Evaluating Recovery Planning for Threatened Species in Australia

Evaluating recovery planning for threatened species in Australia

Alejandro Ortega-Argueta

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at

The University of Queensland in September 2008

School of Integrative Systems

Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.

I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any, have been submitted to qualify for another award.

I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University Library and, subject to the General Award Rules of The University of Queensland, immediately made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968.

I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of that material.

Published works by the author relevant to the thesis but not forming part of it

Ortega-Argueta, A., M. Hockings, and G. Baxter. 2007. Threatened species recovery plans: An analysis of their characteristics and internal consistency. Paper presented at the Australasian Wildlife Management Society Conference, Canberra. 2-5 December 2007.

Acknowledgements

I wish to dedicate this thesis to my family, firstly my wife Surya and my son Emilio, for their enormous support and for sharing the same dreams in this project of life. I would also like to dedicate this work to my parents and siblings, Pedro and Sara, and Adriana and Pedro, for being always behind us, even at a distance.

I would like to express my great gratitude to my supervisors Associate Professor Marc Hockings and Dr. Greg Baxter at the University of Queensland (UQ), who showed great interest from the beginning of this thesis project - when I was still in Mexico. They provided invaluable support and constructive criticism throughout the process of investigation and preparation of this thesis.

Professor Ockie Bosh and Dr. Don Cameron were always supportive of my studies and provided me with adequate facilities at the School of Integrative Systems (SIS), UQ Gatton Campus. I am also in great debt to Professor Bob Beeton (UQ), who was always kind and enthusiastic about my thesis topic, and provided invaluable comments during our academic discussions.

There are many people with whom I shared constructive discussions: Professor Charlie Zammit (USQ), Dr. Geoff Landie-Jenkins and Tim Holmes (EPA Queensland), Dr. Martin Taylor (WWF Australia), and Dr. David Farrier (University of Wollongong). I also want to say thank you to all the people who were willing to participate in interviews and provided with valuable information. I cannot mention their names here because the research requirements stipulate their anonymity, but I am very thankful to all of them: staff from the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts; from the New South Wales Department of the Environment and Climate Change; and from the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. People from WWF and the Wilderness Society also kindly supported my work. Academics from UQ, the University of New South Wales, and the Australian National University also participated in interviews through varies stages of the research.

Dr. Carl Smith and Dr. Laura Sinay (SIS, UQ) assisted me with the use of Bayesian networks and during the planning and development phases of my workshops. Barry Maher (UQ), Surya Garza and Klaus Mehltreter (INECOL Mexico) helped me with the design of the database. Allan Lisle (UQ) provided advice on the statistical analysis. José Villamizar assisted me with the data capturing. The staffs at SIS and at the Gatton Library were always helpful with any request. UQ mates and friends (Marlo, Toby, Malcolm, Jo, Nam, Eri, Arturo, Bec, Nelson, Josie, Hayley, Grace and Chris), thank you all for your warm company during my time in Australia. Juliet Middleton (UQ) kindly revised and improved the English writing.

Finally, my main sponsor, the CONACYT in Mexico, granted me the scholarship to come to Australia and undertake my PhD studies at UQ. The Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia Inc provided me with a grant to complete my fieldwork and attend a conference. Many thanks to all!

iii

Abstract

Loss of biodiversity is a major environmental issue in Australia. In response the Commonwealth Government has developed a national list of threatened species and prepared recovery plans under the provisions of the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA). However, knowledge on the appropriateness and effectiveness of those conservation and management schemes is limited. The aim of the thesis was to conduct an evaluation of recovery planning to assess its appropriateness as a conservation and management instrument, and investigate how legislative, institutional and organisational factors influence its implementation. Four research questions were addressed: 1) How does recovery planning operate in regard to legislative, jurisdictional and institutional aspects? 2) Do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements and coherent conservation planning? 3) What management factors have most influence on implementation of recovery plans at state level? and 4) What modifications could be made to the management system to improve implementation of recovery plans? The major approaches considered in this study were policy evaluation and systems analysis. Both approaches were incorporated in a framework of the thesis to construct a conceptualisation of the threatened species management system as a model. This allowed examining its structure, key elements and dynamics, and evaluation of its performance and effectiveness. Methods comprised interviews, content analysis of program documentation, qualitative and quantitative analysis of recovery plans, experts’ workshops, and systems analysis and modelling. The major set of quantitative data came from a database which incorporated content attributes of 236 recovery plans. Taking into account the Australian legislative requirements for preparing recovery plans, key content attributes were selected for assessing the degree of compliance. Internal consistency of plans was also assessed as a complementary measure of coherent management planning. Measures of internal consistency were: consistency between gaps of scientific information versus prescribed actions calling for research; consistency between major threatening processes versus prescription of threat abatement actions; and consistency between recovery objectives versus performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives. Another component of the thesis was the construction of a model of the management system of threatened species. This theoretical model was conceptualised from opinions of experts and stakeholders occupying key roles in threatened species management. The model incorporated social aspects of management such as institutional and organisational factors influencing planning and the implementation of recovery plans. The model was built using a Bayesian belief network to assess the most influential components (issues, recovery strategies, and management requirements) on the likely outcomes. Expert opinions also assisted to identify gaps in the management system and formulate new management strategies. Finally, modelling allowed

assessing different management scenarios and identified the key components that would improve recovery planning. Major findings of the investigation revealed that: 1) Although the three levels of government in Australia (Commonwealth, state/territory and local) are involved in recovery planning, it is the states/territories that have the most active role in preparing and operating recovery plans. State and territory-based legislation, policy and conservation strategies shape the form in which recovery planning is performed nationwide, as they are responsible for implementing 89% of national plans; 2) Overall compliance of plans with legislative requirements was adequate; although improvement is required in establishing a monitoring and evaluation framework. Overall, internal consistency of plans was also adequate in addressing threats and formulating research for knowledge gaps; but consistency was poor regarding the response to some threatening processes and the establishment of recovery criteria; 3) According to experts/stakeholders, the most influential issues relevant to the implementation of recovery plans are: coordination across Commonwealth, state and territory agencies, inconsistency of strategies and programs across jurisdictions, addressing management of threatened species on private land, incorporation of science into recovery planning, prioritising schemes for conservation action, and funding for the implementation of plans; 4) The recovery planning strategy may be improved by establishing mandatory monitoring and review reports; creating a national forum on threatened species; designing an appropriate insurance regime for volunteers; and establishing a national management information system.

Keywords Threatened species management, recovery planning, biodiversity conservation

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC) 050202 Conservation and Biodiversity (50%), 050211 Wildlife and Habitat Management (25%), 160507 Environment Policy (25%).

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... iii Abstract ...... iv Table of Contents ...... vi List of Figures...... ix Acronyms ...... xiv

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Chapter overview ...... 1 1.2 What are threatened species? ...... 1 1.3 Approaches to conservation and management of threatened species...... 2 1.4 Research into threatened species conservation ...... 4 1.5 Research needs for threatened species conservation...... 5 1.6 Thesis aim ...... 6 1.7 Scope of the study ...... 6 1.8 Overview of the thesis...... 7

CHAPTER 2 – THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION: KEY ISSUES AND CONCEPTS ...... 9 2.1 Chapter overview ...... 9 2.2 Species extinction...... 10 2.3 What are the main forces influencing human-induced extinction?...... 11 2.4 What are the main approaches being undertaken to address threatened species conservation?...... 12 2.4.1 Listing threatened species...... 14 2.4.2 What is recovery planning? ...... 16 2.5 Legislative background of recovery planning...... 17 2.5.1 The federal system of government...... 17 2.5.2 Evolution of the legislation and policy to protect threatened species...... 19 2.5.3 Conservation and management in New South Wales ...... 26 2.5.4 Conservation and management in Queensland...... 27 2.6 Current approaches in threatened species research ...... 28 2.6.1 Knowledge gaps in recovery planning...... 33 2.7 Chapter summary ...... 34

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH APPROACHES AND SELECTION OF METHODS ...... 35 3.1 Chapter overview ...... 35 3.2 Thesis aim ...... 36 3.3 Major approaches taken to conduct this investigation ...... 36

3.3.1 Policy evaluation ...... 37 3.3.2 Systems analysis ...... 39 3.3.3 Combining policy evaluation and systems analysis approaches...... 40 3.4 Research methods...... 41 3.4.1 Exploratory work...... 42 3.4.2 Selection of methods...... 43 3.4.3 Limitations of some methods and availability of data...... 45 3.5 Chapter summary ...... 46

CHAPTER 4 – RECOVERY PLANNING: OPERATION AND ACHIEVEMENTS...... 47 4.1 Chapter overview ...... 47 4.2 Research methods...... 48 4.3 Results...... 51 4.3.1 Commonwealth scheme of recovery planning...... 51 4.3.2 Operation of recovery planning ...... 53 4.3.3 Program outputs...... 63 4.3.4 Program outcomes ...... 69 4.3.5 Legislative reforms in matters of recovery planning ...... 74 4.4. Discussion ...... 77 4.5 Chapter summary ...... 83

CHAPTER 5 – ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF RECOVERY PLANS...... 85 5.1 Chapter overview ...... 85 5.2 Research methods...... 86 5.3 Results...... 90 5.3.1 How do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements? ...... 90 5.3.2 How do recovery plans respond to scientific information gaps?...... 94 5.3.3 How do recovery plans respond to threats? ...... 96 5.3.4 Consistency of performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives ...... 99 5.3.5 Summary of the evaluation of recovery plans: what plans are better? ...... 100 5.4 Discussion ...... 101 5.5 Chapter summary ...... 108

CHAPTER 6 – FACTORS INFLUENCING IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOVERY PLANS ...... 109 6.1 Chapter overview ...... 109 6.2 Research methods...... 110 6.3 Results...... 112 6.3.1 Interviews ...... 113 6.3.2 Expert workshops ...... 121

vii

6.3.3 Quantitative analysis of recovery plans ...... 125 6.4 Discussion ...... 128 6.5 Chapter summary ...... 135

CHAPTER 7 – ASSESSING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOVERY PLANS...... 137 7.1 Chapter overview ...... 137 7.2 Research methods...... 138 7.3 Results...... 147 7.3.1 The management system model...... 147 7.3.2 Model evaluation ...... 152 7.3.3 Optimal conservation and management strategies...... 156 7.4 Discussion ...... 158 7.5 Chapter summary ...... 164

CHAPTER 8 – GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING RECOVERY PLANS...... 165 8.1 Chapter overview ...... 165 8.2 Guidelines for preparing recovery plans ...... 166 8.3 Tool for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of recovery plans ...... 181 8.4 Chapter summary ...... 184

CHAPTER 9 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...... 185 9.1 Chapter overview ...... 185 9.2 General discussion ...... 185 9.3 Conclusions...... 192 9.4 Implications of research findings for management and conservation...... 196 9.5 Directions for further research ...... 198

List of references ...... 199 Appendices ...... 225

viii

List of Figures

Figure 3.1: Methods employed in each chapter to address each research questions of the thesis...... 44

Figure 4.1: Operation of the CESP at federal and state jurisdictions and the agencies and organisations collaborating in implementation of recovery plans...... 54

Figure 4.2: Recovery action types and the extent of its usage as prescribed in recovery plans (N = 236 recovery plans; total no. of tasks = 3749) ...... 58

Figure 4.3: Development of threatened species and ecological communities listing and preparation of recovery plans from 2000 to 2007(including plans from all jurisdictions)...... 64

Figure 4.4: Percentage of threatened species de-listed or transferred into a different conservation category as result of management or other reclassification reasons (Commonwealth list - period 2000-2007) ...... 64

Figure 4.5: National recovery plans made for single-, multi-species and ecological communities, adopted in two periods of federal legislation, under the ESPA (1991-July 2000) and the EPBCA (July 2000 - Jan 2006)(N=236 plans)...... 65

Figure 4.6: Assessment of the identification of critical habitat in recovery plans...... 67

Figure 5.1: Coverage of topics within recovery plans as required by the EPBCA (N=236 plans) ...... 91

Figure 5.2: Plans with well-formulated, incomplete or no monitoring and evaluation scheme (N=236 plans) ...... 93

Figure 5.3: Types of measures established for monitoring and evaluating recovery actions and the various aspects of recovery plans (N=236 recovery plans) ...... 93

Figure 5.4: Consistency in prescription of research actions across scientific topics (N=236 plans)...... 95

Figure 5.5: Plans’ response to the ten major threats (the number between parentheses denotes the number of recovery plans that cited the threat) (N=236 recovery plans) ...... 97

Figure 5.6: Individual response of recovery plans to all threats cited in the plan (N=236 recovery plans) ...... 98

Figure 5.7: Prescription of consistent performance criteria to measure achievement of objectives (N=236 recovery plans) ...... 99

Figure 6.1: Jurisdictional competence for the implementation of recovery plans as defined by the spatial distribution of target species on Commonwealth or state and territory lands (N=236 recovery plans) ...... 126

Figure 6.2: Coverage of topics of scientific information, as included in recovery plans (N=236 plans)...... 127

Figure 6.3: Occurrence of target threatened species on public and private lands as cited within recovery plans (N=236 plans)...... 127

Figure 6.4: Costs for implementing individual recovery plans and percentage in each category of budget as defined within recovery plans (N=226 plans)...... 128

Figure 7.1: Steps followed for developing a conceptual model of threatened species management...... 138

Figure 7.2: Components and their linkages to the management system arranged in a causal map...... 140

Figure 7.3: Example of components (parent and child nodes) and causal links of a Bayesian Belief Network ...... 142

Figure 7.4: Outputs of the Bayesian Belief Network from different management scenarios (Scenario A = Low probability of achieving an effective implementation of recovery plans; Scenario B =Improved probability of achieving an effective implementation of recovery plans) ...... 145

Figure 7.5: Bayesian Belief Network of the management system for threatened species recovery. Nodes contain issues, strategies and requirements necessary for improving recovery plans’ implementation. Grey-coloured nodes are the new proposed components of the existing management programs of the Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales agencies ...... 148

Figure 7.6: Components associated with the issue ´Scientific input´ (grey-coloured nodes are new proposed components of the existing management system) ...... 149

Figure 7.7: Components associated with the issue ´Resource allocation´...... 150

Figure 7.8: Components associated with the issue ´Community engagement´ (grey-coloured nodes are new identified components of the existing management system) ...... 151

Figure 7.9: Components associated with the issue ´Legislation and policy´ (grey-coloured nodes are new proposed components of the existing management system) ...... 151

Figure 7.10: Ranking of strategies within subsystems and their relative influence on implementation of recovery plans...... 154

Figure 7.11: Cumulative impact of strategies on the probability of having an effective implementation of recovery planning. The curve starts at a probability of 37.4 where all strategies were at the current condition. Strategies are: 1) Government revenue; 2) Allocation mechanism; 3) Adaptive approach; 4) National strategic planning; 5) Incentives; 6) Non- government revenue; 7) Mandatory monitoring reports; 8) Inter-state consistency; 9) Targeted research & monitoring; 10) Enforceability; 11) Integration of science; 12) Other financial sources; 13) Project collaboration; 14) Awareness programs; and 15) School programs ...... 156

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Categories used in the IUCN Red List of threatened species and criteria of threat...... 15

Table 2.2: Evolution of the Commonwealth legislation for the conservation of Australian biodiversity ...... 20

Table 4.1: Affiliation of stakeholders representing the Commonwealth- and state-based management groups that participated in the interviews of the study ...... 49

Table 4.3: Representation of the Commonwealth, states and territories in the Australian recovery planning scheme by 2006 ...... 59

Table 4.4: Total number of critical habitats recognised in the Register of the Critical habitats under the EPBCA (period 2000 to 2006) ...... 67

Table 4.5: Amendments of 2007 to the EPBCA related to listing and recovery planning of threatened species (extracted from the Australian Government 2007 and ANAO 2007)...... 75

Table 5.1: Paired comparisons about the compliance with legislative requirements (Legislation N=236: ESPA=74, EPBCA=162; Approach N= 236: Single sp=200, Multi-sp=36; Taxa N=223: Animals N=79, Plants=144)...... 92

Table 5.2: Paired comparisons of internal consistency between the scientific information gaps and prescription of research actions (Legislation N=236: ESPA=74, EPBCA=162; Approach N= 236: ...... 95

