenous traditional owner groups are being actively involved in major natural resource management projects such as the Murray Mouth dredging project to ensure that cultural and Native Title issues are adequately addressed. This involvement will be expanded as new projects are commenced.

Private land Most jurisdictions have programs in place to encourage protection of native vegetation on private land. These range from conservation covenants to less formal agreements to manage the land for conservation outcomes. The area involved is significant and is increasing (see Table 4 above). Covenants provide a mechanism for cost sharing to conserve biodiversity for the long term benefit of the community generally. In addition to covenants, several programs implemented through NHT2 and NAP will have beneficial outcomes for native vegetation on private land, without actually reserving it. Examples include Bushcare and Land for Wildlife.

51 The Indigenous Protected Areas Program and National Reserve System Program are part of the Australian Government's NHT 52 State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003 Supplementary Report, p. 31.

48 Protected areas on private land in SA The Native Vegetation Act 1991, provides for the establishment of Heritage Agreements over private land areas of native vegetation in order to preserve or enhance their conservation values (s. 23 Native Vegetation Act 1991). At June 2003, there was 564,000 (0.6% of State) under Heritage Agreements

The NatureLinks initiative of the SA Government also promotes ecological restoration through the development of large-scale, integrated conservation projects across land and sea. NatureLinks has the goal of enabling South Australia's species and ecosystems to survive, evolve and adapt to environmental change. This goal will be pursued through the long term objective of establishing connected habitat across South Australia.

Target 1.2.4 By 2003, all jurisdictions have in place: • Native vegetation restoration programs to recover ecological communities that are below 10% of that present pre 1750 or are nationally listed as critically endangered No jurisdiction except the Australian Government specifically targets communities that are <10% of pre 1750 extent for recovery planning. Few of the States and Territories have comprehensive mapping of pre 1750 extent (Victoria and Queensland have good coverage). The Australian Government EPBC Act (1999) enables listing of critically and endangered communities and requires that these areas are managed within a recovery plan. There are two critically endangered communities (<5% pre European extent) listed under the Act. These are the Mabi Forest and the Swamps of the Fleurieu Peninsula. These were listed in 2002 and 2003. Recovery plans are not yet in place. (The Act requires that plans be in place for critically endangered communities within two years). Recovery plans are in place for 13 of the 27 endangered ecological communities (<10% of pre European extent); all in WA. The Act requires recovery plans to be in place within 3 years of endangered ecological community listing. The first ever endangered ecological community listed under the EPBC Act, Cumberland Plain Woodland, which was listed in 1998 under the former Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, still does not have a recovery plan formally in place. A recent Productivity Commission inquiry found in relation to the EPBC Act that: “The EPBC Act consolidated prior Australian Government legislation for protection of the environment. The Act seeks to clarify the situations in which the Australian Government will be involved in environmental impact assessment and approval. While the Act goes some way to clarifying the roles of the Australian Government and the States/Territories regarding the environment, there remains potential for duplication or inconsistency, particularly with respect to the listing and protection of threatened species and ecological communities. There may be scope to define more clearly which jurisdiction is responsible for this, or to improve coordination of listings. Despite the DEH’s efforts, there also still appears to be considerable uncertainty about the Act’s impact on landholders.”53 The definition of ecological communities varies in the jurisdictions. Several do not have a critically endangered category. Only the Australian Government and Queensland specifically base definitions of communities on a pre European extent, although all are based on assessments of extent and threat.

53 Productivity Commission (2003) Impacts of Native Vegetation and Biodiversity Regulations. Draft Report. December 2003

49 Queensland specifically protects ecosystems <10% (endangered) and <30% (of concern) relative to pre European extent through their clearing controls, but do not provide for listing or recovery planning under biodiversity protection legislation. Victoria, NSW and ACT have legislation in place that enables listing or special management of threatened ecological communities that are at risk (Table 8). WA, SA NT, Tasmania and Queensland do not provide for listing of threatened ecological communities under their existing legislation (WA and SA have proposed legislation that will enable these listings at State level). Three jurisdictions enable listing of endangered communities and provide for recovery planning (NSW, Victoria and ACT). NSW enables listing of vulnerable as well as endangered ecological communities. Proposed legislation in SA and WA will enable listing of endangered ecological communities. Queensland and NT do not provide for listing of ecological communities or their recovery planning except in the context of the reserves system. In 2002, Tasmania introduced a moratorium on the clearing of Rare and Endangered forest communities in 2002, and in 2003 the government announced that all Rare, Endangered and Vulnerable forest communities would be protected using the Forest Practices System. Table 8 Legislation to protect at risk biodiversity Jurisdiction Legislation Ecological communities and recovery planning Australian Environment Protection and Recovery planning required. Two critically Government Biodiversity Conservation endangered communities listed. Recovery Act (1999) plans not yet in place. 27 endangered ecological communities are listed and 13 recovery plans are in place. NSW Threatened Species Endangered and vulnerable ecological Conservation Act (1995) communities can be listed under the NSW legislation. Recovery planning is required. Threatened Species A small number of NSW ecological Conservation Amendment communities are listed. Not all are covered Act (2002) by adopted recovery plans Tasmania Threatened Species The Tasmanian legislation presently only Protection Act (1995) enables listing of threatened species. There is an agreed process to prepare Tasmanian Regional Forest guidelines for the listing of threatened Agreement (1997) ecological communities under the Act. The RFA provides for listing of and recovery planning for threatened species. Queensland Nature Conservation Act Act enabling protected areas but also (1992) provides for listing of threatened species and critical habitat as well as areas. Also threatening processes. Recovery planning is not specifically required under the Nature Conservation Act (1992) and would normally only be in place if the species was also listed nationally under the EPBC Act (1999). Victoria Flora and Fauna Guarantee Enables listing of threatened communities Act (1988) and threatening processes. Listings are not specifically related to pre 1750 extent54. At March 2004, 35 communities and 32 threatening processes were listed. Action plans are required for listed communities and threatening processes 50 under the Act. Net gain determinations however, take account of pre European extent. Jurisdiction Legislation Ecological communities and recovery planning not specifically related to pre 1750 extent54. At March 2004, 35 communities and 32 threatening processes were listed. Action plans are required for listed communities and threatening processes under the Act. Net gain determinations however, take account of pre European extent. ACT Nature Conservation Act One community is listed as ecologically (1980) endangered (<10% pre 1750 extent) and an action plan has been developed. NT Territory parks and Wildlife Does not specifically list endangered Act (1977) communities. Dealt with through the reserves system. SA National Parks and Wildlife No specific listing of endangered Act (1972); Proposed new communities but revegetation programs Biodiversity Conservation target priority communities based on pre legislation European extent. WA Wildlife Conservation Act There is no legal requirement in WA to (1950)- to be replaced by the prepare and implement recovery plans for Biodiversity Conservation Bill endangered ecological communities. The (2003) proposed Biodiversity Conservation Act will provide for recovery planing for threatened species and ecological communities.

South Australia’s revegetation strategy The State Revegetation Strategy 2001, prepared by the State Revegetation Committee, is the second strategy for the State. It continues to emphasise the economic and ecological implications of revegetation, as did the first strategy in 1996. Under the Strategy, Regional Revegetation Strategies have been completed for the Upper South-East, the Mount Lofty Ranges, and drafts in progress elsewhere. Other revegetation initiatives include the development of regional revegetation plans by community groups. These are being incorporated directly into integrated NRM Plans pursuant to the new Natural Resource Management Act.55 The South Australian Revegetation Mapping Framework, a pilot GIS- based revegetation monitoring package, will eventually map areas of revegetation and collect information associated with revegetation. The Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2002 also provides for significant encouragement for revegetation. Under the Act, revegetated areas must conform with the requirements of regional biodiversity plans and pre-European vegetation mapping.56

54 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Govt of Victoria 55 Natural Resource Management plan has been developed and accredited for the Mount Lofty Ranges and Greater Adelaide region. Plans have been submitted for accreditation for Kangaroo Island, the Northern and York Peninsula Agricultural District, the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin and the South East, while three other regions are developing plans. 56 State Of The Environment Report For South Australia 2003, p. 115.