Single sp=200, Multi-sp=36; Taxa N=223: Animals N=79, Plants=144) ...... 95

Table 5.3: Number of actions per plan formulated to address the ten major threats (N=236 plans)...... 96

Table 5.4: Paired comparisons of the consistency of plans´ response to the ten major threats (the numbers between parenthesis denote the number of plans that cited the threat, and the numbers within the paired columns are the number of recovery plans compared) ...... 97

Table 5.5: Paired comparisons about the consistency of criteria for measuring achievement of objectives (Legislation N=236, ESPA=74, EPBCA=162; Approach N= 236, Single sp=200, Multi-sp=36; Taxa N=223, Animals N=79, Plants=144)...... 99

Table 5.6: Summary of findings across the paired comparisons of recovery plans...... 100

Table 6.1: Stakeholders/experts from Queensland and New South Wales involved in workshops for assessing the factors influencing implementation of national recovery plans...... 111

Table 6.2: Major themes of issues influencing implementation of recovery plans as identified by experts/stakeholders from Queensland and New South Wales...... 113

Table 6.3: Identification of factors influencing implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from Queensland...... 122

Table 6.4: Identification of factors influencing implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from New South Wales...... 123

Table 6.5: Assessment of the most influential issues on implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from Queensland...... 124

Table 6.6: Assessment of the most influential issues on implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from New South Wales...... 124

Table 6.7: Comparison of major issues influencing implementation of recovery plans as assessed by stakeholders/experts from Queensland and New South Wales ...... 125

Table 6.8: Summary of institutional and organisational factors influencing the success of threatened species programs...... 129

Table 7.1: Comparison between hard and soft approaches for modelling (after Maani & Cavana 2007) ...... 139

Table 7.2: Affiliation of experts/stakeholders from Queensland and New South Wales involved in elicitation of probabilities for the Bayesian model ...... 143

Table 7.3: Results of the sensitivity analysis on the factors ‘opinions’ and ‘major issues´ ...... 152

Table 7.4: Most influential issues on implementation according to the eight opinions of experts from Queensland and New South Wales...... 153

Table 7.5: Ranking of proposed recovery strategies by sensitivity analysis based on their relative influence on implementation of recovery plans...... 155

Table 7.6: Ranked issues and optimal conservation and management strategies for improving recovery planning according to a group of experts from Queensland and New South Wales. Items in bold are the new formulated strategies and requirements necessary to improve the existing national recovery planning scheme ...... 157

Table 7.7: Experts’ estimates of probabilities for achieving an effective implementation of recovery plans after improving management scenarios by 50% and 100%...... 158

Table 8.1: Examples of performance criteria and indicators for monitoring and assessing the progress of recovery plans ...... 174

Table 8.2: Examples of a consistent monitoring and evaluation scheme...... 175

Table 8.3: Proposed themes and examples of recovery actions...... 179

xii

Table 8.4: Example of a schedule for implementation of recovery actions...... 180

Table 8.5: Quality index based on the assessment of key elements of recovery plans ...... 181

Table 8.6: Criteria for the scoring system of recovery plans...... 181

Table 8.7 Quality of recovery plans according to the scoring system...... 182

Table 8.8: Example of a poorly designed recovery plan: Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) plan 2005-2010...... 182

Table 8.9: Example of a moderately designed recovery plan: Tunbridge buttercup (Ranunculus prasinus) Plan 2006-2010 ...... 183

Table 8.10: Example of well designed recovery plan: Recovery plan for Marine turtles in Australia 2003-2008...... 183

xiii

Acronyms

ABS: Australian Bureau of Statistics ANAO: Australian National Audit Office BBN: Bayesian Belief Network CESP: Commonwealth Endangered Species Program CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Cth: Commonwealth DEH: Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage DEWR: Commonwealth Department of Environment and Water Resources DEWHA: Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts DDS: Decision Support System EA: Commonwealth Environment Australia EPA: Queensland Environmental Protection Agency EPBCA: Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ESPA: Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cth) IUCN: World Conservation Union M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation NHT: Natural Heritage Trust NSW: New South Wales NSW DECC: New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change Qld: Queensland QNCA: Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 TSCA: Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) TSSC: Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee US: The United States of America

xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.1 Chapter overview 1.2 What are threatened species? 1.3 Threatened biodiversity and approaches to its conservation and management 1.4 Research into threatened species conservation 1.5 Why is it important to conduct research on threatened species conservation? 1.6 Thesis aim 1.7 Scope of the study 1.8 Overview of the thesis

1.1 Chapter overview

This thesis addresses the use of recovery planning as a strategy for managing threatened species in Australia. This introductory chapter provides an overview of the topic addressed in the investigation and outlines the structure of following chapters. Sections 1.2 and 1.3 explain the main issues surrounding threatened biodiversity, and explore approaches to threatened species conservation and management. Section 1.4 briefly examines the relevant research conducted on threatened species conservation, and Section 1.5 explains the needs of research. Section 1.6 presents the main aims and research questions of the thesis, while the scope of the study is clarified in Section 1.7. An overview of the content of each chapter is presented in Section 1.8.

1.2 What are threatened species?

The term threatened species is applied generically to species that are at the greater risk of extinction and require priority conservation (IUCN SSC 2001; Baillie et al. 2004). Threatened species can be classified in several categories of endangerment according to the severity of the risk. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has developed a framework to assess the conservation status of living organisms, including the identification and classification of threatened species within various endangerment categories (Critically endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) (Lamoreux et al. 2003; IUCN 2005; 2007). I used the term threatened in the thesis to denominate the group of species (animals and plants) at risk of extinction no matter the specific category of threat.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.3 Approaches to conservation and management of threatened species

Loss of biodiversity is a major environmental issue in Australia. Australia’s biodiversity is one the richest in the world, with more than 600,000 species, many of which are only found in Australia (Chapman 2005). About 85 per cent of flowering plants, 84 per cent of mammals, more than 45 per cent of birds, and 89 per cent of reptiles are endemic (Saunders et al. 1996). However, historically, human exploitation and unsustainable development activities have impacted upon populations and habitats of many species, both terrestrial and marine. Most of the threatening processes affecting species, such as land clearing, pollution and introduced pests, are human-related (Cork et al. 2006). Unsustainable development continues to greatly impact and degrade ecosystems, and is putting hundreds of species at risk of extinction despite legislation and the efforts of conservation agencies.

To address this biodiversity loss, the Australian government has developed legislation and regulations to control and manage detrimental activities. The federal system of government involving the Commonwealth, six states and two territories, has led to the preparation of at least twenty pieces of legislation to protect and manage biodiversity (Bates 2006). These legislative mechanisms, at the same time, incorporated elements from international conservation agreements such as the control of illegal trade of endangered species and recovery of threatened species.

To support nations in the fight against extinction, the IUCN has developed important conservation instruments and guidelines to promote and guide conservation efforts worldwide. The IUCN’s Species Survival Commission has published a comprehensive world inventory of species at risk of extinction called the Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2007). The Red List includes most of the known species of animal and plants with diminished populations that are facing some degree of risk caused by natural or human factors. It assists in identifying the species and populations that require urgent conservation action, and for which conservation efforts and resources should be allocated on a priority basis.

A complementary instrument for addressing the conservation of threatened species is the formulation and implementation of conservation and management plans. Those documents also comprise general guidelines to direct restoration, conservation and management of the species at risk identified by the Red List. Conservation plans have been prepared for major taxonomic groups and implemented around the world by partnerships comprising governments, groups of academic institutions, industry, conservation organisations and the community.

Australia has taken a similar approach by developing a National List of Threatened Species and preparing Recovery plans for those species included on the national list. These schemes were

Chapter 1 Introduction incorporated into the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cth) (ESPA) by the Commonwealth government. It was the first national law addressing biodiversity conservation. The same approach was later adopted under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBCA), the successive national legislation. The Commonwealth environmental agency started the Commonwealth Endangered Species Program (CESP) in 1988, for which the first recovery plans were made. Most state agencies followed the approach by preparing a list of threatened species and adopting recovery plans under their own legislation. The result was a complex network of regulations and management programs across the Commonwealth and states/territories to conserve and manage the threatened species in each jurisdiction.

The CESP has now been in place for nearly twenty years. Although other complementary instruments exist to conserve the threatened biodiversity such as the management of protected areas and control of the international trade of fauna and flora, the listing of threatened species and preparation of recovery plans remains the most direct scheme carried out by the Commonwealth government.

The CESP deals with a huge problem, given that the conservation of threatened species is a highly controversial and logistically difficult issue. Scholars have criticised the approach of focusing conservation action on a particular species mainly due to: a) the ecosystem and ecological processes are not considered as a whole when planning and managing species and populations (Bader 1992; Soule et al. 2005); b) the approach of listing and making recovery plans is reactive rather than proactive (McIntyre et al. 1992; Brunckhorst 2000; Sinclair 2000); and c) millions of dollars have been expended on recovery plans, with very few species de-listed from the threatened status (Clark 1994; Miller et al. 1994; Pombo 2005; Wilcove & Master 2005). Critics claim that still many more species are being added to the list with few successful cases of recovery.

The recovery of threatened species may also be controversial because legislation could restrict or prevent development projects on state and private lands. Commonwealth and state/territory regulations have all been used to restrict development in areas occupied by listed species. Environmental impact assessments are required to address issues relating to threatened species when proposing projects of exploitation or conversion of habitats, such as land clearing.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.4 Research into threatened species conservation

Most research into the conservation and management of threatened species has been conducted in the United States (US). Issues around the implementation of the Endangered Species Act 1973 (ESA) have been widely discussed in academic publications (e.g. Kohm 1991; Beatley 1994; Clark et al. 1994a; Czech & Krausman 2001; Goble et al. 2006). Published research reflects a complex universe of perspectives from ecologists, wildlife managers, lawyers, economists and historians who have studied the issue.

There are two primary schools of thought relating to threatened species conservation (Clark 1996). The first, comprising mostly ecologists, considers the recovery of threatened species as a technical problem that requires a deeper knowledge of biological sciences (e.g. Butler & Merton 1992). From this view, major constraints to the recovery of threatened species are the lack of scientific information, insufficient funding, or political obstacles, all external to the conservation programs (e.g. Brebach 2004; Chelimsky & Shadish 1997; Miller et al. 2002; Rohlf 1991; Tear et al. 1995). The crisis of having threatened species can be overcome through conducting more ecological research; the ecological knowledge can then be translated in better policy and management strategies to recover threatened species. Disciplines such as restoration ecology, taxonomy, population ecology and conservation genetics are playing major role in this area.

A second school of thought considers the issue to be more complex and beyond a solution simply based on natural sciences. In this view, the recovery of threatened species requires consideration of the broader scientific, social, institutional, economic and political dimensions of the problem as nearly all species are threatened by human activities (Backhouse & Clark 1995a; Edwards 1995; Yaffee 1997; Williams et al. 2002). This approach considers not only the need of technical ecological information but also information on policy, organisation, and management issues (Hoekstra et al. 2002a; Wallace et al. 2002; Shields 2004). The lack of an effective social process that would integrate science and society values is considered a major constraint in this perspective (Clark 1996; Metrick & Weitzman 1996). Disciplines oriented to ecosystem management and regional planning provide a broader perspective of the problem, acknowledging natural and socioeconomic issues, and matters related to policy and institutions (Backhouse & Clark 1995b; Yaffee 1996). However, those dimensions are rarely acknowledged and addressed in research.

In Australia, research on threatened species is relatively less common. Some policy reviews of the ESPA and the EPBCA, where the CESP is imbedded, are available. They have been conducted by external consultants and scientists commissioned by the Australian government (e.g., Boardman

Chapter 1 Introduction

1997; Williams et al. 2001; Cork et al. 2006). Other reviews have been prepared by the Office of Taxation and the Australian Bureau of Statistics to revise program accountability (ANAO 2007; 2008). Although those reviews offer important information about the governance and accountability of the Commonwealth programs, little research exists about the conservation and management strategies and their impacts at national scale. More research effort has been dedicated to the state initiatives, for example in New South Wales (Dickman 1996; Adam 2004; Jarman & Brock 2004; Farrier et al. 2007) and Victoria (Crosthwaite 1995a; Wilson & Clark 1995). Scientific papers are focused on discussions about legislation and the worth of conservation efforts (e.g., Male 1994; Papps 1996; Baker 2004; Farrier & Whelan 2004; Lambert 2004). Other articles have addressed the recovery planning strategy by formulating general principles applicable for improving management (Bryant & Male 1996; Copley & Garnett 1996). Papers also describe some successful cases of recovery (e.g., Murphy & Nally 2004; Talbot et al. 2004). However, key questions such as the appropriateness and effectiveness of the entire recovery planning scheme and the institutional and organisational factors driving recovery, have not yet been evaluated.

1.5 Research needs for threatened species conservation

Governments have dedicated great efforts to conserve biodiversity. More than 300 recovery plans have been prepared and adopted in Australia to manage listed species and ecological communities. New approaches are now being explored to focus management on ecological communities and landscapes. Conservation efforts are being dedicated to enhance the habitat condition of many species; manipulate and rehabilitate individuals in captivity; to carry out reproduction and propagation programs; conduct reintroductions; control pests and introduced predators; and integrate community groups in conservation activities. Considerable investments have been made in different programs for biodiversity conservation, such as $251 million allocated from the Natural Heritage Trust 2002-2006) (ANAO 2007). The enormous task of managing threatened species has involved implementation of hundreds of recovery tasks with collaboration of managers, scientists, conservation organisations, the private sector and community groups. Conservation programs are in place with resources far beyond the institutional capacity of the responsible agencies (Saunders et al. 1996; Woinarski & Fisher 1999; Lindenmayer 2007). It is therefore timely to evaluate the worth and impact of such interventions in restoring species and ecosystems.

Is recovery planning appropriate and effective in restoring threatened biodiversity? Unfortunately, there is little evidence to provide conclusive answers. Although some academics have dedicated efforts to examine the EPBCA and the parallel legislation in state jurisdictions, recovery planning has attracted little scrutiny. New research approaches are necessary to examine the conservation

Chapter 1 Introduction strategies and to assess their appropriateness and effectiveness. Research efforts are addressing the need for evaluation of conservation programs, dissemination of information, and applying adaptive management for learning (Margoluis & Salafsky 2001; Stem et al. 2005; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006). Further research on recovery planning may provide some useful points of reference that can be incorporated into improving current conservation and management practices.

1.6 Thesis aim

Given the serious knowledge gaps about recovery planning and its importance in guiding recovery, further research is necessary to improve the effectiveness of threatened species management. Therefore, the aim of the thesis is to conduct an evaluation of the recovery planning scheme for threatened species, to assess its appropriateness as a tool for conservation and management, and investigate the institutional and organisational factors affecting its implementation.

The thesis aim is addressed through the following four research questions: 1) How does recovery planning operate in regard to legislative, jurisdictional and institutional aspects? 2) Do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements and coherent conservation planning? 3) What management factors have most influence on the implementation of recovery plans at state level? 4) What modifications could be made in the management system to improve implementation of recovery plans?

The research questions are addressed separately in four chapters of this thesis. Each chapter presents the methods and results relating to each of the research question.

1.7 Scope of the study

This investigation is focused on the evaluation of the recovery planning strategy. The object of study was the group of management documents adopted by the Commonwealth and state/territory governments to guide the recovery of listed threatened species and ecological communities. The approaches considered in this study are policy evaluation and systems analysis of the recovery planning process. This type of investigation was designed to assess whether the recovery planning strategy is appropriate and adequate in terms of policy needs and best practice conservation principles.

The policy evaluation approach followed the premise that recovery plans need to be examined acknowledging the institutional and organisational dimensions of management. There is scientific

Chapter 1 Introduction evidence that such factors, while often ignored, have a great impact on the success or failure of recovery planning and its final outcome: the recovery of threatened species (e.g., Boersma et al. 2001; Hoekstra et al. 2002a; Taylor et al. 2005).

Acknowledging that other elements of the CESP exist in relation to the recovery process, I selected the examination of recovery plans because they are the major source documents guiding management and because the whole set of national recovery plans was readily available for review.

1.8 Overview of the thesis

The thesis content is structured in the following way: Chapter 1 ‘Introduction’ describes briefly the context of the research, provides a brief description of the background information about the recovery of threatened species, and justifies the need for research on the issue related to Australia. It also presents the aim of the thesis and the four research questions formulated for the investigation.

Chapter 2 ‘Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts’ examines the literature on threatened species conservation, specifically, on the listing and recovery planning schemes, and the social factors surrounding their implementation. It starts with a historical review of the evolution of background legislation and policy of threatened species and its application to management across federal and state/territory jurisdictions. It also reviews the major issues and research approaches taken to address the conservation and management of threatened species. Relevant research findings from studies conducted in Australia and other countries were used to identify gaps of knowledge and directions in research.

Chapter 3 ‘Research approaches and selection of methods’ starts by explaining why I approached the issue from the policy evaluation and systems analysis perspectives. It explores the main methodological approaches employed by other researchers on the topic and justifies the selection of the approaches taken in this thesis. It also presents the research questions and the selected methods for answering them. It finishes by describing the methodological design of every section of the thesis.

Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 describe the results of the study. Chapter 4 ‘Recovery planning: Operation and achievements’ examines the core legislative and policy mechanisms of recovery planning. It analyses the development of the Commonwealth strategy, and also addresses the issues of implementing recovery plans across jurisdictional scales. It provides insights into the achievements and challenges faced by agencies during the implementation of the program.

Chapter 1 Introduction

Chapter 5 ‘Appropriateness of national recovery plans’ presents the results of a quantitative analysis of the compliance of recovery plans with legislative requirements. I also evaluated the appropriateness of recovery plans through the use of measures of internal consistency. Paired comparisons between plans made under the ESPA and EPBCA, plans focused on single- and multi- species, and plans made for animal and plant species, were conducted to detect any trends in recovery planning.

Chapter 6 ‘Factors influencing implementation’ examines the major institutional and organisational factors influencing management. It discusses the results in the context of implementation of national recovery plans and lessons learnt from practice.

Chapter 7 ‘Strategies for improving implementation of recovery planning’ presents a theoretical model of the management system developed using a Bayesian network. The model allowed the incorporation of management factors, and an analysis of management scenarios. It also helped to predict more effective management outcomes. The relevance of this tool to gain a better understanding of the recovery planning and improve management is also discussed.

Chapter 8 ‘Guidelines for improving recovery plans’ incorporates the findings from this research to formulate guidelines for the preparation of recovery plans. It describes the key planning elements that should be followed by managers, scientists or any other plan’s author to make better recovery plans. It also provides a tool for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of such management documents.

Chapter 9 ‘Discussion and conclusion’ recapitulates each of the research questions, and summarises the main findings from all results chapters. The relevance of the approach taken in the thesis as a research exercise is also discussed. The chapter ends with comments on the implications of the findings for management and conservation, and suggested directions for future research.

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

CHAPTER 2 – THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION: KEY ISSUES AND CONCEPTS

2.1 Chapter overview 2.2 Species extinction 2.3 What are the main forces influencing human-induced extinction? 2.4 What are the main approaches being undertaken to address threatened species conservation? 2.4.1 Listing threatened species 2.4.2 What is recovery planning? 2.5 Legislative background of recovery planning 2.5.1 The federal system of government 2.5.2 Evolution of legislation and policy to protect threatened species 2.5.3 Conservation and management strategies in New South Wales 2.5.4 Conservation and management strategies in Queensland 2.6 Current approaches in threatened species research 2.6.1 Knowledge gaps in recovery planning 2.7 Chapter summary

2.1 Chapter overview

Government environmental agencies employ several approaches to conserve and manage threatened species. These include establishment of protected areas, control of domestic and international trade in flora and fauna, listing of threatened species and ecological communities, and restriction of actions likely to affect matters of environmental significance. Among the most important strategies that have been specifically employed to address the restoration of species at risk is recovery planning, which is the main focus of the thesis.

This chapter describes the background information for the thesis. Section 2.2 examines the broad issues of species extinction, and Section 2.3 describes the main issues leading to increased threats to

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts biodiversity. Section 2.4 outlines key concepts and the main approaches relevant to threatened species conservation and management. The legislative framework of threatened species management and conservation in Australia, including the federal and state systems of government is outlined in Section 2.5. A historical review of the evolution and development of threatened species programs in Australia follows, ending at the point where recovery planning was incorporated at national level. Section 2.6 reviews the relevant literature to describe current theories and research approaches relating to the conservation and management of threatened species with a focus on recovery planning. This section also identifies knowledge gaps about recovery planning, with emphasis on the Australian context, and describes how this thesis addresses key gaps.

2.2 Species extinction

Species can be extirpated by natural and human-induced causes. Extinction, the irreversible phenomenon that occurs when a species dies out, is a natural process that happens everywhere and regulates the evolution of biodiversity. Many species appear and disappear constantly in the world, as a natural process of evolution (Wilson 1989; 2001a). Some species became extinct before the appearance of humans, and others have persisted over thousands of years alongside them (Moulton & Sanderson 1999). Why should we be then concerned about extinction? Human activities are now altering the natural processes where extinction operates; in other words, humans are increasing the rate of extinction. There is evidence that human activities have caused extinction of organisms since the early years of human history (Adams 2004; Johnson 2006). Over-exploitation of species for human consumption was probably the most common cause of human-induced extinction in the past (Wilson 1989; Cutter & Renwick 1999; Moulton & Sanderson 1999). The belief that natural resources were inexhaustible and would always be abundant held sway for many years and affected the way humans utilised biodiversity. Humans have used species for many purposes such as food, medicine, and clothes. Before the appearance of modern societies, humans largely exploited plant and animal species mostly at a sustainable level (Wilson 1989). However, as the human population and living standards increased, the demand for resources escalated. Human societies also became more sophisticated in exploiting natural resources on a broader scale, and exerted detrimental effects on nature (Swanson 1994; Moulton & Sanderson 1999). Exploitation of some species was no longer sustainable and extinction followed as one result (Swanson 1994; Cutter & Renwick 1999; Mace & Reynolds 2001).

Species that were naturally rare became the most vulnerable to extinction (Wilson 1989). The action of humans has undoubtedly reduced the abundance and range of many species (including naturally rare species) and enhanced the probability of their extinction (Wilson 1989; Ehrlich & Wilson

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

1991). Taken over all geological periods, the ‘normal’ extinction rate is estimated at one-to-five species every year (Pimm et al. 1995). At present it is believed that dozens of species are being lost every day (Sciama 2004; IUCN 2007). Between twenty and thirty percent of the world’s species are now under threat, with global extinction rates 100 to 1000 times higher than ‘background levels’ (Pimm et al. 1995; Lindenmayer 2007; Townsend 2008). Estimates of extinction rates are fraught with difficulty and most extinctions occur unnoticed due to lack of evidence. It is believed that the planet’s biodiversity may comprise between 5 and 50 million species (May 1988; Erwin 1997), of which only 13% have been scientifically described (The Royal Society 2003; UNEP 2007). The current world estimate is that 16,300 species are now threatened with extinction (IUCN 2007). The future rate of extinction may be more that ten times higher (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

The global pattern of biodiversity loss has also applied in Australia. While the nation’s growing economy and its increasing use of energy and other resources have brought prosperity and wellbeing to many Australians, the economic activities and consumption patterns have also had environmental consequences (ABS 2003). Australia is one of the seventeen countries with mega- biodiversity, with between 600,000 and 1,000,000 species thought to exist (Chapman 2005; DEH 2005c); yet this rich biodiversity has been extremely vulnerable to human impact. Although Australia has by far the lowest human population density among the mega-diverse nations, it is still within the top ten countries driving species to extinction (Recher & Lim 1990; IUCN 2007). Twenty-two mammal species have become extinct in the past 200 years since the European colonisation (Sattler & Creighton 2002; Johnson 2006).

2.3 What are the main forces influencing human-induced extinction?

There are many causes of species endangerment. The main processes threatening the world’s biodiversity are: habitat loss (through destruction and fragmentation); over-exploitation; invasive species; habitat degradation, and pollution, and now the emerging threat of global climate change (CBD 2001; Baillie et al. 2004; UNEP 2007). In Australia the major threatening factors affecting biodiversity are: land clearing for agriculture; land degradation and salinity; competition with introduced herbivores; alien invasive species; altered fire regimes; sedimentation of wetlands; and urbanisation (Johnson 1999; Williams et al. 2001; Cork et al. 2006). In most cases it seems likely that more than one factor plays a role in the extinction of any given animal or plant species (Hoser 1991; Groom 2006; Townsend 2008).

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

Global and local conservation strategies are being implemented to control the detrimental factors affecting the survival of hundreds of species, but still many threats remain unaddressed. Threats persist in some cases due to a lack of scientific information on how to effectively address the problem, due to the increase of human populations and their demand for natural resources, and perhaps due a lack of political will (O'Connell 1992; Czech et al. 1998; Wilson 2001b; UCS 2004). Powerful economic interests are also pressing on biodiversity (Sciama 2004; Groom 2006; UNEP 2007).

2.4 What are the main approaches being undertaken to address threatened species conservation?

Loss of biodiversity is a global problem affecting many nations and it needs a global solution. Many international organisations are calling for action. The loss of biodiversity is now recognised as a fundamental element to address when planning for sustainability (CBD 2001). However, it is also recognised that the task of restoring threatened biodiversity works within a crisis discipline that requires making conservation decisions in the absence of detailed understanding of the dynamics driving extinction (Meffe et al. 2006; Townsend 2008).

As a way to obtain tangible evidence of the accelerated rate of extinction, biodiversity across regions is being measured by its richness and the number of extinctions. For example, if 10% of species disappear from a given habitat, it is considered that one-tenth of the biodiversity has been lost. Thus, conservation organisations are carefully using the number of species at risk of extinction as a justification or criteria for management intervention (Sciama 2004).

There are several approaches being employed for biodiversity conservation, but the two most commonly used are single species and ecosystem-based conservation. The first involves manipulating populations of individual species and the second one involves establishing protected natural areas (Franklin 1993; Mace et al. 2007). Without entering into the debate surrounding the effectiveness of each approach, I explain below the applicability of each approach within the context of threatened species conservation.

The establishment of protected areas of land and seas is considered by many as the most effective approach because it allows the conservation of many species, their natural habitats, and the ecological processes upon which the biodiversity depends (Bader 1992; Christensen et al. 1996; Simberloff 1998; Margules & Pressey 2000). This approach seeks to identify and conserve land and waters where species can be protected from threatening processes.

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

Ecosystem-based conservation might have a remedial character when a threatening process has been affecting a species and the establishment of a protected area may stop or reduce the threat. Here, ecological restoration that encompasses activities such as removal of pests, revegetation of habitat corridors and recovery of threatened species, may support the goals of protected areas (Townsend 2008). Applying ecological restoration into protected areas may help to enhance the habitat and consequently the population condition of threatened species. The protected area approach may also have a preventive character where species with limited distribution or rare status are protected to avoid future threats (Miller 1996; Brunckhorst 2000). The legal protection given in a protected area should assist to regulate the human activities and development in important ecosystems and habitats, preventing any future threat.

The approach of protected areas works well where the threatened species are still able to recover their populations by themselves. Once the threatening processes have been eliminated or controlled, it is expected that the threatened species will increase its population up to a sustainable level. However, there are cases where the species occur in low numbers and in a restricted distribution that necessitate more direct manipulation of the population (Wallington et al. 2005). There are also species with occurrences in areas that cannot easily be acquired to establish protected areas. In those cases, the approach related to the manipulation of individual species is more suitable. Knowledge of ecological theory at the level of species and populations is needed to make decisions on manipulation of individual species. Threatened species restoration is based on the small and declining population paradigm and population dynamics theory (Gilpin & Soule 1986; Dunning et al. 2006). Another paradigm on which restoration of threatened species is based is related to the causes of species’ endangerment. In many conservation initiatives it is considered that most of the factors for species decline are primarily human-caused. Therefore, in restoration it is necessary to determine which factors are having more influence on population decline, and address those factors (Caughley & Gunn 1996; Reading & Miller 2000). Thus, conservation efforts must also focus on management of threatening human activities.

Examples of the single-species approach may be the translocation of a species suffering a restriction of genetic variation caused by geographical isolation. By acting through management interventions such as translocations or ex situ breeding, the probability of extinction of a given species may be reduced (Fiedler & Groom 2006). Thus environmental agencies respond to pressures on biodiversity through formulating policies and action plans designed to reduce threats and restore populations to a desired state. The single-species approach is applied in conservation to re-establish

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts the normal conditions of diminished species or populations, and prevent their extinction (Backhouse & Clark 1995a; Fiedler & Groom 2006).

There are several merits of the single-species approach for conservation that justify its application, including: a) the ‘fuzzy’ idea of ecosystem management holds little appeal for the general public, who prefer simpler messages about charismatic species; b) data on species provide some of the most readily available, repeatable, and explicit monitoring and analytic systems with which to assess the success of conservation efforts; and c) in practice, conservation bodies often end up directing conservation actions to species, probably because they are the tangible and manageable natural units of ecosystems (Franklin 1993; Mace 2004; Dunning et al. 2006; Mace et al. 2007). Nowadays, ecological restoration is not only applied at the species level; it is employed at other levels such as ecological communities and landscapes. Conservation actions are directed to groups of threatened species that are interacting as an ecological community (Bader 1992), or to the sites where many threatened species are using more that a single habitat (Beatley 1994). Here, information about how the species or populations make use of the landscapes is required for management.

I will now describe two of the schemes that Australian environmental agencies are employing to deal with threatened species recovery. The schemes use listing and recovery planning in a complementary way, although they may have different objectives and applications in specific circumstances such as different state legislation. The listing and recovery planning processes are explained below.

2.4.1 Listing threatened species

The IUCN developed a framework to classify and rank the species at risk of extinction in various categories of threat. This classification system is based on ecological parameters such as population estimates; fluctuation of the population; size of the geographical range; fluctuation in the size of the range; and the extent to which populations and habitats have been fragmented (Baillie et al. 2004; IUCN 2007). Considering specific criteria, the IUCN assesses and classifies species facing a higher risk of global extinction in three categories of threat, commonly referred to as the Red list: Vulnerable, Endangered, and Critically endangered (Rodrigues et al. 2006; IUCN 2007). Other complementary categories that are not considered as threatened species include: Extinct; Extinct in the wild; Near threatened; Less concern; Data deficient; and Not evaluated. Species only need to fulfil one of the criteria defining any given category for it to be included in that category in the Red

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts list (IUCN 2007). Table 2.1 shows only the categories of threatened species and the criteria developed by IUCN.

Table 2.1: Categories used in the IUCN Red List of threatened species and criteria of threat Category Category description Criteria Critically A species (or taxon) facing an ‘extremely If within 10 years or three generations endangered high risk of extinction in the wild’ the risk of extinction is at least 50% Endangered A species facing a very high risk of If the probability is 20% within 20 years extinction in the wild of five generations, whichever is longer Vulnerable A species facing a high risk of extinction If there is a 10% probability of in the wild extinction within 100 years

The IUCN framework provides an international benchmark to assist with the planning of conservation efforts worldwide. The framework also includes criteria that allow each country to assign a category to every species on its own territory (Gardenfors et al. 2001). The IUCN regularly reviews whether some species can be moved from the categories of least threat to those that indicate that there is more concern, and vice versa. The higher the category of threat, the more urgent the conservation need. Thus the Red List works as an international inventory that includes those species classified in one of the categories of threat, and draws attention to conservation needs (Baillie et al. 2004; Rodrigues et al. 2006).

The listing classification system has important advantages: species for which the number of individuals has not been counted or assessed, but whose range is restricted and in rapid decline can thus be included in the list. A limitation is that the acquisition of estimates from censuses and species’ distribution research must still be carried out for many species, which is often costly and demands enormous effort. For this reason, at global and local levels the number of species assessed still remains disproportionately low, and only the well known species of major taxa (mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) have been assessed (Sciama 2004; Dickman et al. 2007).

The listing scheme is an important tool for conservation and it has been adopted widely by nations and conservation organisations as a guideline and reference for making informed decisions about preserving biodiversity (Rodrigues et al. 2006; IUCN 2007). Some nations have based their environmental legislation and conservation strategies on the IUCN Red List (Gardenfors et al. 2001; IUCN 2003). Countries such as Australia consider the IUCN categories and criteria when establishing national and state lists of threatened species (DEH 2005c). The Commonwealth government has developed its own list of threatened species, as have the states and territories. As with the IUCN Species Survival Commission, the Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

Committee is the panel of experts who conduct the scientific assessment of threatened biodiversity (TSSC 2002).