51 • Effective incentives targeted to bioregions, provinces and/or catchments to support the protection of unreserved biodiversity and all threatened ecosystems The NHT National Reserves Program provides support for bioregional surveys and acquisition of areas to enhance the NRS. In 2002-03, 935,721 ha covering 43 properties was approved for addition to the NRS. All new declarations contain ecosystems that are poorly or not represented in the NRS. Of the total 260 ecosystems represented in new reserves, 78 are underrepresented or recognised as under threat. Many of the declared properties have species or communities that are listed under the EPBC Act 1999 (88 species; one listed community; 3 wetlands of national importance). In all jurisdictions, many of the programs that support protection of biodiversity have been incorporated in a regional NRM framework. Regional catchment plans are being developed to meet criteria including biodiversity criteria. Regional vegetation mapping and bioregional planning is under way in several jurisdictions that will assist in identifying areas of high conservation value and threatened ecosystems (NSW, Queensland, SA, Victoria, WA and proposed for Tasmania). These areas can then be more effectively targeted under the range of programs designed to protect unreserved biodiversity and threatened ecosystems (eg conservation covenants, NRP and Bushcare). The mapping and bioregional planning will also inform processes for listing threatened ecosystems. All jurisdictions have programs in place to encourage conservation of native vegetation on private land. The number of covenants and voluntary agreements is growing rapidly and the area covered is becoming significant in some jurisdictions (see Table 4). Formal covenants are managed under agreements or plans and are tied to the land title. The less formal arrangements are not covered by plans (eg Land for Wildlife) but provide support for management of specific areas for conservation outcomes. The effectiveness of incentives and other measures for protection of unreserved biodiversity such as covenants is very difficult to assess beyond looking at trends in areas covered. Better recording of the communities under conservation management on private land would enable an assessment of the contribution of these areas to meeting CAR principles. Monitoring of conservation values in the areas (eg vegetation condition) would provide insight to best management practices.

52 Objective 1.3. Protect threatened Species and Ecological Communities

Target 1.3.1 By 2002, all jurisdictions have effective legislation to protect threatened species and ecological communities and to provide for recovery planning The Australian EPBC Act (1999) enables listing of threatened species and ecological communities and requires that recovery planning is undertaken for all listed items: • Nationally significant communities and species can be listed under the EPBC Act (1999). Matters of national significance have been initially defined as: World Heritage areas, Ramsar wetlands, nationally listed threatened species and communities, nationally listed migratory species, nuclear actions and the marine environment. • As at July 31 2003, 1610 species, encompassing both marine and terrestrial species, were listed as threatened under the EPBC Act (1999): • 115 extinct species • 48 critically endangered spp • 604 endangered spp • 842 vulnerable spp • I conservation dependant sp • As at July 31 2003, 29 ecological communities were listed as critically endangered or endangered • Species and communities listed under the EPBC Act (1999) are required to be managed under a recovery plan. In the jurisdictions, ACT, Victoria and NSW meet Target 1.3.1 (see Table 8). Proposed legislation in SA and WA will meet the target. SA has prepared a provisional list of threatened ecological communities. In the remaining jurisdictions, threatened species and/or communities are not comprehensively protected and/or provided with recovery planning but can be afforded protection through the reserves system and environmental impact assessment processes or special provisions. For example, current biodiversity protection legislation in WA (Wildlife Protection Act 1950) does not enable recovery of threatened species or communities but these may be protected under an Environmental Protection Policy (EPP). Examples of EPPs include: • Western Swamp Tortoise habitat. The species is listed under WA, Australian Government and UN CITES. The EPP, gazetted in 2003, provides a program for protection by landowners and government. • Peel Inlet-Harvey Estuary. An EPP applies to the Swan Coastal Plain of the Estuary (1992 but currently under review) to control nutrients from land uses in the catchment. Queensland specifically protects ecosystems <10% (endangered) and <30% (of concern) relative to pre European extent through their clearing controls, but do not provide for listing or recovery planning under biodiversity protection legislation. Victoria, NSW and ACT have legislation in place that enables listing or special management of threatened ecological communities that are at risk (Table 8). WA, SA NT, Tasmania and Queensland do not provide for listing of threatened ecological communities under their existing legislation (WA and SA have proposed legislation that will enable these listings at State level).

53 Target 1.3.2 By 2004 recovery plans are in place for all nationally listed critically endangered and endangered species and ecological communities No jurisdiction completely meets this target, including the Australian Government. However, various programs are being implemented in the jurisdictions to recover endangered species. Progress towards the specific Target 1.3.2 is outlined for each jurisdiction below: • Australian Government: At March 2004, 220 nationally listed species (14% of those listed) and 13 ecological communities (45% of those listed) were covered by recovery plans (13% of all listed). Recovery plans are in preparation for a further 450 plus species and communities. • Roughly 88% of critically endangered marine or terrestrial species and communities are covered by recovery plans that are in place or in preparation • 63% of marine or terrestrial species and communities in the endangered category are covered by recovery plans that are in place or in preparation • 44% of vulnerable marine or terrestrial species are covered by recovery plans that are in place or are in preparation • NSW: A number of areas and species listed under the EPBC Act are relevant to NSW. Roughly 412 nationally listed species occur in NSW (some only part of their range). Of these 46 have adopted recovery plans. A further 115 recovery plans are in preparation. Of the nationally listed ecological communities, 8 occur in NSW and recovery plans are in preparation for all of these (none yet adopted).57 • SA: 185 species are nationally listed in SA. Three ecological communities are listed and 3 more are under consideration. Of those listed, 21 species have formal recovery plans approved, most of which are being implemented to some degree.58 A further 112 species have recovery plans in preparation and 64 species have no formal recovery plans but are subject to a range of recovery actions including research and monitoring or on-ground actions such as habitat protection. • Tasmania: Recovery plans were prepared for 34% (73/109) of the 109 Tasmanian species listed nationally (2001). • Queensland: Nationally listed species and communities relevant to Queensland include: 120 species and seven communities. Of these, 27 spp are managed under Recovery Plans as required by the EPBC Act (1999). A further one spp plan is in draft form and 13 spp plans are in preparation. Of the seven listed communities, three plans are endorsed, one is draft and three are in preparation. • Victoria: For nationally listed species and communities relevant to Victoria, 20 Recovery Plans as required by the EPBC Act (1999) are in place, several covering more than one species. • WA: For nationally listed species and communities relevant to Western Australia, 59 Recovery Plans as required by the EPBC Act (1999) are in place, with several covering more than one species. A summary of progress towards recovery planning for State listings is provided below:

• SA: In South Australia 1041 of the approximately 4350 species recorded in the State (or 24%) are listed as threatened at the State level: 785 plants, 88 mammals, 127 birds, 39 reptiles and 2 amphibians • NSW: For the NSW listings under State legislation, there are 52 plans covering 67 threatened species, populations and ecological communities. The total number of plans adopted rose significantly from nine in June 2002 to 52 in September 200359. As at June 2003, an additional 24 draft plans were placed on exhibition and a further 22 plans are complete and awaiting exhibition. Another 150 plans were in various stages of preparation. Overall, approximately 335 threatened species, populations and ecological communities had some form of recovery planning in action at that date.

57 DEH data February 2004 58 SoE report 2003, p. 50. 59 NPWS (2003) Annual Report. Dept Environment and Conservation. NSW

54 • Queensland: There are 11 birds, 12 mammals, 14 frogs, 4 reptiles seven butterflies and three fish and 81 plants are listed as endangered in Queensland (Dec 2003). At March 2004, there were 261 species listed as endangered. The Herbarium furthermore lists 1104 species, subspecies and varieties of plants as rare (651), vulnerable (276), endangered (151) and presumed extinct (26) under the 2000 schedule of the Nature Conservation Act (1992). Recovery planning is not specifically required under the Nature Conservation Act (1992) and would normally only be in place if the species was also listed nationally under the EPBC Act (1999). Although • Victoria: Threatened species and ecological communities can be listed in Victoria under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988). As at March 2004, 465 taxa, 35 communities and 32 threatening processes were listed. The Victorian Act requires that listed items are covered by an Action Statement. At March 2004, there were 197 Action Statements published under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988) for a proportion of the 532 items listed. Some of the Action Statements cover more than one taxon. • WA: WA as at April 2003 had 187 animal species listed as rare; 30 species presumed extinct and 11 species otherwise specifically protected. As at April 2003, WA had 351 listed flora taxa listed as rare or likely to become extinct and 15 flora taxa presumed extinct. The 1950 Act is recognised as outdated and WA is in the process of consulting to update their range of biodiversity protection policies and legislation. New proposed legislation (the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Act) will bring the State into line with the Australian Government EPBC Act (1999) and will provide more comprehensive protection for threatened species and communities; it will enable recovery planning and will provide for listing and management of key threatening processes. • Tasmania: Between 1996–01, recovery plans were prepared for 12% (71/601) of the 601 species (excluding extinct species) listed on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act (1995).60 No ecological communities were listed. The RFA lists 18 of the 50 mapped forest communities as being threatened and . A further 41 of the 120 non-forest ecological communities are also recognised as threatened in Tasmania (but there is no statutory basis for listing these communities).