The inclusion of threatened species on the lists of threatened biodiversity can also trigger other complementary conservation strategies. Besides the legal restrictions imposed on exploitation and trade, some species still need direct measures of management in order to restore reduced populations. This scenario requires the formulation of species-based management plans. The management plans are management guidelines dictated in a document, which identify the conservation actions and interventions necessary to restore the species from the threatened status. These documents are known as wildlife management plans, conservation plans, action plans or recovery plans, depending on the target and objectives. In Australia, action plans and recovery plans have been adopted by environmental agencies to support conservation of threatened species. Definition of recovery plans is given in the following section.

2.4.2 What is recovery planning?

The complementary scheme to the listing of threatened species is recovery planning. The scheme involves preparation of documents known as recovery plans, which include recommendations of conservation and management necessary to stop the decline and support the recovery of threatened species. Recovery plans delineate, justify and schedule management actions. Plans have to be approved by the relevant authority in a state and/or the Commonwealth to be implemented. Governments and conservation organisations can use a recovery plan as a guide for conservation action. A number of tasks are prescribed within recovery plans, which deal mostly with the manipulation of the species’ populations to increase their numbers (e.g. captive breeding), manipulate or restore degraded habitats (e.g. fencing or revegetation), and control of the threatening process affecting the status of the species (weed and feral pest control) (Backhouse & Clark 1995a; DEH 2005c).

Recovery plans may have several objectives depending on the various issues related to the recovery of the target species. A recovery plan sets out the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline and support the recovery of listed threatened species or threatened ecological communities (DEH 2007). The aim of a recovery plan is to increase the opportunity for long term survival in the wild of a threatened species or ecological community. The management strategies employed in recovery planning can be focused on single species, ecological communities, or landscapes (DEH 2007).

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

The two schemes of listing and recovery planning are often intimately associated. In the legislation of some countries, listing of a species automatically triggers the preparation of a recovery plan. Also, where a government adopts a recovery plan, it is expected that there will be funding for its implementation. The species covered by recovery plans are considered to deserve the highest priority attention by conservation bodies.

In addition to Australia, countries such as the US, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand employ the scheme of recovery planning. Recovery plans are generally prepared by recovery teams, government agencies, individual scientists or representatives of conservation organisations (Papps 1996; DEH 2007). Recovery plans can be quite challenging due to need to implement many management tasks over several years. In consequence, recovery teams are frequently established consisting of experts on the target species, concerned stakeholders and enthusiast members of the community.

The next section includes a historical review of the incorporation of recovery planning into the Australian environmental legislation and policy. It is not intended as an exhaustive review of environmental history but rather to highlight the most relevant events, initiatives and government policies that shaped the current management system for threatened species.

2.5 Legislative background of recovery planning

I will first explain the characteristics of the federal system of government. This is important given the complexity that the system of government adds to environmental management, where governance on threatened biodiversity has implications across three levels of government: Commonwealth, state/territory, and local. I will also describe briefly the main legislative and policy mechanisms existing in New South Wales and Queensland to manage and protect threatened species, given that the operation of the recovery planning scheme in those states was also analysed in the thesis (see Chapter 3 of Research approaches and selection of methods).

2.5.1 The federal system of government

Australia is a federation of six states and two territories. The federal government (the Commonwealth) has powers in specific areas while the reminder rest with state parliaments (Bates 2006). Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, the control of, and responsibility for use of, land and natural resource management, including biodiversity, remained with the individual states, each of which exercises sovereign rights within its own borders (Fisher 2003).

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

The Commonwealth has direct administrative control of natural resources only in its own external territories, which are the islands, coastal waters beyond state jurisdiction, continental waters and the continental shelf, and land owned by the Commonwealth in the states and territories (Fisher 2003). The Commonwealth has overriding power in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory although it has delegated day-to-day governance to the territory governments. Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth has sole power over foreign affairs. The Commonwealth is able to control the international trade of wildlife, exercising limits in commercialisation and importation of exotic flora and fauna. It is also responsible for negotiating international treaties for the conservation of migratory fauna (e.g. Australia-Japan Migratory Bird Agreement). The Commonwealth has the power to override inconsistent state legislation in order to fulfil its treaty obligations in the interest of the whole nation (Frith 1973).

The states can legislate on all environmental matters not specifically reserved for the Commonwealth by the Constitution. Thus, power to deal with most environmental issues is conferred concurrently on the Commonwealth and states/territories, rather than upon one level of government (Bates 2006). This means that for any particular case the federal and states/territories legislative controls may apply. For example, where a threatened species is listed under both Commonwealth and state/territory legislation, any proposal that may impact upon them will need to comply with the requirements of both levels of government. To avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, however, the Commonwealth may effectively delegate the environmental assessment process to a state/territory to undertake on behalf of the Commonwealth (Bates 2006). In this case a voluntary agreement between the two levels of government will be always a first requirement. In the event of conflict Commonwealth law prevails over state/territory law. Traditional legal theory indicates there is nothing the state/territory can do to enforce their laws against the Commonwealth.

States have their own autonomy. The division of legislative competence between the Commonwealth and the states makes the implementation of any national strategy or program through legislation a matter of consultation and cooperation. In this way, it is the states that have the major legislative and executive competence in matters of natural resource management. Where the Commonwealth wants to pursue national strategies, such as the protection of biodiversity, it needs to seek a cooperative approach that might be a more politically effective procedure. It seems that it is in the interest of both levels of government to try to work out cooperative arrangements to biodiversity regulation, wherever possible. In this matter, however, states expect that the Commonwealth assumes the corresponding financial responsibility (Bates 2006).

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

As we will see later in the historical review, the 1990s marked a watershed in the pursuit of national strategies for biodiversity conservation. The Commonwealth assumed a role of moderator under the cooperative federalism, seeking to encourage and coordinate national approaches to biodiversity conservation and management (New 2006). This cooperative approach relied on states and territories helping to develop such strategies, thereby having greater ownership and being more likely to implement them. The ultimate goal of the cooperative approach is to achieve a win-win situation, where the Commonwealth can implement its national strategies in state and territory jurisdictions and, on the other hand, states and territories are more likely to receive federal funding. Negotiation of bilateral agreements is a legal procedure to entrust the management of environmental issues of national concern to the states. A bilateral agreement is concluded between the Commonwealth and a state or territory that provides for accreditation of state/territory processes for environmental assessment and approval of actions that may impact on matters of national environmental significance (Australian Government 2000; DEH 2000). Bilateral agreements have been established between the Commonwealth and some state/territory governments to develop the provisions of the EPBCA (DEH 2006a).

2.5.2 Evolution of the legislation and policy to protect threatened species

Although Australia has a history in conservation that can be traced back over 100 years, policies about conservation of threatened species are relatively recent. I will mention below the most important events in chronological order: I. During the early 1900s a number of concerned naturalists started to give warnings of the detrimental impacts of human activities on wildlife. Most of the discussions on conservation were focused either on regulation of ‘game’, control of exotic and undesired animals, or the trade in species of economic importance (Frith 1973; Total Environment Centre 1983). The first reserves and national parks were also established at the turn of the century to encourage protection of their natural conditions and wildlife. II. General concerns about threatened biodiversity and its conservation in Australia did not emerge until the 1950s, after the global revolution on the environment. Publication of Leopold’s (1949) and Carson’s (1962) influential books in the US and the United Kingdom stimulated international concerns about the protection of nature. In the mid to late 1970s conservation agreements such as CITES and the Bonn Convention of Migratory Species were established to raise awareness around the world of the need to protect biodiversity and to develop conservation programs to protect and recover threatened species (Frith 1973). The first international conservation agreements were influenced by a new philosophy of caring for the Earth.

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

III. One important step taken to protect Australian biodiversity was the signing of several international treaties, including the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (1946), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (1971), the International Convention in Trade in Certain Species of Wildlife (1973), and the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (1974), among others (OECD-WPEP 2000). Provisions of such treaties were incorporated into national legislation to give the necessary enforcement at national and local level. The Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories was the federal agency charged with the responsibility of protecting and conserving the Australia’s natural heritage, including threatened biodiversity (Burbidge & Jenkins 1984). IV. In the 1970s the national regulatory framework on biodiversity conservation was established, based on the passage of several policy instruments. The nature of the legislation showed that there were already concerns about threatened biodiversity and the need to legislate its protection and management (Frith 1973). In those years, however, the numbers of threatened species was still unassessed (Frith 1973). Table 2.2 shows some examples of legislation developed by the Commonwealth beginning in the 1970’s.

Table 2.2: Evolution of the Commonwealth legislation for the conservation of Australian biodiversity Year of adoption Commonwealth’s major laws 1974 Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1975 Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1980 Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980 Whale Protection Act 1981 Antarctic Marine Living Resources Conservation Act 1982 Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1983 Protection of the Sea (prevention of pollution from ships) Act 1983 World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1992 Endangered Species Protection Act 1999 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

V. After the participation of an Australian delegation in the CITES convention in 1973, the Australian government set up the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (CONCOM). At that time there was no agreement between the various authorities as to which species were threatened and should be protected (Burbidge & Jenkins 1984). In 1974 CONCOM created a ‘Working Group on Endangered Species’ to address the problem. Later, in 1976, the Working Group prepared a report on the Identification of endangered fauna. In 1980 that report was incorporated into the first official national list of threatened species, which was adopted by CONCOM and the Australian Department of Home Affairs and Environment (DHAE) (Total Environment Centre 1983). This national list of threatened fauna included six major categories of threat that were

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

based on criteria developed by the IUCN. The collation of the national list principally relied on the integrity of databases maintained by state agencies (Burgman & Lindenmayer 1998). VI. In 1980 after the adoption of the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) proposed by IUCN, the federal government along with scientists and conservationists started a discussion on the formulation of a national approach to protect the Australian biodiversity, which would give stronger protection to threatened species and their habitats (Kennedy et al. 2001). Between 1980 and 1982 there were a series of seminars to discuss matters towards the formulation of a National Conservation Strategy (Commonwealth of Australia 1982a; b), a requirement for all the WCS signatory countries. The development of the strategy was coordinated by the Commonwealth/state Steering Committee and the DHAE. Among the issues discussed were the conservation of native wildlife and their habitats and relevant strategies such as establishing reserves, control of adverse impacts of some land management practices and industrial development outside reserves, regulation of overexploitation and international trade, management of introduced species and establishment of breeding programs for threatened species (Commonwealth of Australia 1982a; b). VII. In 1984 the National Conservation Strategy for Australia (NCSA) was released (Commonwealth of Australia 1984). It was an initiative of the Commonwealth government to address environmental issues of national concern. The critical situation of many native plants and animals and their habitats was recognised at national level for the first time. The NCSA also proposed to work towards a nationally uniform approach to conservation and environment protection legislation to avoid unnecessary delays and duplication created by different jurisdictions (Commonwealth of Australia 1982a). The basis of a national legislation on biodiversity conservation was set (Kennedy et al. 2001). VIII. Non-governmental conservation organisations also contributed to shape the current system of management. For example, in 1986 Ecofund Australia launched a proposal for ‘A threatened species conservation strategy for Australia and an Endangered Species Program’ (Kennedy & Burton 1986), both calling for a more specific and active response of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments towards the issue of threatened biodiversity. They also called for a national threatened species conservation strategy. Within this campaign, recovery plans were suggested for the first time as a measure to undertake active management of species at risk. Non- governmental initiatives such as this promoted debate about the need for a comprehensive biodiversity law, and fostered a greater awareness of the issue within the Commonwealth government (Kennedy et al. 2001).

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

IX. In 1988 the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment established the first National Endangered Species Advisory Committee (ESAC). The ESAC started to develop a series of mechanisms to address the issue of loss of biodiversity. Those mechanisms included the establishment of: a) a national strategy for threatened species and ecological communities; b) cooperative programs to fund recovery action; c) the Commonwealth Endangered Species Program; and d) the planning, adoption, and implementation of recovery plans. X. Because some state/territory governments had conservation agencies with long-standing records in wildlife management, they passed specific legislation to protect threatened biodiversity earlier than the Commonwealth government. The most renowned case is the development of the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. This legislation was a pioneer in conservation in Australia, and it was mirrored by later legislation on biodiversity from the Commonwealth government and the states (Woinarski & Fisher 1999). XI. In 1989 the ESAC established the Endangered Species Program, with the objective of preventing further extinctions of Australian biota and to restore endangered species and ecological communities to secure their status in the wild (Male 1996; Saunders et al. 1996). The program was set for a period of 10 years with an initial budget of $4 million for the first two years. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service was given the responsibility for its implementation. Action plans and recovery plans, both concepts taken from the IUCN strategies and the US Endangered Species Act, were the first management documents specifically produced by recovery teams to guide the management of threatened species of major taxonomic groups. The role of the Commonwealth government was to coordinate conservation programs working in partnership with state/territory governments (Male 1994; Woinarski & Fisher 1999). XII. The first recovery plan was adopted in 1991 for a shrub species from Tasmania. In addition, eleven actions plans were also produced for birds, reptiles, marsupials, rodents, and vascular plants, among other taxonomic groups. Actions plans were made for reviewing the conservation status of major defined groups, assisting government bodies to identify threats, and recommending priority actions (DEH 2005c). Action plans are management documents with general information. Recovery plans became the complementary elements of management, and unlike actions plans, they provided a detailed schedule for implementation of conservation and management action (Male 1996). XIII. Before 1992 no broad national legislation existed for the conservation of threatened species (Saunders et al. 1996). There was, however, a great and fragmented body of law relevant to the management of flora and fauna in the Commonwealth, states and territories. To unify such individual efforts a National strategy for the conservation of Australian species and communities

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

threatened with extinction was published in 1992 by the Endangered Species Advisory Committee, including representatives of the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) (Commonwealth of Australia 1992). In those years it was expected that ANZECC would have the role of national coordinator of the strategy. The strategy included within its mechanisms the preparation and implementation of recovery plans and listing for all threatened species and ecological communities. Individual states and territories also developed their own conservation programs and state-based recovery plans. XIV. The Commonwealth government took a more active role in conservation of national biodiversity when it signed the agreement of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1992. The CBD proclaimed principles and recommendations for all signatory countries to reduce the loss of biodiversity (CBD 2001). XV. To translate some of the provisions of the CBD into the Australian law, in 1993 the Federal Government enacted the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (Cth) (ESPA). It was the first legislative framework on biodiversity conservation, which had specific statutory obligations on the Commonwealth government for the protection of threatened biodiversity (Woinarski & Fisher 1999). The ESPA provided the basis for the preparation of a national list of threatened species, and included provisions for the formulation of recovery plans (Papps 1996). Some threats affecting biodiversity such as feral animals, dieback caused by fungus, and long-line fishing were identified and listed under the ESPA as key threatening processes. The ESPA led also to the establishment of two ministerially appointed committees: the Endangered Species Advisory Committee and the Endangered Species Scientific Committee (Saunders et al. 1996). These bodies provided advice to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment on a range of matters prescribed in the ESPA, including priorities for preparation of recovery plans and scientific advice on listings. XVI. In 1995 the ratification of the CBD by Australia helped to incorporate measures into the national level, through the adoption of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (DEST 1996). The Commonwealth government continued fostering its role of mediator at national scale through enforcement of the ESPA and development of a number of cross-sectoral programs, although responsibilities for land management and biodiversity conservation were principally vested in the states/territories (Woinarski & Fisher 1999). XVII. Under the ESPA, the Commonwealth government developed two major programs for biodiversity conservation: The Endangered Species Program (previously established in 1989) and the Feral Pest Program. In the administrative year 1994-95, the Endangered Species Program received a budget of $5.5 million, and to 2003 had accumulated a funding of $23 million since its

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

commencement (ABS 2003). Under the ESPA, seventy-four recovery plans were adopted between 1993 and July 2000. XVIII. In 1999 the ESPA was amended by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBCA) as a way by which the Commonwealth government acknowledged its role and responsibility in the management and protection of threatened species at national level (Australian Government 2000). The EPBCA is now the principal piece of Australian environment legislation on biodiversity conservation. With this new legislation, the Commonwealth government recognised the limitations of the previous ESPA regarding its operational capacity for implementing conservation programs on states/territories (Dixon 1994; Woinarski & Fisher 1999). The EPBCA now provides a national regulation for environmental protection through a focus on Matter of National Environmental Significance and on the conservation of Australia’s biodiversity, where threatened species/ecological communities are some of the major issues (DEH 2000). Within this scheme, development projects that are likely to have a significant impact on a Matter of National Environmental Significance are subject to a rigorous assessment and approval process. For the first time the Commonwealth government took responsibility for environmental impact assessments of actions affecting threatened biodiversity, even when they occurred in state and territory jurisdictions (Kennedy et al. 2001). XIX. The EPBCA promotes the conservation of the Australia's native species and ecological communities by providing for: a) identification and listing of threatened species and threatened ecological communities; b) development of conservation advice and recovery plans for listed species and ecological communities; c) development of a register of critical habitat; d) recognition of key threatening processes; and where appropriate, e) reducing the impacts of these processes through threat abatement plans (Australian Government 2000; DEH 2007). The EPBCA incorporated many of the provisions from the international treaties dedicated to the conservation and protection of biodiversity such as the Convention on the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals, RAMSAR, the CBD and CITES. XX. The EPBCA incorporated the list of threatened species made under the previous ESPA. Nine hundred and five species remained from the previous ESPA list of threatened species and one hundred and eighty three have been added to the new list (ANAO 2007). The EPBCA also incorporated provisions for the public nomination of species, ecological communities, critical habitats and key threatening processes for listing (TSSC 2002). Public nominations are assessed by a new Threatened Species Scientific Committee, drawn from the same body of experts that followed the structure of the previous Endangered Species Committee.

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

XXI. At the beginning of the recovery planning scheme, the only approach considered was focused on single- and multi-species plans. After 1995 the Endangered Species Scientific Committee advocated considering ecological communities for management (TSSC 2002). Those recommendations were lately addressed by the EPBCA, which included provisions for nominating ecological communities to be listed as threatened. This new approach for planning recognised the need of ecosystem management (Woinarski & Fisher 1999). After the passage of the EBPCA in July 2000, the first ecological community was listed and the first recovery plan focused on an ecological community was adopted (DEH 2005c). The passing of the EPBCA substantially increased the number of recovery plans adopted by the Commonwealth government, from 74 plans made before 1999 to 162 plans adopted in the first year of the EPBCA (DEH 2005c). XXII. In 2001 the Australian government committed to the National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation for 2001-05, which aimed to have recovery plans in place for all nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities by 2004 (DEH 2005c). XXIII. In the same year, as a requirement by the CBD, a report on the implementation of the National Strategy for the Australia’s Biological Biodiversity was prepared by the ANZECC after five years of its adoption (ANZECC 2001). The report showed the progress of main government programs toward achieving the objectives on biodiversity conservation, including listing and recovery planning, and the implementation of state/territory programs. The progress assessment reported ‘objectives partially achieved with ongoing efforts required’, showing that addressing biodiversity conservation would require a long-term commitment by the government. XXIV. In 2007, after seven years of the EPBCA, the federal government tested two recovery plans for regions that incorporated the landscape-based conservation approach. The Regional Recovery Pilot for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges was about developing a more integrated approach to recovery and threat abatement planning at the regional scale. The recovery pilot was a multi- taxon recovery plan that incorporated and integrated prioritised recovery and threat abatement actions for many of the threatened species and ecological communities within the Adelaide region. XXV. The main financial assistance programs developed by the Commonwealth to support the protection of threatened biodiversity are the National Heritage Trust (NHT) established under the National Heritage Trust Act 1997 and the Hot Spots Program (ANAO 2008). Both programs are administered by DEWHA as the responsible federal agency. Between 1997 and 2007 the NHT program received $2.8 billion (ANAO 2008), although only a small proportion of this was directly targeted to threatened species conservation (see point XXVI below).

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

XXVI. At the same time the NHT supported non-governmental initiatives such as the Threatened Species Network (in partnership with WWF Australia), which involves raising public awareness and community involvement in protecting threatened species (Commonwealth of Australia 2004). XXVII. It is estimated that of $251 million spent on the various Commonwealth programs for biodiversity conservation, $78 million has been spent directly on the conservation of threatened species and ecological communities so far (ANAO 2007). XXVIII. Listing and recovery planning are still the main Commonwealth schemes used for threatened species management. Some states/territories may rely more on employing other management schemes for conserving threatened species, depending on the legislative background, institutional capacity, and socioeconomic conditions of the region where the programs are in place. Although all states/territories have threatened species lists, the extent of use of recovery planning in each jurisdiction differs significantly. Analysis of such elements is presented in Chapter 4.

Within the legislative framework for threatened species management, it is also important to describe the legislation and policy enacted by state and territory governments. Given the characteristics of the federal system of government, the EPBCA is expected to be complementary to the state/territory legislation where other mechanisms exist to regulate threatened species. I will explain here the main legislation and conservation programs put in place by the New South Wales and Queensland governments in matters of threatened biodiversity.

2.5.3 Conservation and management in New South Wales

The New South Wales government has taken a similar approach to the Commonwealth in protecting threatened species and ecological communities. Under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) (TSCA), vertebrates and invertebrates, and terrestrial flora, but not fish or marine vegetation, are protected. Threatened fish and marine vegetation are protected by the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW). Some threatening factors such as invasive species may be classified under the Non-indigenous Animal Act 1987.

The TSCA provides for the identification, conservation and recovery of threatened species and their populations and ecological communities (NSW Government 1995). It also aims to reduce the threats faced by those species. The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) administers the TSCA and it is in charge of threatened species conservation and management (DECC NSW 2005). Under the TSCA there is a list of threatened species, populations and communities of wildlife. There is also another list of potentially threatening processes. Flora and fauna species are eligible for listing and any person can nominate a species. A scientific committee

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts advises the Minister on approval of listing. Listing a species or ecological community may lead to preparing a recovery plan, and once the recovery plan is made it must be approved by the Minister (NSW Government 1995). The Commonwealth government can also approve recovery plans made at state level, whereby recovery plans are submitted to the Commonwealth Minister for approval and adoption under the EPBCA. New South Wales has entered into a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth to collaborate in the national strategy for biodiversity conservation.

Habitat critical to the survival of listed species may be identified and registered. Threatening processes also need to be identified and registered, and their listing may trigger the preparation of a threat abatement plan (NSW Government 1995).

Another state-based strategy known as the Threatened Species Priorities Action Statement (PAS) seeks to address the recovery of threatened species and the management of key threatening processes from a more integrated perspective involving regional groups. Amendments to the TSCA in 2004 required the Director of DECC to determine state-based priorities for preparing recovery plans through the development of a PAS. This regionally-based approach integrates decision- making based on regional priorities and considers establishing cooperative partnerships between all relevant stakeholders such as state agencies, regional groups, local councils, and the community (DECC NSW 2005). This approach seeks to improve the channels of communication and information exchange about the ‘on-ground’ implementation of plans.

2.5.4 Conservation and management in Queensland

In Queensland the main laws protecting threatened wildlife are The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) (QNCA) and the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006, which cover any taxon of animal or plant. The NCA explicitly adopts an ecosystem approach to wildlife protection. It declares that the overall object of nature conservation will be achieved by protection of the biological diversity of wildlife and its habitats. In the QNCA, listing and recovery planning are not statutory provisions, although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted those conservation schemes together with the register of critical habitat and control of threatening processes (EPA 2008). Listing considers the conservation status categories proposed by the IUCN. The EPA is the state agency charged with implementation of threatened species recovery programs.

Back on Track is a tool developed recently by the EPA to support targeted recovery planning. The framework was designed to prioritise the species which are most in need of conservation action and with the greatest chance of recovery regardless of their current classification under the QNCA or the EPBCA. Such framework has assisted to score plant and animal species on the basis of level of

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts endangerment and make regional assessments on the priorities for conservation. It also promotes multi-species and ecosystem approaches. This framework is expected to better reflect the level of management required for conservation and recovery (EPA 2008).

The Queensland government has entered a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth to protect national biodiversity. Under this agreement there are some recovery plans adopted by both the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. There also recovery plans prepared between two or more states.

2.6 Current approaches in threatened species research

The conservation and management of threatened species through recovery planning is an approach utilised by some nations such as Canada, the US and New Zealand during the past two or three decades (e.g., Tear et al. 1993; Govey & Owen 1996; Scudder 1999; Crouse et al. 2002; Cullen et al. 2005). Research on recovery planning is not new; there has been scrutiny of the impact of recovery plans mostly on the US Endangered Species Act (ESA). Much evidence of its performance as environmental law has been accumulated in the academic arena. In Australia recovery planning has had relatively sparse scrutiny.

Of the research conducted on the US ESA, some studies have focused on analysing the merits and weaknesses of the single-species approach and recovery planning for threatened species conservation. Recovery planning has been criticised for not being an efficient conservation strategy due to the lack of scientific rigor, vagueness and limited responses to abate threats (Bader 1992; Orians 1993; Brown & Shogren 1999). Opponents of recovery planning assert that there are so many threatened species and the recovery process is initiated too late, likening the situation to that in an emergency hospital where only the patients (species) deemed to have the best hope for survival should receive treatment (McIntyre et al. 1992; Sinclair 2000; Restani & Marzluff 2002). Critics claim that where the species are found at risk of extinction, there is already a series of unfavourable conditions affecting their survival. This demands that agencies dedicate direct intervention towards hundreds of species that require a larger investment of time, resources and conservation effort in order to move them from their endangered status (Gordon et al. 1997).

Conservation practitioners who advocate recovery planning justify its use as a complementary scheme to establishing natural protected areas. They argue that even with the management of protected areas network in place, there are still species and ecological communities that will require a more direct intervention (Miller 1996; Mace et al. 2007). Another reason is that the conservation value of some areas is often assessed by the presence of species within it simply because those are

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts the natural units and the best known elements of biodiversity (Franklin 1993; Eisner et al. 1995; Mace et al. 2007).

There are other controversies that have attracted the attention of researchers working in conservation. The human aspects surrounding threatened species recovery seem to be quite challenging for conservation scientists who cannot yet clearly understand the complexity of the problems and formulate easy solutions (Miller et al. 1994; Clark et al. 2002c). Legislation around protecting threatened species could stop development projects, control exploitation and commercial activities of threatened flora and fauna, and limit economic activities in habitats of threatened species, and may therefore generate conflicts with the different interests. Recovery plans often deal with private lands where disputes and conflicts arise (Hatch et al. 2002). These complexities require research efforts to achieve a better understanding of the links between the biological and social aspects the recovery. Considering the many scientific and socioeconomic factors that may influence the successful implementation of recovery plans, research needs a multidisciplinary perspective to approach the issue, combining social and natural sciences (Miller et al. 1994; Clark et al. 2002c). However, this has not been always the case. Traditional approaches based on biological and ecological sciences still prevail.

Although conservation literature is well advanced on biological aspects of threatened species, research on the social aspects of recovery planning lags behind most other conservation topics. Our understanding of the ecological aspects of threatened species conservation rests, in part, on well- designed empirical studies. In contrast, our understanding on the way in which policies can prevent species loss rests primarily on case-study narratives from approaches that have failed to look at the whole system (Clark 1996; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006). Research has been conducted to identify external factors that may affect the success of recovery plans. For example, some studies have been conducted to define whether funding of recovery plans has an effect on improving threatened species status (Rachlinski 1997; Restani & Marzluff 2002). Research has also been focused on the impact of using biological and ecological theory and species knowledge when setting recovery objectives, formulating recovery actions and defining recovery criteria (Schemske et al. 1994).

Other conservation scientists have looked at recovery plans as policy instruments that can be appraised by social sciences research methods. Because recovery plans are government policies that guide an agency’s intervention through the use of public funds, Evaluation research, an analytical tool of the policy sciences, has been employed to evaluate various programs and make recommendations for improvement (Wallace et al. 2002). Policy analysts have also used economic and policy theory to validate the worth of conservation efforts in terms of the allocation of

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts resources, government investment, economic optimisation, and the economic costs for society (Thibodeau 1983; Fredman & Boman 1996; van Kooten 1998; Restani & Marzluff 2002). Reviews of recovery planning are also found in environmental reports and scientific papers, not only based on ecological sciences, but also on economics, law, politics and other related social sciences (Kohm 1991; Beatley 1994; Czech & Krausman 2001; Goble et al. 2006).

According to some analysts, our knowledge of conservation policy is still immature, as evidenced by the small number of conceptual guidelines, quantitative tools and well-designed empirical analysis to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of conservation measures (Kleiman et al. 2000; Salafsky & Margoluis 2003; Sutherland et al. 2004; Stem et al. 2005; Salzer & Salafsky 2006). Collection of evidence of recovery planning results has been until now a difficult task for conservationists, especially in relation to recovery plan implementation. Papers describing experiences from individual case studies have predominated (Bader 1989; Webster et al. 1995; Clark et al. 2002b; Stoskopf et al. 2005). Papers have also provided general recommendations for improving recovery planning (Miller et al. 1994; Clark 1996; Hadlock & Beckwith 2002).

Quantitative methods have been used more recently to obtain more comprehensive evidence from the application of recovery planning in conservation (see examples related to empirical research below). Some studies have analysed the relationship of managerial and technical elements, such as the extent of ecological knowledge of target species or the existence of protected critical habitat, with improvement in the target species’ conservation status. Such analyses have been possible because in the US the government has a database of listed threatened species containing their conservation status, which are reviewed and updated every two years. These datasets have allowed researchers to analyse likely relationships among variables and observe a response reflected as changes in the species’ conservation status. Unfortunately, in Australia, neither the Commonwealth nor most state agencies have developed these types of datasets with updated information (Chapter 4).

I now present a summary of relevant papers that have employed quantitative analysis to review the content of recovery plans. All of these papers have found serious deficiencies in the design and preparation of recovery plans. Although all studies were undertaken in the US, there are important lessons to learn that could be applied to improve recovery plans in Australia or elsewhere, especially because recovery planning is following a similar format in several countries.

Among the issues more commonly identified from the analysis of recovery plans are: the extent of use of biological information; the causes of threat; the participation of diverse authors in

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts development of plans; differences of the approach on single and multi-species, and the appropriate use of recovery criteria. For example, Tear et al. (1993; 1995) evaluated content attributes of recovery plans to determine the quality of recovery goals and criteria, and the degree of incorporation of biological information. In their 1993 paper they found that 28% of recovery plans had recovery goals set at or below the existing population size of target species, at which they commented: ‘our analysis does not show that recovery plans attempt to save too much’. In their complementary paper, Tear et al. (1995) found an overall lack of detailed biological information presented in plans. Analysis of the causes of species endangerment and the necessary management interventions as cited in recovery plans has also been conducted. After reviewing more than 300 recovery plans, Foin et al. (1998) found that the three major causes of species endangerment in the US were ‘habitat reduction’, ‘habitat modification’ and ‘exotic species’. Gerber and Schultz (2001) reviewed recovery plans to examine the likely relationship between authorship of plans and the use of biological information. Among other results they found that groups of authors from diverse affiliations were likely to strengthen the recovery planning process. Boersma et al. (2001) examined recovery plans to test hypotheses about the likely effects of plans’ revisions, diversity of authorship, recovery criteria, and effectiveness of single- and multi-species plans. Their results showed that: a) species with revised recovery plans did not improve their status across time; b) participation of non-government officers in recovery plans development had a positive impact on species recovery; c) species in plans with a clear linkage between species biology and recovery goals did not show improvement across time; and d) species covered by multi-species recovery plans were four times less likely to exhibit improvement than were species covered by single-species plans. In another study, Taylor et al. (2005) correlated species with recovery plans in operation with their conservation status; they observed that species with recovery plans operating for two or more years appeared more likely to be improving. They also found that species with single-species plans appeared to fare better than those with multi-species plans. The most comprehensive study was conducted by Hoekstra et al. (2002a), who designed and conducted a series of quantitative studies on various components of recovery plans and likely external factors that might be influencing their success. The whole study was published in a series of papers by a group of authors. For example, the factors affecting implementation of recovery plans were studied by Lundquist et al. (2002), who found that most recovery plans have only been partially implemented, and that single-species plans have more degree of implementation that multi-species plans. They also found that species with designed critical habitat, designed conflicts, revised recovery plans, a recovery plan coordinator, and a dedicated database had greater task implementation than species lacking those management elements. On the aspect of establishing measures to monitor recovery efforts, ‘species population

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts trend’ was the measure more likely to be proposed and implemented in recovery plans than any other monitoring activity (e.g., habitat condition, impact of predators and exotics) (Campbell et al. 2002). Another issue identified in recovery planning was the availability of knowledge. It is thought that there is more technical information on charismatic species (generally vertebrates) which is translated in a deeper understanding of the biology and ecology of threatened species and the threats affecting their survival (Tear et al. 1995; Clark & May 2002). These aspects have repercussions when preparing recovery plans because a more complete knowledge may lead to the formulation of better recovery strategies and management actions. These studies highlighted the importance of the design, development and implementation aspects of recovery plans, and showed how these planning aspects had a relationship with the extent of implementation of plans and the ultimate goal: improvement of species’ conservation status. Some of the issues identified in the paragraphs below, such as the appropriateness of single- or multi-species approaches for recovery planning and the likely differences between plans made for animal and plant species, were addressed in this thesis when conducting a quantitative analysis of the content attributes of recovery plans (Chapter 5).