Target 1.3.3 By 2005, have incorporated the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities into integrated catchment/regional management plans Under the bilateral agreements with the states and territories for implementation of the NAP, regional NRM plans are required to address nationally threatened species and key threatening processes. All states and territories have signed the bilateral agreements. These apply to 21 target catchments. Other regional NRM plans must comply with accreditation criteria that address biodiversity outcomes, to be eligible for Australian Government funding through NHT2 programs. The negotiations for NAP and NHT2 resulted in several important commitments in relation to threatened ecological communities and species (see detailed jurisdiction reports). For example, the NT, Tasmania and WA undertake to introduce regulatory measures that will enable listing and prevent clearing in threatened ecological communities. NSW commits to preventing clearing in ecological communities with an extent <30% of pre 1750 (however, recent reforms to clearing controls are not specifically related to pre 1750 but to age of regrowth). Regional NRM planning for accreditation through NHT2 is in progress. It is too early to assess the extent to which recovery of threatened species and ecological communities has been incorporated into the management plans generally. A study of integration of biodiversity objectives in NRM regional planning supported by LWA in 2003 found that the accreditation criteria relating to biodiversity do not necessarily reflect regional priorities and that integration of biodiversity objectives in regional plans is dependent on a number of

60 In Tasmania there is a process for Recovery Plans but they are not a requirement under the Tasmanian legislation. Section 25 of the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 states that the Director with the Minister's approval may make a Recovery Plan for any listed taxon of flora or fauna. Recovery Plans are more likely to be funded if species or ecological communities are listed in Commonwealth legislation.

55 critical success factors61. The study identifies a set of principles for integration of biodiversity in regional planning including sound information base, good levels of support and effective partnerships with funding programs

Recovery of threatened species and ecological communities in SA Specific programs include the Kangaroo Island Pest Plant and Pathogen Program, the West Coast Integrated Pest Program and Bridal Creeper Control Programs, Operation Bounceback in the Flinders Ranges, habitat restoration initiatives in the Gawler Ranges National Park and the Fleurieu Asparagus Weed Management Strategy in the Greater Mount Lofty Ranges. These programs focus on the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities and the rehabilitation of significant areas of native vegetation. Further progress in this direction is being made through a whole-of-Government commitment to the development of Natural Resource Management legislation, which will see the regional integration of the roles of the Animal and Plant Control Commission and Boards, the Catchment Water Management Authorities and Soil Conservation Boards.

In reality, current mechanisms for management of threatened species and ecological communities are limited: • Acquisition into the reserves and protected areas system • Conservation covenants on private land or other cooperative cost sharing arrangements for conservation on private and leasehold land, including through private foundations • Regional integrated NRM frameworks drawing on the range of NHT programs Effective management will be dependent on: • Adequately funded protected areas management agencies in all jurisdictions • Landholders and community groups supported through NHT and other funding programs

61 Read, Viv (2003) Biodiversity Conservation in Regional NRM Planning. LWA Project VRA1. C of A.

56 Key action 2: Protect and restore freshwater ecosystems

Objective 2.1 Achieve ecologically sustainable management of Australia’s water resources and water-dependent ecosystems

Target 2.1.1 By 2001: all jurisdictions have, in accordance with the CoAG Water Reform Framework, completed implementation of environmental allocation for all river systems which have been over allocated or are deemed to be stressed The 1994 CoAG Water Reform Framework includes provisions for water entitlements and trading, institutional reform, public consultation and education, water pricing and research. Critical environmental water issues targeted in the Water Reform Framework include: • allocation of water for the environment; • ecological sustainability of new developments; • institutional reform; • the incorporation of environmental costs in water pricing; • ecologically sustainable water trading; • protection of groundwater; and • implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy. In 1995, the CoAG Water Reform Framework was tied to the National Competition Policy Agreement. Under this Agreement implementation and continued observance of the CoAG water reforms, along with similar reforms in the transport, gas, and electricity sectors, is required for states and territories to receive their share of the Competition Payments. A separate body, the National Competition Council (NCC), is responsible for assessing the progress of jurisdictions in implementing reforms. The NCC undertakes regular assessments of the progress of states and territories in implementing the 1994 CoAG reforms. The last assessment was conducted in 200362. The framework for the 2004 assessment was recently released for submissions. During 2003, CoAG developed further options to progress the national water policy agenda. These options formed the basis of a proposal to develop a National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWI will address establishment of a nationally compatible system of water access entitlements, efficient water markets, institutional arrangements for the recovery and management of water for the environment, improved accounting and best practice water pricing, and urban water issues. The NWI will be detailed in an inter-governmental agreement on water to be considered by CoAG at its first meeting in 2004. All jurisdictions are undertaking water reform including legislative changes to enable environmental flows, to provide for water management planning, and to secure allocations for environmental flows. No jurisdiction has completed their proposed water resources planning or finalised environmental flow allocations for all stressed and over allocated rivers (except ACT and NT, which do not have over allocated rivers). The 2002 NCC review of progress towards CoAG targets found significant progress in several jurisdictions, particularly in relation to legislative reform that, apart form other

62 National Competition Council (2003) Assessment of governments’ progress in implementing the National Competition Policy and related reforms: Volume three – Water reform, AusInfo, Canberra.

57 matters, provides for environmental flow allocations and sets up a framework for water resources management.63 The review found that the jurisdictions were unlikely to meet CoAG targets for completing water management planning and flow allocations (2005). Jurisdictions with significant stressed or over allocated river systems, in particular, are struggling to allocate environmental flows that are sufficient to substantially improve river health. The ACT and NT do not believe that they have stressed or over allocated systems. ACT nonetheless has implemented an environmental flow regime. All rivers have been assessed and environmental flows are allocated. Environmental flows, having been set, take precedence over extractive demands under the Water Resources Act (1998). The NT Water Act (1992) provides for water management planning as part of integrated regional NRM management. Water management plans are prepared for priority districts. Plans for four of six declared districts is in progress. The Queensland government is concerned about only one river system, which it considers to be potentially stressed (Condamine Balonne). An independent review of the system (lower Balonne) conducted in 2003 found that the system could not be classified as ecologically stressed but was in danger of becoming stressed if current trends continue.64 A moratorium on further water resource development was put in place on the system in 2000 to enable planning to proceed. Queensland’s legislation (Water Act 2000) reformed water management and enables environmental flows to be allocated through water resource plans (implemented through Resource Operation Plans) for the major river systems. Plans have been finalised for some systems and are in progress for others. A significant proportion of river systems in NSW and Victoria are deemed stressed. All of the major regulated systems in Victoria are considered to be stressed and have inadequate environmental flows. Bulk entitlement conversion in Victoria (completed for 85% of water resources) resulted in 82% of affected rivers receiving environmental flows but these were generally minor. Stressed river reports have been prepared for some of the stressed rivers and in 2004, Victoria is to release a White Paper for Water Management to address flow allocation and stressed rivers. NSW is progressing with water management planning under the Water Management Act (2000), guided by a State Water Outcomes Management Plan (2002). Allocations for all major regulated rivers have been determined and these generally aim to reduce the historic usage. However, conversion of licenses and further progress in environmental flow allocation was delayed following the announcement of the proposed 2004 NWI (discussed and agreed by all jurisdictions except WA at CoAG meeting 2004). The drought is likely to have a negative impact on the efforts to deliver environmental flow allocations and meet other obligations under the water management plans being developed in NSW. Tasmania has 22 stressed rivers. All entitlements have been converted to licenses and water management planning is in progress but not very advanced. SA is preparing water allocation plans under the Water Resources Act (1997). The Act and the statutory plans under it, the State Water Plan 2000, Catchment Water Management Plans and Water Allocation Plans provide a coordinated approach for managing both surface and groundwater extraction and environmental water provisions for wetlands and rivers. SA’s River Murray Act (2003) includes a range of objectives for a healthy River Murray. A River Murray Improvement Program (funded through a River Murray Trust) developed under the Act and working in association with the Murray Darling Basin

63 National Competition Council (2003) Assessment of governments’ progress in implementing the National Competition Policy and related reforms: Volume three – Water reform, AusInfo, Canberra. 64 Cullen, P et al (2003) Review of Science Underpinning the Assessment of the Ecological Condition of the Lower Balonne System. Report to the Queensland Government. Independent Scientific Review Panel.

58 Commission’s Living Murray initiative aims to improve environmental flows in the Murray system. The WA Rights in Water and Irrigation Act (1914) provides for volumetric licensing of users in proclaimed areas. Areas where water allocation <30% of estimated sustainable yield are generally not proclaimed. Almost all groundwater and some surface water areas have been proclaimed. WA obtains the majority of its water supply from groundwater sources and no surface water systems are considered to be over allocated or stressed. Only around 10%of assessed rivers have high to moderate levels of allocation. However, the Avon is the subject of recovery planning and the Ord River will experience decreased flows as demand for irrigation is met. Water management planning to provide for environmental flow allocations is in progress, In May 2004, the Australian Government launched the Water for a Healthy Country Flagship; an integrated water research and development program that will draw on the research skills of CSIRO and Cooperative Research Centres to explore solutions and strategies for more efficient and sustainable water management.

• the majority of waterways substantially conform to the relevant standards in the guidelines o the National Water Quality Management Strategy, including those for chemical composition, turbidity and temperature In 1994 the NWQMS was included in CoAG Water Reform Framework. Guidelines for water quality and monitoring are available.65 The jurisdictions are progressively implementing the NWQMS but the majority of waterways would not as yet substantially conform to the standards and guidelines. Common measures being implemented to meet NWQMS standards include: • Programs to set river water quality objectives and environmental values based on NWQMS; • Measures to improve water quality monitoring; • Incorporation of NWQMS standards and targets in State and regional strategies (the Queensland South East Regional Strategy; Victoria’s River Health Strategy; NSW State Water Management Outcomes Plan; SA’s River Murray Act 2003 objectives; Tasmania’s Water Quality Monitoring Strategy; WA’s proposed water quality guidelines); • Introduction of drinking water standards. The NAP is expected to result in an improvement in salt levels in target catchments. SA’s River Murray Act (2003) includes a range of objectives for a healthy River Murray that are consistent with the NWQMS. A River Murray Improvement Program developed under the Act and working in association with the Murray Darling Basin Commission’s Living Murray initiative aims to improve water quality. Water quality is generally good in some jurisdictions (NT, ACT and Queensland), although a paucity of monitoring sites generally, especially for certain parameters (temperature, nutrients, pesticides), significantly limits a comprehensive assessment of quality. Problems with data coverage and consistency mean that assessments tend to produce disparate results. A NLRWA assessment of river health (2001) found that in NSW 97% of river length is degraded (68% moderately; 30% substantially).66 Only 3% of river length was found to have water quality that was assessed as in reference condition. 84% had elevated levels and

65 ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Marine and Freshwater Quality ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting 66 NLWRA (2001) Australian Natural Resources Atlas: Rivers Nutrient Loads and Transport (from Australian Agriculture Assessment report 2001) C of A

59 suspended solids and 95% had elevated levels of total P. The Audit assessment was more stringent than many others. Water quality in several NSW rivers is known to be poor. Blue green algal blooms are persistent in the Hawkesbury Napean, in several urban lakes and in many dams67. Nutrient levels are high enough to support blue green blooms in all NSW rivers of the Murray Darling and in some coastal rivers in central and northern NSW. NSW is progressively implementing measures to meet NWQMS standards (see Box). A recent assessment in Victoria (2002) found that strong trends were only apparent for pH (up) and EC (up in the north and north west).68 Trends for other parameters were not apparent (sites were probably too sparse). An assessment in WA (2003) found that water quality objectives were in place in 63% of rivers, estuaries and wetlands and achievement of the objectives was assessed at 64%.

NSW Progress towards the NWQMS The 2003 National Competition Council assessment of NSW progress in implementing the NWQMS found that progress was satisfactory with significant developments since 2001 including69: • the Healthy Rivers Commission’s development of long-term environmental objectives for a number of river systems, drawing on the NWQMS guidelines; • the release of an Environment Protection Authority consultation paper on marine water quality objectives, drawing on the NWQMS guidelines; • the establishment of the State Water Management Outcomes Plan to set overarching policy contexts, targets and strategic outcomes for water resources, with regard to the NWQMS requirements; • the incorporation of water quality initiatives in water sharing plans; • the release of an interim approach to reviewing, coordinating and streamlining water monitoring arrangements; • the development of new water quality benchmarks in accord with the NWQMS methods; • ongoing work on market-based measures to improve water quality; and • the extended funding of stormwater management programs.

• water resource management plans which include flow allocations for the environment and address in-stream barriers to movement of fauna are in place in the majority of catchments Water resource management plans are not yet in place for the majority of catchments. Progress in water management planning has been slower than anticipated in several jurisdictions but most are in the process of developing plans for priority (stressed and over allocated or at risk) catchments. A brief summary is provided below: • Victoria: bulk license agreement and Stream Flow Management Plans are complete for the major regulated rivers and some unregulated rivers. However, environmental flow allocations are not yet complete for most rivers.

67 Ball, J (2001) Inland Waters Theme Report; Australian State of Environment Report 2001, CSIRO for DEH. C of A 68 Sinclair Knight Merz (2002) Victoria’s Water Quality Monitoring Network: Trends Analysis. Prepared for DNRE. Govt of Victoria 69 National Competition Council (2003) Assessment of governments’ progress in implementing the National Competition Policy and related reforms: Volume three – Water reform, AusInfo, Canberra

60 • NSW: 35 of the 36 water management plans are approved and gazetted. They come into effect on 1 July 2004. • Queensland: At 2003, plans are in progress for 92% of rivers and are finalised for 25% or these. All are due to be finalised by 2008. • WA: at 2003, 51% of licenses are covered by management plans and 13.8% of groundwater management areas had allocations in excess of objectives. • ACT: Water management plans are in place for all catchments. A draft Water Resources Strategy will update the plans in line with CoAG. • Tasmania: One water management plan is complete. Progress is limited. • NT: Water Resource Plans for four of six priority declared districts are in progress.

The MDBC is implementing two initiatives that are particularly relevant to in stream barriers. Both are primarily focussed on the Murray River and the southern tributaries: • Living Murray • Native Fish Strategy

There are several specific examples of plans that address in-stream barriers to movement of fauna in the jurisdictions. These are generally confined to the major regulated river systems and are not necessarily covered in water resource management plans. Examples from NSW and SA are provided in the Box below.

NSW initiatives to remove in stream barriers The NSW Weirs Policy 1997 aims to reduce the impact of weirs on fauna. Targets relating to the policy are included in the Water Management Outcomes Plan (eg a cap on existing structures). However, Water Sharing Plans do not deal specifically with in stream structures. NSW Fisheries have undertaken a number of projects to improve the environmental performance of weirs (eg the Balranald Innovative Fish Lock Project). They have also negotiated with State Water under the provisions of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 to install a number of fish-ways, and have carried out several small weir removals. Catchment Blueprints developed by the NSW CMAs include targets relating to river structures, but these are generally not comprehensive in relation to biodiversity, or given high priority.

MDBC and SA initiatives to remove in stream barriers In recognition of the significant problems faced by the River Murray, the River Murray Act 2003 was proclaimed in July 2003. It is recognised that the River Murray barrages and the lock and weir structures present a barrier to the movement of fish up and down the river. Fish movement has been recognised in the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s (MDBC) Native Fish Strategy (MDBC, 2002) as one of the key components to a sustainable native fish population. South Australia is a partner in the $25 million MDBC project to provide fish passage from the sea to Hume Dam. In October 2002 a sand-pumping project began at the Murray Mouth to protect the Mouth from closing and to maintain fish passage and tidal variation within the Coorong. A model of the Murray Mouth has been developed to aid in the prediction of the effect of barrage water releases on the shape and form of the Murray Mouth. A Murray Mouth intervention system is being developed to alert managers to when future sand pumping should occur. A lake operating strategy is also to be developed to achieve ecological benefit through increasing estuarine conditions in the Coorong.

61 Target 2.1.2 By 2005: water resource management plans which include and emphasise ecologically sustainable use of groundwater resources are in place in relevant catchments As for surface water, water management planning for ground water in relevant catchments is not complete. Several jurisdictions consider groundwater together with surface water in their water resource management plans (Victoria, NSW, Queensland (the Resource Management Plans covering surface water in Queensland are to be amended to include groundwater), NT and ACT). These plans are in progress- see previous section. In Victoria, groundwater is assessed relative to sustainable yield. Reserves that are >70% allocated are declared groundwater protection areas. Groundwater management plans are to be prepared for these areas. At 2003, there were 18 declared areas and seven management plans were approved. WA is seeking to increase supply from groundwater resources and several areas are under pressure. Highly allocated areas are proclaimed (most accessible systems in WA are proclaimed). Allocation limits have been set for all proclaimed groundwater areas. Management plans are in progress for all proclaimed areas; at 2003, one was complete. In NSW demand for groundwater increased sharply post 1996 when the MDB cap came into effect. Many accessible systems are fully developed. The Water Sharing Plans include groundwater allocations (2003: 35/36 complete). A structural adjustment program is being implemented in the Namoi (2002) to assist producers to reduce groundwater use under the relevant Water Sharing Plan ($20 million). The NT, Tasmania and ACT assess groundwater use to be low. In Tasmania, there is no formal assessment or formal allocation for groundwater. In NT and ACT, groundwater is assessed in the water management planning process along with surface water.

62 Objective 2.2 manage threats, prevent degradation and maintain the ecological character of Australia’s nationally and internationally significant wetland dependent and water dependent ecosystems

Target 2.2.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have identified wetlands of national and international significance All jurisdictions contribute to the Directory of National Wetlands. Most have inventories of wetlands that are progressively increasing in coverage. All have identified wetlands of international and national significance. More wetlands are likely to be nominated as the inventories progress. Internationally listed wetlands are afforded greater protection than State and Territory listed wetlands (which are given no specific protection unless in reserves or listed under biodiversity protection legislation). A summary is provided below.