Although all of those studies provided important insights into recovery planning, it is necessary to clarify that we cannot make comparisons or generalisations about how recovery plans may perform elsewhere. Governmental programs such as recovery planning are constructed by a series of elements particularly related to the local context (e.g., background legislation, governance structures, management approaches and regional priorities). There are elements from research that may apply in other scenarios or circumstances, but since recovery planning is mostly a national/regional-based approach, the local context has a great influence.

In Australia policy evaluation has been applied to examine government efforts in terms of the delivery of threatened species legislation and accountability of conservation programs. Some reviews have been published on the ESPA and EPBCA (Boardman 1997; Chapple 2001; Kennedy et al. 2001; Macintosh 2002; 2004; Macintosh & Wilkinson 2005), the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (Crosthwaite 1995a; Wilson & Clark 1995), and the Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW) (Auld & Tozer 2004; Murphy & Nally 2004). These studies have appraised the benefits of implementing legislation for biodiversity conservation. There has been an attempt to analyse some of the issues surrounding national recovery planning (Moore & Wooller 2004); however, the study reviewed only a small number of recovery plans (twenty-four) to provide an overall insight of the scheme.

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts

2.6.1 Knowledge gaps in recovery planning

Although research on recovery planning exists, there are still many gaps in the knowledge about the complexity of management of threatened species. Knowledge about the organisational structures, managerial aspects, decision-making within the organisational setting and the policy process is still considered poor (Clark et al. 1989; Hoekstra et al. 2002). Although application of social science methods to threatened species management has been proposed by several authors, few studies have actually investigated the human aspects of species recovery (Clark 2002; Clark & Harvey 2002b; Hadlock & Beckwith 2002).

Current conservation research requires a close dialogue between conservation scientists and managers (Allison & Hobbs 2006; Brosnan & Groom 2006). Many important ecological questions are emerging from efforts to apply existing ecological knowledge in a real-world setting (Vitousek et al. 1997). In the same way, design and implementation of recovery plans can be thought of as an ecological and conservation experiment, where strategies and actions are tested on the practice. Adaptive management, within the context of recovery planning, can provide feedback within the loop of ecological science – conservation policy: theory (research) informs application, and lessons from application (management) test and inform theory (Salafsky et al. 2002; Wallington et al. 2005). This iterative exercise may assist to overcome the considerable gap between ecological knowledge and its integration into management policy (Franklin 1993; Clark & Cragun 1994; Clark et al. 2002a).

Research on threatened species management requires evidence of the performance and success of legislation and policy instruments. After decades of threatened species law, how has success been measured? In many cases, the number of listed species and adopted recovery plans has been used as an indicator of biodiversity programs (e.g. DEH 2005a, b). However, these parameters say little about the appropriateness and effectiveness of programs towards restoring biodiversity. Research of threatened species conservation requires new approaches to generate evidence from the many aspects of the recovery processes, not only from the ecological point of view. This is not an easy task; it is challenging considering the various disciplines that might be involved such as law, economics, or public administration.

Major environmental reports have shown that Commonwealth agencies face severe challenges in their attempts to conserve and restore biodiversity (Williams et al. 2001; Cork et al. 2006; ANAO 2007; 2008). Research on the managerial aspects of recovery is necessary to address existing information gaps about the impact of recovery plans and their ability to guide recovery. Recovery planning as a conservation strategy also requires studies to better understand how the recovery 33

Chapter 2 Threatened species conservation: Key issues and concepts process is working and what factors influence its performance. Research is needed to identify mechanisms that underlie effective implementation of the CESP and recovery plans. The success or failure of recovery planning depends on the appropriateness and effectiveness of recovery plans. Such knowledge gaps and issues were considered while designing my research, and were incorporated into the research questions of the thesis.

With the review of the current situation of recovery planning, it is clear that more research is necessary to address the policy processes that govern the conservation of threatened species in Australia. The approach considered in the thesis addressed some of the issues mentioned in this chapter.

2.7 Chapter summary

This chapter presented a review of the context and background information in which recovery planning is set. The first sections explained the concepts of threatened species, its origin, and the human factors behind extinction. Later sections addressed the main conservation schemes for threatened species, which include listing and recovery planning. Definitions of those schemes were provided. The following section presented a historical review of legislation and policies developed by the Commonwealth on threatened species conservation. To explain the managerial context at state level, the approaches being employed by the New South Wales and Queensland governments were provided. A review of current approaches to management and relevant research allowed identification of knowledge gaps in recovery planning, some of which will be addressed in this thesis.

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH APPROACHES AND SELECTION OF METHODS

3.1 Chapter overview 3.2 Thesis aim 3.3 Major approaches taken to conduct the investigation 3.3.1 Policy evaluation 3.3.2 Systems analysis 3.3.3 Combining policy evaluation and systems analysis approaches 3.4 Research methods 3.4.1 Exploratory work 3.4.2 Selection of methods 3.4.3 Limitations of methods

3.5 Chapter summary

3.1 Chapter overview

The primary aim of this chapter is to outline how the research questions were addressed and describe the main approaches and methodologies that were applied to answer them. The chapter contains a general description of the main approaches undertaken (Section 3.2), the logical sequence of the research procedure, and an outline of methods employed to conduct the investigation (Section 3.3). A more detailed description of the methods, procedures and tools is presented in separate sections of methods at the beginning of each of the results’ chapters (4, 5, 6, and 7).

The investigation was focused on the recovery planning scheme adopted by the Australian governments to guide the conservation and management of threatened species and ecological communities. The main approaches adopted in this study were a formative and process evaluation of recovery planning, including a systems analysis of its managerial structure and operation. This type of investigation was designed to gain a better understanding of how a conservation strategy of

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods this type works in practice, and assess whether the recovery planning scheme is appropriate in terms of conservation principles and policy and management needs.

3.2 Thesis aim

The aim of the thesis is to conduct an evaluation of the recovery planning scheme for threatened species, to assess its appropriateness as a tool for management and conservation, and investigate how legislative, institutional and organisational factors influence its implementation.

3.3 Major approaches taken to conduct this investigation

Acknowledging that other elements of the CESP exist in relation to the recovery process, I decided to examine recovery plans because they are the key instruments guiding management. Recovery plans were also the most accessible and comprehensive source of information about the issue of threatened species recovery at national scale. I focused the investigation on such documents and conducted a Formative and Process evaluations of recovery planning (Herman et al. 1987; Patton 1990). Although some program outputs were examined, comprehensive outcome evidence was unavailable to assess the effectiveness of recovery planning. Complementarily, the thesis addressed the management system in which recovery planning is immersed. An assessment of the key managerial factors influencing implementation of recovery plans and mapping and modelling of the management system were also conducted.

I started the study with a review of the background documentation of legislation, program documentation of the CESP and other official documents to gain insight into the research topic. Preliminary discussions with experts such as Associate Professor Bob Beeton (Chair of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee), Professor Geoff McDonald (University of Queensland) and Professor Charles Zammit (University of Southern Queensland) also assisted me to understand how environmental policy operates in the Australian context. These discussions helped to identify research gaps and define potential lines of inquiry that required further scrutiny.

During the design phase of this investigation I looked at the scheme of threatened species recovery planning from the perspective of biological and social sciences. As noted in Chapter 2, traditional approaches still consider threatened species conservation as a biological problem alone. I believe that such a perspective may not be sufficient to adequately address the problem. There is considerable evidence that threatened species extinction and restoration cannot be understood through studying natural phenomena alone (Brewer & Clark 1994; Clark 1996). Many other events and social processes are involved which need to be considered.

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

Acknowledging the human aspects of the problem, I considered that the lack of integration of biological and social sciences disciplines would provide only a piecemeal and reductionist perspective. Thus, I conducted this study taking into account principles of various biological and social science disciplines, ranging from wildlife management, ecological restoration and biodiversity conservation, to environmental management, systems thinking and public policy evaluation.

Two major approaches were chosen to conduct the study. The first approach was to conduct a policy evaluation. Acknowledging that the recovery planning scheme works as a governmental policy, methods from the policy and program evaluation disciplines provided an adequate framework to design and conduct the study (e.g., Patton 1990; Susskind et al. 2001). The policy evaluation approach followed the premise that recovery planning needed to be examined to assess its appropriateness and adequacy as conservation strategy and environmental policy (Brewer & Clark 1994; Backhouse et al. 1996; Brigham et al. 2002). The second approach grew from an interest in examining the institutional and organisational dimensions of management. According to several authors (Clark et al. 1994b; Miller et al. 1994; Yaffee 1997; Boersma et al. 2001), recovery planning is a complex process that is formed by many elements both external and internal to the program. To gain a better understanding of the planning process, the intervening elements or factors, and the dynamics of the process itself, I chose to use systems analysis as a second approach. Following is a brief description of each approach and how they were applied to the thesis project.

3.3.1 Policy evaluation

Policy or program evaluation represents an adaptation of social research methods to the task of studying social intervention in natural, political and organisational circumstances (Rossi et al. 1999). In the inter-face of natural and social disciplines, policy sciences see extinction and restoration of threatened species as social problems (Brewer & Clark 1994). Restoration efforts require more than just a technical solution. Technical matters, socioeconomic and political complexity, human values and perceptions, and uncertainty are all elements that need to be considered for problem solving. Policy sciences involve a set of principles, including contextual mapping, problem orientation, and use of multiple methods, which can be useful in practical problem solving (Herman et al. 1987; Brewer & Clark 1994; Susskind et al. 2001). Since the present thesis explored a ‘real-case scenario’ within the management of threatened species in Australia, the policy science perspective was thought to be appropriate because the theory is connected appropriately and realistically with on-the-ground application (O'Faircheallaigh & Ryan 1992; O'Faircheallaigh 1997).

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

Policy and program evaluation generally integrates a series of procedures by which evaluators can appraise several phases during the development of a program and determine its merit, worth or value (Scriven 1997). Those phases are program initiation, program planning, program implementation, and program accountability (Herman et al. 1987). Given that the main focus of this thesis was to conduct an analysis of the planning phase and operation of the CESP, I employed the methods and procedures of Formative and Process evaluations (Herman et al. 1987; Patton 1990). Within the policy evaluation procedure, formative and process evaluations assess the value of a program to an agency and finds areas for improvement (Herman et al. 1987; Rossi et al. 1999). Formative and process evaluations can be applied on the planning and implementation phases to improve the development of a program (Jacobson 1999). There are several objectives for this type of evaluation: a) to assist government decision-making and priority setting; b) to provide better information to assist managers to improve program performance; c) to facilitate more effective implementation which can contribute to improved accountability; and d) to explore a variety of effects on program participants (Herman et al. 1987; Patton 1990; Davidson 2005). Context, formative and process evaluations may help decision-makers when deciding whether a particular program is worth implementing (go/no-go decisions) or funding. They may also provide information for making choices among alternatives (e.g. what recovery plan or recovery action to implement among many others). In conservation, good evaluations of programs go beyond assessing whether goals were achieved to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of goals and strategies, and the reasons for success or failure (Kleiman et al. 2000). Thus, evaluations should include assessment of both the substance of the program (what the program accomplished) and the process employed (how effectively and efficiently the program functioned) (Kleiman et al. 2000).

Restoring threatened species is a challenging task for environmental agencies considering the complexity that is required for the implementation of national recovery plans across Commonwealth and state/territory jurisdictions, on public and private lands, and requiring multi- stakeholder involvement. Therefore, evaluation of recovery planning is crucial because it can have enormous significance on the decision-making process, leading to the refinement of management strategies and improvement of decisions (Wallace 2003). Recovery planning also requires periodic review in order to assess advances, achievements, strengths and weaknesses of long-term efforts (Hoekstra et al. 2002a). Results from evaluation of threatened species programs can also be incorporated into the adaptive management cycle, to improve managerial issues, optimise resources and time, and avoid duplication of efforts (Salafsky et al. 2002).

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

3.3.2 Systems analysis

The lack of deep scrutiny of the CESP is perhaps due to the complexity of the threatened species recovery issue itself. Recovery is not only about managing species populations; it is also about changing the behaviour and attitudes of individuals, communities and institutions, working with different stakeholders on scientific, social and organisational aspects, and making management decisions within a scenario of uncertainty (Rohlf 1991; Clark & Cragun 1994; Czech et al. 1998). According to some conservationists, poor ecological knowledge is not the main obstacle in natural resource management – institutional impediments are a larger barrier to implementation of critically necessary programs (Brunckhorst 2000; Wallace 2003; Welsh 2004). There is evidence that social and organisational factors and professionals, while often ignored, have a great impact on the success or failure of recovery planning and its final outcome: the recovery of threatened species (Backhouse & Clark 1995b; Boersma et al. 2001; Crouse et al. 2002).

Acknowledging the influence of such factors, a systems thinking approach was incorporated into this thesis following the premise that recovery planning operates within a management system. In a system domain, there are various different and interdependent elements, and the effects of the parts on the whole depend on what is happening to the other parts (Patton 1990; Ison et al. 1997; Maani & Cavana 2007). By analysing the most important factors influencing the implementation of recovery plans, elucidation of the key cause-effect relationships may generate information about how recovery planning operates. Systems analysis is a holistic and flexible approach that can incorporate social and biological elements, and qualitative and quantitative methods. This approach is appropriate for the present study since system analysis allows investigating the many elements of a management system, its structure, cause-effect links, and functioning (Clayton & Radcliffe 1996; Jackson 2000; Whitten et al. 2001; Allison & Hobbs 2006). Most studies have addressed separated parts of the system, often, only seeing the biological aspects of management. Traditional approaches to threatened species research miss the opportunity to integrate different sources of knowledge.

In the theoretical context of a social system there is a transformation of an original social condition, treated as the input, into another social condition, treated as the output. In the context of my research, there are many input components of the recovery process that influence its final and ultimate output: the species’ recovery. We need to understand how the effects of such factors and the behaviour of the model influence the outputs. The results of such changes depend upon the system structure, the cause-effect relationships of dependent elements and inputs, and the dynamic processes occurring within (Cortes et al. 1974). Looking at the whole system as an entity will assist a response to the question: How effectively is the management system functioning? Thus, mapping

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods the processes and relationships and examining how they affect measurable end points, can achieve a better understanding of the threatened species management system. Computer modelling was the tool used to construct a theoretical representation of the management system and foresee different management scenarios (Cain et al. 1999; Bosch et al. 2007).

Related research employing the systems analysis approach on wildlife has been focused on the analysis of biological and ecological parameters for decision-making (e.g., Maguire 1986; Marcot et al. 2001; Williams et al. 2002; Brooks et al. 2006). Modelling of the social aspects of biodiversity conservation and management remains scarce. Some authors have recommended the analysis of socioeconomic data to more accurately understand and predict the fate of conservation programs (Mathevet & Mauchamp 2005).

I considered that the systems model perspective was appropriate for the present research problem because it permits reasonable scenario projections of management interventions with data obtained from experts, and it could be tested quantitatively. Modelling of the management system may assist understanding how the management system works, provide new insights about the factors that have more influence, and explore the potential impacts of different management interventions in planning (Susskind et al. 2001; Nagel 2002). Knowing the factors that have more influence on expected outputs and outcomes, we can be more confident about making optimal decisions and allocating efforts and resources to those areas that will return the best results. Systems analysis and modelling were then employed in the investigation, due to the complexity of many aspects (biological, scientific, socioeconomic, and legislative) associated in the context of threatened species recovery.

3.3.3 Combining policy evaluation and systems analysis approaches

Both policy evaluation and systems analysis approaches proved to be versatile and adaptable enough to be used in a converged framework in this thesis. As mentioned earlier, policy evaluation can provide information for decision-making and priority setting about estimates of several alternative management decisions or strategies, and consequently assist managers to improve program performance. A policy evaluation seeks to assess whether there is clear evidence that the policy goals have been achieved and cause any discernible effects or changes in outcomes. This type of evaluation, called an ‘Accountability approach’ has its roots in the application of systems theory (Chelimsky & Shadish 1997). Such theory sees social organisations as complex systems for achievement of stated goals, with the need for a control system to guide the transformation of inputs to outputs through the management process. Here is where policy evaluation and system analysis

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods approaches meet. By using tools from both approaches we can conceptualise a management system as a model, examine its structure, key elements and dynamics, and evaluate its performance and effectiveness. In evaluation, special attention must be paid to the process of program delivery and the control mechanisms that keep the outputs as specified (Hall & Hall 2004).

Other elements integrated from both approaches that fitted well in the context of the thesis are as follows: 1. According to Nagel (2002), in program evaluations we needed models that enable integration of: a) multiple dimensions of the problem; b) various missing information; c) alternatives that are too numerous to dissect out their individual effects; d) multiple (and possibly conflicting) constraints; and e) the need for simplicity in drawing and presenting conclusions in view of such multiplicity. Systems model building is a valuable approach that can incorporate all of these requirements without restrictions or limitations of information (Cain et al. 1999; Uusitalo 2007). Hard data and expert opinion can be combined in a management system model. Contrasting views and perspectives from different stakeholders can easily be incorporated in the model. The diagram’s representation of the management system allows users to gain a better appreciation and understanding of the many elements of the model and its links and dynamics (Cain 2001). 2. Given my interest in examining the institutional and organisational factors that influence effective conservation, I took into account the development and process perspectives of system analysis that focus on processes (e.g. human interactions) rather than just outcomes, and see the social factors as a key function of evaluation (Patton 1990; Everitt 1996). Such an approach matched my interest in generating understanding and explanation of the management system and its processes, taking into account the participation of different stakeholders. 3. Evaluation for knowledge seeks to unravel complex interactions of causality, to explore the issues underlying social problems and to examine the appropriateness of program provision in dealing with these problems (Hall & Hall 2004). This perspective provided the theoretical basis for evaluating the recovery process in terms of its appropriateness as a public environmental policy, acknowledging at the same time the importance of conservation principles for planning.

3.4 Research methods

An interdisciplinary and integrated perspective was emphasised in this study. This approach was used to investigate the problem from different disciplines in order to develop the fullest possible picture of the problem and alternatives to address it. Combination of multiple methods from social and natural sciences allowed an improved understanding of the recovery planning scheme within the CESP.

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

3.4.1 Exploratory work

During a reconnaissance phase of the investigation, a preliminary insight of the management system was gained from visiting the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Queensland environmental agencies, and interviewing staff involved in threatened species management. I looked at the availability of strategic documents, implementation reports and reviews of recovery plans to identify and make decisions about the type and quality of data necessary for analysis. Ideally, an evaluation on threatened species recovery plans may also look at its effectiveness. For this, recovery plans’ parameters could be associated with changes of the target species status (e.g. Male & Bean 2005; Taylor et al. 2005). However, preliminary research on documentation revealed that little evidence and information is available about the implementation and outcomes of recovery plans. Three internal recovery plan reviews were collected from the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, but they only addressed a limited number of individual species. None of the three visited agencies (the Commonwealth and two states) prepare and compile comprehensive reporting of recovery plan’s implementation as a normal practice. Data sets on species’ conservation status are not maintained for all threatened species; they are not regularly updated and do not support any analysis of species trends as a consequence of management interventions. In such circumstances, case study analysis could have been undertaken to gain insights from such reports, but this would have been restricted to only the few better-known species (generally iconic species) and constrained by the availability of key informants who are spread across the country. Case studies would also have assisted me to gain information about the recovery planning process, but this would have limited my ability to carry out a more comprehensive study and identify more general insights of recovery planning. Consequently, knowing that the full set of recovery plans was readily available from the DEWHA website, I chose to focus the investigation on the attributes of recovery plans adopted by the Commonwealth and state governments. This set of documents provided a valuable source of information about the national coverage of recovery planning, given that recovery plans included participation of Commonwealth and state/territory agencies. Recovery plans made by the states/territories also reflected particularities of content influenced by state legislation, regional strategies and current conservation practices.

Considering that the CESP has a national coverage, a major review of strategic programs undertaken by visiting all states/territories would have been costly and time consuming. I decided to investigate the CESP in the central Commonwealth agency (Canberra) where it is administrated. I then selected two states to gain an insight of scenarios about how the CESP operates at state level. For this, New South Wales and Queensland states were selected. The selection of the Commonwealth agency was essential, as the investigation addresses the national recovery planning 42

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods scheme formulated under the Commonwealth legislation. New South Wales is a particular case, as that jurisdiction adopted its own state legislation specifically to address threatened species conservation. Queensland, on the other hand, has no specific legislation to protect threatened species, but is one of the states/territories that have been most actively involved in the recovery planning scheme. Both jurisdictions have their own state-based programs and recovery strategies, which provided rich material and points of reference to conduct the study. A last criterion for the selection of the agencies’ sample was the short distance from my research institution, and the convenience of logistic and accessibility, which represented lower costs of fieldwork.

3.4.2 Selection of methods

The reconnaissance phase of my study allowed assessing the characteristics and context of the CESP as a governmental program, observe the type and quality of information, identify complementary sources of information, define the relevant stakeholders, and define the boundaries of the investigation. The selection of methods and techniques resulted from adapting various research approaches to the specific circumstances of the program to be evaluated, while providing adequate responses to the research questions that motivated the study.

Due to the lack of consistent and objective evidence to conduct the study, I had to use various methods to collect and analyse multiple sources of information and different types of data. Research methods involved triangulation to obtain information through different instruments and procedures to develop a clearer picture of the object of study (Babbie 2005; Davidson 2005). The evidence was then collated, cross-checked and analysed across different lines of enquiry. Figure 3.1 shows the various methods employed in the thesis, indicating how qualitative and quantitative methods were combined to address the research questions.

I believed that for an appropriate approach to the thesis topic I would need an overall examination of the recovery planning scheme to assess any general patterns found in documents and identify what management aspects were involved. This analysis was carried out by quantitative methods: an examination of two hundred and thirty six recovery plans provided the opportunity to develop numerical data sets on plans’ content attributes appropriate for conducting a quantitative analysis.

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

Research questions Selected methods Results

Q1. How does recovery • Interviews (individual and focus group) planning operate in regard • Content analysis of program documentation to legislative, jurisdictional • Quantitative and qualitative analysis of Chapter 4 and institutional aspects? recovery plans (database)

Q2. Do recovery plans comply with legislative • Quantitative analysis of recovery plans Chapter 5 requirements and coherent (statistical analysis of database) conservation planning?

Q3. What management • Interviews (individual and focus group) factors have most influence • Experts workshops on implementation of • Quantitative analysis of recovery plans Chapter 6 recovery plans at state level?

Q4. What modifications could be made in the • Experts workshops management system to • Systems analysis Chapter 7 improve implementation • Systems modelling of recovery plans?

Figure 3.1: Methods employed in each chapter to address each research questions of the thesis

At the same time, I needed a more in-depth and detailed scrutiny of the problem to gain a greater understanding of the management system context, and explain how the many elements upon the recovery process influence management. For this part, qualitative methods provided the necessary procedures. The emphasis of the qualitative approach is on detailed description and in-depth understanding as it emerges from direct contact and experience with the program and its participants (Herman et al. 1987). Qualitative analysis was important for gaining a deep perspective of the structure and dynamics of program’s operation. The research setting followed a naturalistic inquiry with process orientation, where the researcher studies a naturally occurring event or program over a period of time, with no predetermined course established by, and no manipulation of, obstructive or experimental interventions (Patton 1990).

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

The qualitative framework also allowed examination of the match of recovery plans with legislative instruments and coherent conservation planning. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are not antagonistic or exclusive, but complementary alternatives for research (Patton 1990). Finally, information from the various methods such as interviews, review of recovery plans, agency reports and formal publications, and statistical analysis was collected and cross-checked to respond to the research questions.

3.4.3 Limitations of some methods and availability of data

During the study I combined different sources of information that reflect an implicit and explicit reality of the object of study. Most of the information about the context of the CESP and recovery planning was available from the Commonwealth Department of Environment’s website. Independent reviews and research publications were scarce. Official documentation of the CESP is based mostly on internal assessments. Given the lack of comprehensive data of threatened species, these assessments may only capture part of the program’s performance and provide only rough, imperfect estimates of reality. To address this problem I used triangulation of several methods to cross-check information and obtain a more reliable picture from the object of study (McNeill and Chapman 2005). I based a higher percentage of the investigation on the quantitative analysis of recovery plans that provided the most standardised and reliable source of information for analysis.

My research project addressed a ‘potentially sensitive’ topic for managers, as research and evaluation of governmental programs may reveal deficiencies and poor performance in program delivery. This could be intimidating for staff members when interviews were conducted. Given this situation I encountered the reluctance of some informants to participate in the study. There was also a reluctance to talk about particular topics from those who agreed to participate in interviews. This could bias the interviewee’s responses towards positive facts and cover the deficiencies or lead to key information being withheld (Bradburn 1983). To address this, I explained to participants that their names and responses would be kept anonymous and that I would present the information mostly as overall results. Before conducting the interviews, ethics approval for the study was obtained from the School Research Committee of the University of Queensland. I sent an advance email to all participants containing the questionnaire and solicited an informed consent. I also interviewed scientists and members of non-governmental organisations to gain a picture of the management system from ‘outside’ government to compare their views. This exercise gave various points of reference upon which I based my reasoning and judgments.

Chapter 3 Research approaches and selection of methods

Systems analysis and systems modelling may reflect only the view of those involved in the process of information gathering. Thus, the management system model is based on subjective opinion of participants. To address such subjectivity, I organised two workshops with representatives from government and non-governmental organisations, community groups and scientists. The procedure followed during the model construction allowed an open discussion among workshop participants, acknowledged all views, and gave an equal weight to all opinions (Bosworth et al. 1999). The diversity of perspectives was captured into the systems model, without restricting confronting views. At the end, a combined model reflected the context and characteristics of two scenarios, one from New South Wales and one from Queensland. Systems models are case-specific, and were constructed to provide a better understanding of the management system, without pretensions of being a universally applicable model.

3.5 Chapter summary

This chapter presented an overall overview of the approaches followed in the thesis and research design. The first sections described the context of the investigation, the major aim of the thesis and the research questions. Later sections explained the scope on recovery planning and the two main approaches taken for the research. A review of the theoretical background of policy evaluation and systems analysis and how they were combined into the study was provided. The final section outlined the employed research methods and their limitations.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

CHAPTER 4 – RECOVERY PLANNING: OPERATION AND ACHIEVEMENTS

4.1 Chapter overview 4.2 Methods 4.3 Results 4.3.1 Current scheme of recovery planning 4.3.2 Operation of recovery planning 4.3.3 Program achievements: outputs 4.3.4 Program achievements: outcomes 4.3.5 Legislative reforms in matters of recovery planning 4.4 Chapter summary

4.1 Chapter overview

This chapter analyses the main legislative and policy mechanisms formulated to recover threatened species in Australia, with emphasis on the national recovery planning scheme. The aim of this chapter is not to conduct an exhaustive review of documentation on legislation but to highlight the most significant government instruments and conservation schemes adopted under the Commonwealth legislation, the former Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (ESPA) and the current Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBCA), to manage and recover threatened biodiversity.

This chapter also examines the operation, procedures and activities conducted by the Commonwealth government to deliver the provisions of the EPBCA in matters of recovery planning. The delivery of the EPBCA provisions is reviewed, making reference to the sections of the Act in which it is framed, and the extent to which the CESP has been implemented across state jurisdictions is determined through quantitative analysis of program outputs and outcomes.

Legislation is often amended in response to new policy needs and objectives. The EPBCA and the state legislation have undergone significant amendment during the past five years, which has changed the emphasis given to recovery planning. To avoid confusion that could arise from changes

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements of legislation, I clarify that the information of the main government conservation instruments analysed in this chapter was valid to December 2007. Later amendments of Commonwealth and state legislation were analysed briefly in a separate section of this chapter (Section 4.3.5) to explain the current trend of governmental programs towards biodiversity conservation, and to observe the impact of such changes on recovery planning.

The chapter starts with this short overview and the research question no. 1. Section 4.2 describes the methods and techniques employed. The results are presented in five sections. Section 4.3.1 describes the current administrative structure of the CESP and recovery planning; Section 4.3.2 examines its operation; Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 present the CESP achievements: outputs and outcomes; and Section 4.3.5 presents the recent legislative reforms in relation to recovery planning. Section 4.4 discusses the main findings of the chapter, and Section 4.5 provides a summary.

Research question no. 1 is addressed in this chapter:

How does recovery planning operate in regard to legislative, jurisdictional and institutional aspects?

4.2 Research methods

The overall approach followed in this chapter was a Process evaluation of the CESP. A process- oriented evaluation focuses on how something happens rather than on the outcomes or results obtained (Patton 1990). Process evaluations are aimed at elucidating and understanding the internal dynamics of how a program, organisation, or relationship operates. It helps to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a program. Process evaluations look not only at formal activities and anticipated outcomes, they also investigate informal patterns and unanticipated interactions. They permit judgements to be made about the extent to which the program is operating the way it is supposed to be operating, revealing areas in which relationships can be improved as well as highlighting strengths of the program that should be preserved (Patton 1990). Thus, the study focused on the most important facets of recovery planning.

Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to gain a better understanding of the CESP. The type of procedure used to conduct the program evaluation allowed an explanation of the program context and setting (legislation), and review of the administrative processes and activities delivered by DEWHA in matters of management and conservation of threatened species. The primary methods employed in this chapter were content analysis of program documentation, interviews

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

(individual and focus group), and quantitative and qualitative analysis of recovery plans (Chapter 3). They are described as follows:

Content analysis of program documentation The review of program documents and legislation relevant to threatened species recovery was facilitated through consultation of DEWHA web site (DEH 2005c), which provided most of the background information about the CESP. In the same way, the websites of the New South Wales and Queensland environmental agencies were useful references. Given the large number of documents available from the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Queensland agencies, it was necessary to include all of them in a database of literature to facilitate the management of information.

Review of policy documents included Commonwealth and state legislation (Australian Government 2000), strategic documents (DEST 1996), administrative guidelines (DEH 1999; 2000; 2002), agency reports (Boardman 1997; Williams et al. 2001; DEH 2005b; a; Cork et al. 2006; DEH 2006b; c; DEWR 2007a), audits (ANAO 2007; 2008) and threatened species listing and recovery planning records (DEH 2007; DEWR 2007b; DEWHA 2008c). Reform of statutes was followed during the last decade to observe changes in strategic planning between the ESPA and EPBCA.

Interviews (individual and focus group) Complementary information not presented in the program documentation was obtained from face- to-face interviews. For this, a pre-designed interview schedule was used (Appendix I), which included only open-ended questions (Babbie 2005). Two focus group interviews were also conducted. People selected for interview included a spectrum of stakeholders involved in different roles in recovery planning, including managers from the Commonwealth, New South Wales, and Queensland agencies, policy-makers, members of natural resource management networks, and scientists working on threatened species issues. Table 4.1 shows the affiliation of the stakeholders interviewed in the study. A total of thirty-five interviews were conducted.