• Australian Government: DEH maintains a directory of nationally and internationally important wetlands. Identification is an ongoing process. It is not a comprehensive inventory of wetlands.70 Between 1996 (2nd edition) and 2001 (3rd edition), 154 additional wetland sites were added to the inventory including 20 Australian Government sites. There are 64 Ramsar sites in total. 71 • Tasmania: The Tasmanian Wetland Inventory lists are at least 800 sites (about one quarter of the estimated number in Tasmania.Around half the State's land area is yet to be investigated for wetlands. Tasmania has 89 wetlands listed in the national directory.72 There are 10 Ramsar sites in Tasmania, namely Jocks Lagoon; Interlaken (Lake Crescent); Little Waterhouse Lake; Moulting Lagoon; Logan Lagoon; Lavinia; Pitt Water-Orielton Lagoon; Apsley Marshes; East Coast Cape Barren Island Lagoons; Flood Plain Lower Ringarooma River (Boullanger Bay and Robbins Passage has been nominated). • NSW: In 2003, NPWS produced a comprehensive map of wetlands in NSW, based on satellite imagery.73 There are 20,000 wetlands in the NSW covering 4.5 million ha or 6% of the State. A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia lists nationally important wetlands in Australia. The 3rd Edition (2001) Directory describes 178 nationally important wetlands in New South Wales.. The total number of Ramsar sites in NSW is 1074. Ramsar sites in NSW total 34,675ha. They include seven sites wholly inside the reserve system and 3 sites outside the reserve system. • 7 sites which are located wholly within NPWS-managed areas • the Macquarie Marshes Ramsar site, which covers Macquarie Marshes Nature Reserve and some private land • the Hunter Estuary Wetlands, which covers Kooragang Nature Reserve and community- owned land • Fivebough and Tuckerbil swamps, • parts of several private properties in the Gwydir wetlands were listed since 2003

• Victoria: has a state wide inventory of wetlands. The inventory lists approximately 13 114 naturally occurring wetlands (over one hectare in size). There are 11 Ramsar sites listed in Victoria. DSE maintains mapping at 1:100,000 of all Ramsar listed wetlands in the State. • SA Inventories document the conservation value of wetlands within 4 regions of South Australia - Eyre Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Northern Agricultural Districts and the Mount Lofty Ranges. However, there is still no comprehensive, scientifically based information on the condition or extent of wetlands across the State There are 5 Ramsar sites in SA, namely; The Coorong, and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Wetland, Bool and Hacks Lagoons, Coongie Lakes, “Riverland", Banrock Station Wetland Complex

70 Environment Australia (2001) A Directory of Important Wetlands In Australia Third Edition. C of A 71 Atkinson, J. (1991). An Inventory System for Tasmanian Wetlands. Project Report, Department of Parks, Wildlife Heritage, Tasmania. 72 A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia Third Edition Environment Australia, 2001 73 Kingsford, R.F. et al (2003) The Distribution of Wetlands in NSW. NPWS, MDBC, NHT 74 Environment Australia (2003) Fact Sheet. Ramsar Wetland Sites. C of A

63 • Queensland: Wetlands are mapped through the Queensland Wetland Inventory, which is ongoing and is now focussing on South East Queensland, the Brigalow Belt, Desert Uplands and Einasleigh Uplands. A total of 181 wetlands are listed as nationally or internationally (Ramsar) significant. There are six Ramsar sites in Queensland (Bowling Green Bay; Currawinya Lakes; Moreton Bay, Shoalwater Bay and Corio Bay. • NT: The Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (3rd edn) describes 33 nationally important wetlands in the Northern Territory. There are three Ramsar sites: Cobourg Peninsula Aboriginal Land and Wildlife; Kakadu National Park (Stage 1); Kakadu National Park (Stage II

Target 2.2.2 By 2003, Management plans for 85% of internationally significant wetlands listed under the Convention of Wetlands are prepared and implemented consistent with the Australian Ramsar Management Principles (regulation 10.02 – Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (2000) Statutory protection for Ramsar wetlands and habitat of listed migratory waterbirds is provided under the Australian Government's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) along with revised standards for managing Ramsar wetlands (Australian Ramsar Management Principles). Under the EPBC Act (1999), management plans for Ramsar wetlands must be consistent with Australia's obligations under the Ramsar Convention and with the Australian Ramsar Management Principles. Plans produced after the Act was enacted are likely to be consistent. The plans are reviewed every seven years at least (under the Act) and are likely to be referred to DEH at this stage to check that they are consistent with the Act. Of the 64 Ramsar sites, 55 have management plans in place or in preparation (86%). The target is largely met. Of the jurisdictions, SA (5); NT (3); NSW (10); Victoria (11); ACT (1) have management plans in place for all their Ramsar wetlands. Queensland (4/6); WA (6/12) and Tasmania (5/10) are still in progress.

Target 2.2.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions have effective legislation and management plans in place to protect wetlands of national significance This target is not met. Wetlands listed under State and Territory legislation are not specifically protected. Management plans are not specifically required. Several jurisdictions have wetlands strategies (eg NSW Wetlands Action Plan (2002); Queensland Strategy for Management of Queensland’s Wetlands (1999), Tasmania’s Draft Wetlands Strategy; ACT Draft Wetlands Policy). The State and Territory strategies drawn on various initiatives, such as NHT2 programs, to target protection of these areas. In all jurisdictions, nationally listed wetlands can be protected through: • The reserves system. Many nationally listed wetlands are in formal reserves; • Aquatic reserves (potentially) gazetted under fisheries laws – none to date in freshwater ecosystems. • Biodiversity protection legislation if they are listed as threatened communities or critical habitat; • Special environment protection provisions such as the NSW SEPP and WA EPPs. • Environmental impact assessment processes; • Regional NRM plans • Conservation covenants on private land. • Indigenous Protected Areas and other Indigenous Land Use Agreements.

64 Objective 2.3 Protect significant habitat for migratory waterbirds

Target 2.3.1 By 2001, all jurisdictions have identified important areas of habitat for migratory waterbirds Important habitat for migratory birds is included in the criteria for nominating wetlands for national and international listing but there is no comprehensive national inventory of migratory bird habitat. This target is not met. All jurisdictions record wetlands that provide important habitat for migratory birds but these inventories are not comprehensive. Habitat for migratory birds is a criterion for nomination of wetlands of national and international significance. Strategies for conservation of wetlands generally consider habitat for migratory birds. For example, the NT Strategy for Conservation of Wetlands addresses migratory species as elements in protection measures. The inventory for Tasmania includes more than 25 species listed in JAMBA. Twenty-eight of the 89 listed wetlands are host to species on JAMBA or CAMBA. In Victoria, a survey of Victorian wetlands was conducted in 1993 for the National Plan for shorebirds. The survey identified wetlands that were important for migratory birds and rated wetlands against conditions for migratory birds. Seven of the 30 most important wetland sites for migratory waders are in wetlands included in the inventory. An update to the 1993 survey was conducted in Jan-Feb 2001- the Victorian Wader Survey. This also identified the status of many Victorian wetlands for migratory birds The ACT reports that most habitats that support migratory birds are included in the wetlands inventory. On an international level, Australia is a signatory to the Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (JAMBA) and the China-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement (CAMBA) which call for the protection of species listed in the Agreements and their habitats. These bilateral agreements, which are administered in partnership between the States and Territories and the Australian Government, call for the protection of the habitats of the migratory bird species listed in the agreements. Australia is also actively pursuing a similar agreement with the Republic of Korea Australia is also pursuing a World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Type II Partnership on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Sites of International Importance to Migratory Waterbirds in East-Asia, South East Asia and Australasia. Australia supports the Action Plan for the Conservation of Migratory Shorebirds in the East Asian- Australasian Flyway (2001-2005). The Action Plan provides for conservation of habitat. Australia is a signatory to the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). The Convention lists endangered migratory species and provides for development of multilateral agreements dor their conservation and management. Australia is a party to the Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Strategy (Kushiro, Japan 1994). The Strategy is a multilateral agreement including objectives for habitat management, information exchange and networking. The second phase (2001-2005) is currently being implemented.

Target 2.3.2 By 2003, all jurisdictions has programs in place, both on and of reserve, to protect significant habitats for migratory waterbirds Internationally listed wetlands are afforded specific protection (Ramsar) but State and Territory listed wetlands are not specifically protected in all jurisdictions.

65 Statutory protection for Ramsar wetlands and habitat of listed migratory waterbirds is provided under the Australian Government's EPBC Act (1999) along with revised standards for managing Ramsar wetlands (Australian Ramsar Management Principles). Migratory habitat that is not listed as a Ramsar site is not specifically protected. However, migratory bird habitat may be listed and protected under biodiversity protection legislation in the jurisdictions, either through the protected areas system or as critical habitat or threatened ecosystems. In these situations, some jurisdictions but not all, provide specific protection through management plans. Important habitat can also be reserved on private land through conservation covenants or informal agreements. Migratory bird habitat may also be afforded some protection, if identified, through regional NRM management initiatives. Protection of biodiversity in important wetlands is included in criteria for accreditation of the plans under the NAP and NHT2 agreements. Additional protection is available for identified sites through environmental impact assessment processes and specific environment protection measures (eg NSW SEPP and WA EPP).

66 Key action 4: Control invasive species

Objective 4.1 Prevent or control the introduction and spread of feral animal and weed species

Target 4.1.1 By 2001 The import of all new live organisms is subject to a risk based assessment process that identifies the conditions necessary to minimise threats to the environment Full risk assessment is only applied to organisms that are not on a permitted list. The Australian Government is responsible for regulating import and export of animal and plant material. Imports and exports of live material are controlled under the Quarantine Act (1908) and the EPBC Act (1999). Both the Quarantine Act (1908) and the EPBC Act (1999) require that live specimens be assessed for their potential impacts, if they are not on a permitted list. DEH and DAFF have developed an integrated process for the assessment of specimens. The agreement of both Departments is required before a live specimen can be imported A process for assessing risk is in place for species not included on a permitted list. Biosecurity Australia (in DAFF) carries out import risk analyses (IRAs) and assessment of quarantine risks eg- Weeds Risk Assessment under the Quarantine Act 1908. The Vertebrate Pests Committee is conducting risk assessments on non-native birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The EPBC Act (1999) establishes a list of specimens suitable for live import (the live import list) and prohibits the import of any species not on this list. The legislation provides for the possibility of a live import being permitted under exceptional circumstances where the Minister is satisfied there is no risk to the environment. The live import list is divided into two parts – Part 1 is a list of specimens that may be imported without a permit and Part 2 is a list of specimens that may only be imported with a permit, often with conditions attached. It is an offence to import a specimen that does not appear on the list, or a specimen on Part 2 without a permit. An applicant wishing to add a species to this live import list must prepare an assessment report examining the potential impacts on the environment of the proposed import. The draft terms of reference for the report and the draft report are published on DEH’s website for public comment. An email to registered stakeholders is sent out inviting comment on both documents, and a letter is sent to the appropriate State, Territory and Australian government Ministers requesting comment on the draft report. A species will be added to the live import list only when the Minister is satisfied that it will not impact on the Australian environment. The current permitted seeds list under Schedule 5 of Quarantine Proclamation, 1998 remains grossly deficient. It currently includes a major loophole that permits the legal importation of over 125,000 plant species, of which over 4,000 are known weeds not yet present in Australia, with no Weed Risk Assessment. The source of this deficiency is the inclusion of 2,916 genera on the permitted seeds list, which needs to be reviewed and replaced with a comprehensive list of permitted species.75

75 Spafford Jacob, H., Randall, R., and Lloyd, S. 2004. Front Door Wide Open to Weeds: an examination of the weed species permitted for import without risk assessment. Report prepared by the University of Western Australia and the CRC for Australian Weed Management. WWF Australia, Sydney

67 Target 4.1.2 By 2001, no new non-native species are deliberately introduced into Australia unless assessed as being of low risk to the environment. The Australian Government system for assessing risk to new non-native species is based on a permitted system. The current system does not completely guarantee that all species permitted for import are low risk to the environment (see comments in previous target). Species on a permitted list may be imported without risk assessment. There is concern that the permitted live import lists under the EPBC Act (1999) and the Quarantine Act (1908) are too lenient and include whole genera that could include species of potential threat to biodiversity in Australia, or at least that those threats are unassessed. The trade amendments to the EPBC Act have been in place since January 2002. To date, the Department has received 123 applications to amend the live import list since commencement. Based on an impact assessment report, the application process has been completed for 12 applications. As a result there has been 12 species added to the live import list since commencement. Currently there are 62 applications in progress. During 2002-2003 Biosecurity Australia (part of DAFF), using the weed risk assessment process, refused entry for 320 plant species. The weed risk assessment process showed that these species had a high potential to become a weed of agriculture and/or the environment if they were to be imported into Australia. Data on the number of high risk invasive plant species imported through the genera loophole in the Schedule 5 permitted seeds list in the same period is not publicly available. There is evidence of recent, deliberate and legal importation of new high risk non-native species into Australia, eg. bear-skin fescue (Festuca gautieri), through this loophole.76

Target 4.1.3 By 2003, all naturalised non-native species have been assessed and assigned to broad-based threat categories according to their threat to biodiversity A comprehensive categorisation of the naturalised flora of Australia was complied with NHT funding in 2003.77 The categorisation assigns threat categories according to their impact, weed status, ability to be controlled and their potential for further spread in natural ecosystems. A similar categorisation is available for fauna species.78 This target is met. Under the EPBC Act (1999) nine species have been listed as key threatening processes that threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of native species or ecological communities. Invasive species listed under the Act include the European red fox, feral rabbit, feral goat, feral cat and feral pig. Several disease-causing organisms are also listed, such as Psittacine Circoviral (beak and feather) disease and chytrid fungus infection in amphibians. The Australian, State and Territory governments in 1999 agreed a list of Weeds of National Significance (WONS). The list identifies 20 weeds from some 2,700 non-native naturalised plants. WONS were identified through a weed risk assessment process by analysing each weed's invasiveness, economic, environmental and social impacts, current distribution, potential for spread and effect in reducing the growth of desirable plants.

76 Spafford Jacob, H., Randall, R., and Lloyd, S. 2004. Front Door Wide Open to Weeds: an examination of the weed species permitted for import without risk assessment. Report prepared by the University of Western Australia and the CRC for Australian Weed Management. WWF Australia, Sydney 77 Groves, R.H. et al (2003) Weed Categories for Natural and Agricultural Ecosystems Management. DAFF & DEH. Australian Government 78 Bureau of Resource Sciences, DAFF. Australian Government

68 During 2000, DEH worked with consultants and technical experts to identify species to include on the DEH National Environmental Alert List. The alert list identifies weed species that are in the early stages of establishment and have the potential to become a significant problem if they are not managed. This list contains 28 non-native species that are, or are likely to be, significant threats to biodiversity. There are two lists of nationally important weed species: • weeds already causing significant environmental damage are on the WONS list (such as alligator weed and bitou bush); and • weeds which have the potential to become significant threats to biodiversity if not managed now are on the DEH Alert list of National Environmental Weeds. Target 4.1.4 By 2005 All regional/catchment management plans include actions to address the threat to biodiversity from naturalised non-native species The Framework for the Extension of the NHT (2002) includes priorities to prevent or control the introduction and spread of feral animals, terrestrial pests, weeds and other biological threats to biodiversity. Regional plans and investment strategies are being currently being developed through the second phase of the NHT to achieve nationally agreed priorities. It is too early to assess the extent to which all regional catchment plans include actions to address threats to biodiversity from naturalised non-native species. However, the plans will need to address this issue to some extent in order to meet the criteria for investment under NHT2. The jurisdictions are drawing many of the programs that address pest and weed management more closely into their integrated regional NRM frameworks and are specifically linking State strategies and programs for management of pests and weeds with their regional NRM plans. For Example, Queensland recently enacted legislation for pest management that requires state wide strategies to link with regional NRM plans (Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act (2002). This legislation also requires that pest management strategies are developed for all local government areas that are consistent with state objectives and link with regional NRM plans. In WA, proposed new natural resources legislation will integrate at regional level the roles of the Animal and Plant Control Commission and Boards (responsible for overseeing pest management) with the catchment management authorities and soil conservation boards. Programs carried out under the integrated regional NRM frameworks are likely to complement pest and weed management: • Bioregional surveys and regional vegetation mapping will better identify and target programs to manage pests and weeds • Regional and property vegetation management plans (in progress in several jurisdictions) will include actions to address pest and weed problems. • Programs for conservation of native vegetation on private land (eg conservation covenants, Bushcare and Land For Wildlife) include incentives for management of pests and weeds in the areas covered. • Community based programs to be coordinated through the regional NRM frameworks, including Landcare, Coastcare, Rivercare and Dunecare, make a contribution to local control of weeds and pests. Several of the jurisdictions have upgraded their pest and weeds legislation to recognise and control environmental pests and weeds (eg Queensland: Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act (2002); Tasmania: Weed Management Act (1999)). The key challenges to management of invasive species and reduction of threats to biodiversity include:

69 • Coordination of programs across tenures • Coordination with neighbouring states and territories • Establishment of early warning systems (eg such as the Weed Alert early warning tool in the NSW Royal Botanic Gardens) • Establishment of threat categories and strategic programs to address priority threats in priority areas • Integration of various control measures • National control of the commercial availability of weeds of national importance (in nurseries) • Raising the profile of biodiversity in management of invasive species and threats in regional NRM • Participation in a comprehensive national approach to prevention and control of marine pests and diseases.

Managing Invasive Species in NSW Invasive species programs in NSW are administered by NPWS and NSW Agriculture. NPWS tends to focus on reducing theats to biodiversity in parks and reserves (eg bitou bush in coastal ecosystems; salvinia in aquatic systems), while NSW Agriculture focuses on threats to agricultural production in farm and grazing systems (eg patersons curse, parthenium weed, rabbits, foxes). The distinction between these jurisdictions is not particularly clear as many invasive species threaten biodiversity as well as agricultural production and most species occur across all tenures. As a consequence, NPWS eradication and control programs generally involve attempts to collaborate with neighbouring landholders and NSW Agriculture eradiation and control programs target many of the species that are also threats in parks and reserves. NSW legislation relevant to invasive species includes: • Noxious Weeds Act (1993) • Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) • Rural Lands Protection Act (1998) NSW also contributes to national programs. Several species occurring in NSW are listed as key threatening processes under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). NPWS develops and implements Threat Abatement Plans for these threats (eg predation by foxes; predation by feral cats, competition from the plague minnow). The Plans are designed to: • Be implemented across all tenures • Provide best practice guidelines • Provide monitoring programs NSW is a key partner in the National Bitou Bush and Boneseed Strategic Plan and have to date: • Prepared a state-wide strategy • Established several regional and local task forces • Mapped the extent along the coastline • Identified northern and southern containment lines • Conducted biological control trials. NSW has adopted the National Weeds Strategy (1997) which lists weeds of national significance. However, there are no specific control programs flowing from the strategy. The regional NRM programs will include measures to address invasive species. The draft Catchment Blueprints all to a greater or lesser degree include objectives and actions that

70 target pests and weeds. Primarily, these tackle threats to agricultural production but there are also examples of actions to reduce threats to biodiversity (eg fencing of remnants). The Property Vegetation Plan system will provide a mechanism to focus greater attention on reducing these threats in areas to be conserved and managed as remnants. Aquatic pests and weeds are managed by NSW Fisheries. Marine pests can be declared noxious under the Fisheries Management Act (1994) (eg caulerpa).

Target 4.1.5 By 2005, Programs are in place to manage invasive species that are major threats to biological diversity at sites of national environmental significance. Plans of Management are in place in the national parks managed by the Australian Government and plans are operational or in preparation for 86% of Ramsar sites. The plans address pest and weed management as appropriate to the particular site, but not within an overarching framework. Recovery plans and threat abatement plans for species and communities listed under the EPBC Act (1999) are also required to address threatening processes such as predation and competition from non-native species. At March 2004, 220 nationally listed species (14% of those listed) and 13 ecological communities (45% of those listed) were covered by recovery plans (13% of all listed). Recovery plans are in preparation for a further 450 plus species and communities. A key concern is the funding levels available for the management of serious invasive species at sites of national environmental significance. For example, funding for the management of a WONS, Pond Apple, in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, is considered inadequate. Several jurisdictions list invasive species as threatening processes under their biodiversity protection legislation and implement threat abatement plans. For example, Victoria lists significant invasive species as threatening processes under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1989). Action Statements have been prepared in Victoria for four listed threatening processes involving invasive species: • Predation of Native Wildlife for Cat Felis catus. • Predation of native wildlife by the introduced Red Fox Vulpes vulpes • Introduction of live fish into waters outside their natural range within a Victorian river catchment • Introduction of Exotic Organisms into Victorian Marine Waters Significant invasive species may be listed as threatening processes in Queensland but threat abatement plans are not required under the Nature Conservation Act (1992). New pest management legislation (1992) however, required NPWS to implement pest management in all protected areas. Several species in NSW are listed as key threatening processes under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (foxes, feral cats, plaque minnow, rabbits, feral honey bees, red fire ants, bitou bush). A Threat Abatement Plan for addressing predation by foxes is operational (measures for implementation across all tenures; best practice control guidelines and monitoring programs). Draft Threat Abatement Plans are available to address feral cat predation and threats from the plague minnow79. Proposed new biodiversity legislation in WA and SA will enable listing of threatening processes. These jurisdictions currently implement a range of programs to manage invasive species (see Box).

79 NPWS (2003) Annual Report

71 Operation Bounceback in SA Operation Bounceback, coordinated by the Department for Environment and Heritage, is a successful ecological restoration program that has been operating in the Flinders and Olary Ranges since 1992. A dramatic reduction in grazing pressure has been achieved through the control of rabbits, feral goats and kangaroos. Combined with the virtual elimination of foxes and the suppression of feral cat populations, this has enabled the recovery of native species and ecological communities . This success has led to Operation Bounceback being extended to the Gammon Ranges National Park and other landholdings in the Northern Flinders Ranges region.

Objective 3.1 Protect and restore marine and estuarine ecosystems.

Target 3.1.6 By 2003, a national comprehensive system for prevention and management of introduced marine pests is in place. A national comprehensive system for prevention and management of introduced marine pests is not yet in place. This target is not met. Preliminary work has been carried out as outlined below. The Australian Government retains quarantine powers in relation to marine species so that Australian Government legislation will override State legislation if there are inconsistencies. Relevant Australian Government legislation includes: Coastal Waters (State Powers) Act (1980)- provides a basis for Australian Government and State legislation to control ballast water; Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution From Ships) Act (1993)- gives effect to MARPOL Convention; Quarantine Act (1908)- controls introductions of exotic marine species In 2000 a national Coordinating Committee for Introduced Marine Pest Emergencies (CCIMPE) and a National Introduced Marine Pests Coordination Group (NIMPCG) were established as interim mechanisms pending the development of a comprehensive National System for the Prevention and Management of Introduced Marine Pest Incursions. The Coordinating Committee for Introduced Marine Pest Emergencies (CCIMPE) oversees a national emergency response network for marine pests, and considers State or Northern Territory requests for access to a national contingency cost-sharing arrangement. Under this arrangement, up to $5 million may be made available to combat an introduced marine pest outbreak of major concern that is amenable to eradication. CCIMPE consists of relevant agencies of the Australian Government, including CSIRO, and the States and Northern Territory. The NIMPCG was established to recommend detailed reforms to implement a National System for the Prevention and Management of Introduced Marine Pest Incursions, including: • Prevention systems operating at the pre-border, border and post-border levels • Coordinated emergency response to new incursions (implemented through CCIMPE under interim arrangements) • Ongoing control of introduced marine pests already in Australia • Supporting components for research and development, community preparedness, education and training

72 • Explicit agreement on the statutory framework of the National System, and secure funding arrangements Work on the National System has included identifying the requirements for a system to regulate the ballast water of both international and coastal shipping, assessment of the ballast water risk profile of domestic vessel journeys and establishing a broad framework for management of biofouling pests. The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council has endorsed a High Level Officials Group report recommending legislative and funding arrangements for the National System, which will be incorporated into an Inter-governmental Agreement scheduled to be available for signature in the second half of 2004. A mechanism for dialogue between the officials’ Standing Committees under the NRM and Transport Ministers Councils has been established. Reforms introduced over 2000-2003 include:

• The introduction of mandatory ballast water management requirements for international vessels; • The establishment and operation the national emergency response network overseen by CCIMPE; and • An increased focus on scientific research aimed at control of introduced marine pests already in Australia, notably the Northern Pacific Seastar.

In the absence of a national plan, the jurisdictions are implementing a range of measures to control marine pests. Victoria possibly has the most comprehensive measures. (see Box). The NT introduced a Marine Pest Program (NHT funded) which enabled early detection and eradication of the Black Striped mussel near Darwin in 1999. Tasmania has a significant marine pest problem with 58 species including Northern Pacific seastar, Japanese kelp and toxic dinoflagellate. Some port authorities class Tasmania as very high risk in relation to ballast water. Tasmania completed baseline port surveys and developed an Introduced Marine Pest Emergency Response Plan to deal with new introductions.

Management of marine pests in Victoria The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988)- enables listing of threatening processes; Fisheries Act (195) – includes provisions to prevent introductions; Marine Act (1988)- empowers harbour masters to control ballast discharge; Plans Health and Plant Products Act (1995). Victoria has developed a threatening process Action Statement (no 100) for Introduction of Exotic Organisms into Victorian Marine Waters under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (1988). It targets plant and animal species that are not indigenous to Victorian marine waters, covering both deliberate and accidental releases. Actions listed in the Statement include: • Victorian Ballast Water Management System- pans, guidelines and codes of practice • Industrial Water Management Policy for Ballast Water and Hull Fouling • Disposal of Biological Waste from Land-Based Facilities • Codes of Practice for Effective Measures to Minimise the Risk of Introductions via Aquiculture, Fishing and Boating • Interim Victorian Protocol for Managing Marine Organisms Incursions

73 Key Action 5: Mitigate dryland salinity

Objective 5.1 Protect and restore native biodiversity through retention and improved management of native vegetation, and revegetation aimed at reversing lost agricultural productivity, deteriorating water quality and damage to native ecosystems caused by dryland salinity

Target 5.1.1 National standards will be developed and agreed under a COAG inter-government agreement to implement the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and associated water flows and stream and terrestrial biodiversity This target is met. The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) is a nationally agreed plan for mitigating the effects of dryland salinity. The plan identifies 21 target catchments. The relevant jurisdictions have signed bilateral agreements with the Australian Government to implement the plan and it’s national set of objectives. These include setting and agreeing on targets for salinity and water quality. The National Competition Council (NCC) conducts regular assessments of State and Territory progress towards the 1994 CoAG water framework, including an assessment of progress in meeting the National Water Quality Management Strategy of which salinity is a key component.80 The Murray Darling Basin Commission Ministerial Council’s Basin Salinity Management Strategy (2001-2015) sets a framework for the NAP, the state salinity strategies and the regional salinity and catchment management plans within the MDB.

80 National Competition Council 2003, Assessment of governments’ progress in implementing the National Competition Policy and related reforms: Volume three – Water reform, AusInfo, Canberra.

74 Key action 6: Promote ecologically sustainable grazing

Objective 6.1 Protect areas of high conservation value at risk of unsustainable grazing pressure

Target 6.1.1 By 2002, all jurisdictions have identified threatened native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance that may be subject to unsustainable grazing pressure Native grasslands occur extensively in some jurisdictions (NT, Queensland, WA, western NSW) but tend to be poorly represented in reserves in all jurisdictions. In the NT for example, native grasslands occur across 55% of the Territory but there is only 0.3% in reserves. Native grassland communities were extensively cleared in Victoria, southern NSW, ACT and the agricultural areas of SA. Grasslands are more threatened in these jurisdictions than in the extensive pastoral lands, and as a result, they tend to have a wider range of specific programs targeting conservation of grasslands. In SA over 98% of all native grasslands are on private land and subject to grazing. The remaining 2% on public land has a disproportionately high conservation value because past management in these areas, particularly on low grazing regimes, has allowed for the retention of species with high conservation value and for the protection of species richness and diversity. The vast majority of native grasslands are under grazing. The Queensland Mitchell and Mulga grasslands, for instance, support the bulk of the sheep and cattle industries in that State. Extensive native grasslands tend to be managed through pastoral lease arrangements rather than under environmental management programs. These include conditions relating to grazing pressure and are monitored in some jurisdictions. Threatened grassland communities can be listed under the EPBC Act (1999), e.g. Queensland Bluegrass Communities of the Brigalow Belt. Three grassland communities that occur in SA are under consideration for listing under the EPBC Act (1999): • Natural Temperate Grasslands; • Peppermint Box grassy woodland; • Iron grass tussock grassland. Threatened communities can be listed under State legislation in some jurisdictions (eg Victoria, NSW) and managed under recovery plans. Progress towards identification of threatened grasslands or grassland areas of high conservation significance is evident in several jurisdictions. While not comprehensively assessing the conservation significance of grasslands per se, these jurisdictions have programs in place that will progressively lead to identification of more threatened grasslands and areas of high conservation significance subject to unsustainable grazing pressure: • ACT has identified threatened grasslands and has a management plan in place • Vegetation mapping in Victoria identifies grasslands and their conservation status. Native grasslands are very limited in extent, occurring usually as small remnants on private land. • SA has largely identified native grasslands and their conservation status. SA’s NHT funded Improving Native Grassy Ecosystems Management program targets grassy ecosystems of high

75 conservation value and threatened grasslands, and provides for their conservation and management. • SA also conducts a detailed pasture assessment program on leasehold land (primarily native pastures) that assesses pasture condition and determines sustainable grazing levels. • NSW Native Vegetation Mapping Program and the State Conservation Monitoring Program (under the NSW biodiversity strategy) aim to identify areas of high conservation value or at risk. • The Australian Government conducted the 'Hotspots' expert panel process to identify areas of significance and is currently developing a process for identifying areas of HCV across rangeland areas. • Biodiversity monitoring in rangelands was recently reviewed by the Audit and the Tropical Savannas CRC. The Australian Collaborative Rangelands Information System (ACRIS) was recently established to monitor rangelands but is in its early stages. • Bioregions at risk and grazing threats are identified in the Audit assessments. Of the other jurisdictions, Tasmania focuses on forested land for their protected areas program although vegetation mapping is being extended to the non forest areas. WA has pasture monitoring programs in place for pastoral leases to assess condition but no specific programs to assess their conservation significance. In Queensland, grasslands generally fall outside the environment management programs but are targeted by pasture management programs that aim to promote sustainable grazing.

Target 6.1.2By 2003, all jurisdictions have identified sustainable levels of grazing by domestic animals within threatened native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance that may be subject to unsustainable grazing pressure The jurisdictions are applying different levels of protection to native grasslands according to assessed risk. In Victoria, where native grasslands are generally endangered, they are protected where ever possible through on farm conservation agreements (Trust for Nature covenants, Bushcare and Land for Wildlife). Management of these areas includes restricted grazing and the prime objectives are conservation outcomes. In SA, which also experienced extensive clearing of native grasslands and replacement with introduced pasture, several programs have been implemented to identify high conservation value or at risk grasslands and to provide for their conservation. Examples include: • the Grassy Ecosystems Grants program (NHT) which has been used to fund a number of projects in SA to protect native grasslands. • The Temperate Grasslands Project and the Sustainable Management of Native Grasslands in the Mid-North Project (NHT projects) which collaborate with landholders to implement sustainable grazing systems. In the ACT, the Natural Temperate Grassland community is listed as critically endangered (<10% pre 1750 extent) and is managed under an Action Plan. In the jurisdictions having extensive grasslands in pastoral use, the emphasis is not on protection but on management to achieve sustainable grazing levels so that the pastures remain productive. A number of programs are relevant: • Agriculture NSW monitor pasture condition and advise on grazing management. There are many initiatives and programs in NSW that target grazing management including models to determine grazing impacts, initiatives to promote grazing patterns, property management planning (including stock movement plans), watering point programs. • The NT is reviewing a Sustainable Grazing of Semi Arid Native Pastures (1997-2001) that investigated the ecological and economic effects of different stocking rates.

76 • Pasture assessment programs are carried out in Queensland, WA, SA and NT to assess pasture condition, and to determine sustainable grazing levels and best practice. In the rangelands jurisdictions, there are also a number of initiatives that do specifically target conservation outcomes: • WA will reserve areas of native grasslands and destock them as part of the Gascoyne Murchison Rangelands Strategy. • Environmental Management Systems approach is being trialled in Queensland rangelands (2004). • Biodiversity monitoring in rangelands was recently reviewed by the Audit and the Tropical Savannas CRC. The Australian Collaborative Rangelands Information System (ACRIS) was recently established to monitor rangelands but is in its early stages. • Meat and Livestock Australia are implementing the Sustainable Grazing Systems program across several jurisdictions.

Target 6.1.3 By 2005, all jurisdictions have incorporated into integrated catchment/ management plans, the protection of threatened native grasslands and areas of high conservation significance which may be subject to grazing pressure. The accreditation of regional NRM plans for investment under NHT2, and the bilateral agreements for NAP, require that the plans are consistent with and contribute to agreed national and state policies for recovery and threat abatement of threatened species and ecological communities. The jurisdictions are progressively drawing a range of programs that target conservation and management of native vegetation into integrated regional NRM frameworks. These include the NHT programs that support protection of threatened communities and areas of high conservation value. Regional NRM planning is in progress across Australia. It is too early to assess the extent to which protection of native grasslands is incorporated in the plans. However, a number of initiatives are being implemented to support regional planning that will contribute to identification and protection of native grasslands. • Bioregional surveys and regional vegetation mapping will better identify and target programs to manage pests and weeds • Regional and property vegetation management plans (in progress in several jurisdictions) will include actions to address pest and weed problems. • Programs for conservation of native vegetation on private land (eg conservation covenants, Bushcare and Land For Wildlife) • Grassy Ecosystems Grants program (NHT) to protect remnants on private land ($1.5 million)

77 Key Action 7: Minimise impacts of climate change on biodiversity

Objective 7.1 Minimise the impacts of human induced climate change on biological diversity

Target 7.1.1 By 2003, ANZECC has developed an action plan to identify the potential impacts of climate change on Australia’s biodiversity and measures to address these impacts. The Action Plan is not yet in place. A workshop held in 2002 examined Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity in Australia as part of an iterative process to develop policy and action plans in this area.81 In August 2003, the Australian Government Minister for the Environment announced a nation-wide strategic approach to protect biodiversity from the impacts of climate change. At the NRM Ministerial Council in April 2004, the Australian, State and Territory governments agreed to actions, timelines and strategies in a National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan.

81 Howden, M et al., (2003) Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity n Australia: Outcomes of a workshop sponsored by the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee 1-2 October 2002, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Canberra

78