Table 4.1: Affiliation of stakeholders representing the Commonwealth- and state-based management groups that participated in the interviews of the study Affiliation Brisbane, Qld Sydney, NSW Canberra, ACT Government agencies 6 6 7 NRM groups 1 - - Universities 6 3 - Conservation organisations 3 2 1 16 11 8

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Interviews followed a sequence of question-response, but open discussions involving an informal conversation were also stimulated to gain information in greater detail (Fontana & Frey 2000; Drew et al. 2006). The conversational style of interviewing encourage the subjects to participate more, making them feeling more confident to talk in an informal manner, and generate more personal and detailed narratives (Fontana & Frey 2000; Foley & Valenzuela 2005). The first interviewees provided information of additional contacts that may contribute to the study. This technique, called ‘snowballing’, lead to the creation of a network of key informants that were consulted successively during the research process (Babbie 2005). Where further research questions emerged from review of documentation, telephone and email interviews were conducted with the contacts already established to complement the information gathering. All face-to-face interviews were taped and transcribed into electronic format. Text of interviews was classified in common themes and coded for analysis (Neuman 2005). This helped to cross-check similar or different responses of each topic across respondents. The objective of this type of interview was not only to count similarities or differences in the responses, but also to explore the whole range of perceptions expressed during the interviews.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of recovery plans Recovery plans reviewed comprised the series of management documents made under the ESPA and the EPBCA. By January 2006 there were two hundred and thirty six recovery plans adopted under the national framework of the Commonwealth legislation. They were available in digital format; so the entire set of documents was downloaded from the DEWHA website and examined (see Appendix II for the list of reviewed documents).

A database of content attributes of recovery plans was constructed. Database design followed the conceptual format used by Hoekstra et al. (2002) with modifications to adjust the database for information available from Australian recovery plans. To enter information into the database, a series of pro-forms with coded responses were employed to facilitate the data capture and analysis processes. Thus, plan’s qualitative attributes were translated into numbers for quantitative analysis. Identification of attributes was based on a preliminary review of ten Australian recovery plans. Nomenclature of attributes was based on similar studies (e.g. Foin et al. 1998; Hoekstra et al. 2002; Moore & Wooller 2004) and the IUCN Authority Files for Conservation Actions (IUCN 2006a). For the assessment of the type and usage of recovery actions, a standardised criteria of classification was developed (Appendix III). The number of recovery actions by plan and the overall number of actions from all plans was assessed. I was interested in examining the extent to which recovery planning had coverage on different jurisdictions. So the analysis addressed recovery plans made by

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements the Commonwealth and all states/territories. Qualitative and quantitative analysis allowed identification of program strengths and weaknesses.

4.3 Results

4.3.1 Commonwealth scheme of recovery planning

The CESP under the EPBCA maintained the main schemes of listing and recovery planning for biodiversity conservation that were established during the previous ESPA. In regard to restoration of threatened species, the EPBCA provides for: 1) Identification and listing of threatened species and ecological communities; 2) Development of recovery plans for listed species and ecological communities; 3) Recognition of key threatening processes; and where appropriate and, 4) Programs to reduce these threatening processes through preparation and implementation of threat abatement plans.

During the period of the ESPA, between 1993 and 2000, around 1500 species and one ecological community were listed, and seventy-four recovery plans were adopted. After 2000, the existing list of threatened species and the recovery plans was transferred to the EPBCA and the current Commonwealth administration.

Recovery objectives In this first section I show how recovery objectives vary across the main policy instruments of the CESP and different recovery plans. One of the objects of the EPBCA is to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species. In this matter, recovery, as the ultimate goal of legislation and management strategies, is not defined in the EPBCA. I only found in the Commonwealth recovery plan’s guidelines that, ‘the aim of a recovery plan is to maximize the long term survival in the wild of a threatened species or ecological community (DEH 2002). On the other hand, in NSW a definition found in the NSW DECC website states that: ‘the recovery of a threatened species, population or ecological community occurs when the decline is arrested or reversed, and threats to survival are reduced or eliminated, so that long-term survival of the species in nature can be assured’ (NSW NPWS 2003). As a result of management, the species become able to survive by its own in the wild and in the long-term. This definition is imbedded in ecological restoration; however, recovery may have different definitions depending on the condition of the target species/ecological community and its habitat. For many threatened species that are at serious risk, or occur in highly degraded ecosystems, being maintained in captivity/herbarium may be the

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements only short- to medium-term possibility, and their survival will depend on continuing human intervention. Is recovery a practical and achievable goal in such circumstances?

Review of all recovery plans showed that recovery may have several definitions. This was not sought as a problem of inconsistency in planning but a result of the complexity of dealing with multiple goals in threatened species conservation. For example, some plan authors recognised that recovery might not be achieved to the extent of de-listing the target species. They mention that given the difficulties with ameliorating the threats and the severe condition of the species, down- listing may not be realistic within the life of the recovery plan or even decades. Thus, recovery objectives of plans may vary depending on several factors such as the conservation status of the species, the amount and quality of available habitat, the seriousness of threats and the possibility to abate them, and the potential and feasibility to improve the target species’ condition. All of these factors appear to have an influence at the time of establishing recovery objectives and conservation planning. In some cases, plan’s authors predicted low possibilities that some species may have for true recovery, even with the best management conditions. In opposite cases, plan’s authors anticipated positive outcomes from management and conservation interventions such as de-listing. These aspects are important when decisions are to be made in terms of prioritising preparation and implementation of recovery plans and allocating funds. Table 4.2 provides a characterisation of types of recovery objectives found in recovery plans.

Table 4.2: Characterisation of recovery objectives found in Australian recovery plans. Although most of the definitions of recovery from reviewed plans fit in the examples provided below, the list is not exhaustive Type Examples Plan aims to increase the population number, or • Achieving increase of the population by reproduction in the number of populations, of the target species captivity/cultivation by direct manipulation or reservation. • Establishing and maintaining at least five separate populations in the wild • All known populations are incorporated into conservation reserves or protection agreements have been made with landholders Plan aims to maintain the current conservation • Maintaining the current status of the species and preventing it status of the species or avoid moving it to a less from becoming endangered or extinct desirable status. Plan aims to remove the target species from the • Removing a species from the list or down-listing the species to a threatened species list. lower threatened status (e.g. from endangered to vulnerable) Plan aims to control or reduce threatening • To minimise (or eliminate) threats due to human activity to processes. albatrosses and giant-petrels to ensure their recovery in the wild • Minimising degradation of habitats of the species so it may continue the evolutionary process unhindered by human activities Plan aims to maintain the natural viability of the • Ensure the natural viability of the species in their former range target species in the wild.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

4.3.2 Operation of recovery planning

This section describes and analyses the institutional and administrative mechanisms by which the CESP and recovery planning operate. Results of the operation at national level, its achievements and shortcomings, and the main outputs and outcomes obtained from its implementation are also presented and discussed.

On-ground implementation of recovery plans Implementation of recovery plans is a key part of the recovery process. It is also the most challenging phase, considering the large number of recovery plans, resources and staff necessary for such a task. Most recovery planning was developed during the EPBCA (period from 1999 to 2004) (see section 4.3.3 of this chapter).

Where recovery plans need to be implemented by the Commonwealth agencies they can only act on Commonwealth (federal) areas such as National Parks on Commonwealth land, Reserves, and Heritage Sites (e.g. the ‘National recovery plan for the Abbot’s Booby Papasula abbotti’, which species occurrence is restricted to Christmas Island). To date, the Commonwealth through DEWHA has prepared twenty seven recovery plans (11.4% of the total national scheme) to be implemented on Commonwealth areas.

Where national recovery plans needs to be implemented under state/territory jurisdictions, the Commonwealth must seek the cooperation of the states and territories. These circumstances apply to the majority of recovery plans (two hundred and nine plans, 88.6% of the national total). Figure 4.1 shows a flowchart of how the different procedures for implementing recovery plans take on Commonwealth and state/territory jurisdictions.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Commonwealth Government EPBC Act 1999

Implementation on Commonwealth jurisdiction Implementation on Commonwealth Endangered state and territory Species Program (CESP) jurisdictions

Establishment of bilateral Commonwealth Department agreements with state of Environment in and territory governments coordination with other federal agencies On-ground implementation Administration by state and territory agencies

Regional Bodies

Federal agencies on State gov. Local Community Conservation Private Commonwealth regional branch governments groups organisations groups lands and waters

Figure 4.1: Operation of the CESP at federal and state jurisdictions and the agencies and organisations collaborating in implementation of recovery plans

In such circumstances, negotiation of bilateral conservation agreements between the Commonwealth and the state/territory governments are necessary to implement the plans (Section 269 of the EPBCA). Bilateral agreements establish formal procedures for cooperation to protect the species when they occur in areas of state jurisdiction. Such agreements seek to streamline legislative and administrative processes, eliminate duplication of responsibilities, and promote exchange of information useful for decision-making. In some cases, after signing a bilateral agreement the Commonwealth government may give to the state/territory financial and any other assistance, to make or implement a recovery plan (Section 281 of the EPBCA). Assistance may be made subject to conditions as the Minister thinks fit (e.g. the degree of threat to the survival in nature of the target species, the potential for the species to recover, or the efficient and effective use of allocated resources). The Minister must also consult the TSSC before determining those conditions.

Bilateral agreements have been signed between the Commonwealth government and all the state/territory governments, setting out the strategies for governance, financial management, and

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements monitoring and reporting responsibilities of each party. Commonwealth funding has been allocated to the CESP mainly through the Natural Heritage Trust (ANAO 2007). At the same time, state/territory governments have signed partnership agreements with the relevant regional bodies regarding the delivery of these responsibilities. Regional bodies have developed plans and investment strategies to deliver the programs ‘on the ground’. These plans were designed to be accredited and subsequently approved at the national and state/territory level in order to receive Commonwealth funding. Thus, the Commonwealth, state/territory governments, and regional bodies have to collaborate in implementing the recovery planning scheme.

Yet in cases of conflict between the parties, the Commonwealth powers can override decisions of state/territory agencies and local councils. Provisions of the EPBCA have given more powers to the Commonwealth government to act on state/territory jurisdictions on Matters of National Environmental Significance (DEH 2000). This means that the Commonwealth legislation could override state autonomy if required to intervene in protecting important environmental assets such as threatened and migratory species, world heritage properties and wetlands of international importance. Proposed development actions are subject to referral and approval processes from the Environment Minister if the action has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on those matters of national environmental significance (Australian Government 2000). However, other jurisdictions still impose restrictions on what the Commonwealth can do in practice.

A streamlined development and implementation of recovery tasks could be expected where recovery plans apply to Commonwealth lands. Since DEWHA has administrative competence in those areas, recovery activities such as planning, decision-making, allocation of funding, and conservation intervention could operate without jurisdictional impediments. On state/territory lands, the recovery planning process may be slower, facing the need of establishing bilateral planning meetings, negotiation of roles, responsibilities and contribution of both parties, and bureaucratic arrangements for administrating and allocating funds, among other things. According to federal and state managers, after a threatened species is listed, it could take two-to-four years to prepare and adopt the recovery plan, plus two-to-five years for the actual implementation by the states/territories. The factors stated above plus the local priorities for biodiversity conservation determine the extent of state participation in preparing and implementing recovery plans.

Implementation is even more complicated for the sixty per cent of recovery plans where the target species occur on private land. This means that state/territory agencies and local authorities first have to negotiate the implementation of recovery activities with private landholders. In such circumstances the process largely depends on the goodwill of landholders and the establishment of

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements volunteer cooperative agreements. Several governmental and non-governmental instruments have been established to foster cooperation, such as Voluntary cooperative agreements, and incentives such as Conservation agreements, Covenant schemes and Revolving funds (Chapter 6). In many cases these instruments are developed jointly by local governments, conservation groups or community groups and the authorising state agency. Local governments are also playing a key role in recovery plan implementation as they are closer to the community level, and they are in position to engage with the public and communicate government policy most effectively.

Implementation of recovery plans on a national scale is largely dependent on multiple agreements of cooperation across jurisdictions (the three levels of government and NRM regional bodies), regional priorities, available conservation schemes, and land tenure. Evidence of the influence of those aspects is included in Chapters 5 and 6. Coordination between governments is fundamental to avoid overlaps of legislative competence and bureaucratic barriers to implementation of recovery plans.

Who is responsible for implementing the recovery actions? The Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), in coordination with other federal agencies is the primary agency responsible for implementing recovery plans. However, at the national scale DEWHA is at disadvantage because most human and structural resources are located in Canberra and DEWHA does not have much physical presence in the states/territories to carry out the recovery actions. Therefore, implementation of recovery planning by DEWHA is limited. This means DEWHA is highly reliant upon cooperation with the state/territory agencies, regional groups and conservation organisations, and upon the willingness of landholders and volunteers to implement recovery plans.

Recovery teams are also considered to be responsible for implementation, but they constitution is not statutory. The team may include managers, scientists, representatives of conservation organisations, and volunteers who join efforts and share resources to implement a particular recovery plan. They may be responsible for more detailed planning if required, such as identification of actions, targets, responsibilities and time-lines. Recovery teams are considered responsible for monitoring and assessing implementation of plans, and addressing some of the organisational issues relating to recovery efforts. Usually, recovery teams have regular meetings to steer and review the plan progress and report back to DEWHA or the state agencies.

Non-government organizations (NGOs) are also playing an important role in engaging with the public and local communities on conservation issues. This role is critical because NGOs may be

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements perceived as independent from government and therefore more ‘trustworthy’ in the eyes of some people. They are also less constrained in the way they can operate. Many conservation groups are involved in recovery teams, implementing recovery actions, fostering communication with agencies, and assisting with other activities related to recovery efforts such as educational campaigns or monitoring of threatened species in the field. Since those organizations have more presence at regional and community level, in most cases they are indispensable to implement the recovery activities prescribed in plans.

What type of recovery actions are to be implemented? According to legislation, ‘A recovery plan must provide for the research and management actions necessary to stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, the listed threatened species’ (Section 270 of the EPBCA). Thus, recovery plans must outline the management actions and interventions that are expected to recover species or ecological communities. Recovery plans are expected to identify the key threatening processes affecting the species and formulate threat-related actions to address them.

While recovery plans are thought to be primarily scientific plans, they also have a significant focus on the social, economic, and political aspects of management. Analysis of the thesis’ database regarding the type and usage of recovery actions in plans corroborated the strong emphasis in prescribing research over other management activities. Overall results showed that Research & monitoring was the most frequently prescribed type of action by a large percentage (Figure 4.2). Threat-related and Species manipulation-related actions were the second and third most prescribed categories. Contrarily, actions on Education, awareness & training, Policy-related, and Community involvement were poorly represented in plans.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Research & monitoring 33.2

Threat-related 15

Species-related 13.3

Agency-related 11 Recovery Habitat-related 9.9 actions

Type of action of action Type Education & awareness 7

Policy-related 5.7

Community involvement 4.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Per cent

Figure 4.2: Recovery action types and the extent of its usage as prescribed in recovery plans (N = 236 recovery plans; total no. of tasks = 3749)

The total number of recovery actions prescribed in a single recovery plan ranged from two to sixty (mean: 14.0 ± 8.82). The mean number of actions prescribed for each action type varied; Research and monitoring had the highest mean of actions per plan (5.28 ± 3.78) and also the highest frequency of usage in plans (research and monitoring actions were contained in 100% of plans). Education, awareness and training, Policy-related and Community involvement had the lowest number of actions per plan. This could reflect: a) an effect of affiliation of the plan’s authors, since ecological researchers are more involved in recovery planning than any other specialist; or b) that research activities are a truly priority for recovery over other types of tasks.

How implementation varied across states and why? My review showed that eighty-nine percent of recovery plans need to be implemented at state/territory jurisdictions, so the on-ground implementation depends largely on collaboration between the Commonwealth and state/territory agencies. Since the states/territories have their own legislative requirements, the authors of joint plans must consider both the Commonwealth and state requirements when preparing recovery plans at national level.

Adopted recovery plans cover all Australian jurisdictions. Western Australia had the larger number of adopted documents, accounting for the 39.8% of all plans, followed by New South Wales with 18.6% and the Commonwealth with 11.4%. Conversely, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory had the lowest percentage of plans (Table 4.3).

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Table 4.3: Representation of the Commonwealth, states and territories in the Australian recovery planning scheme by 2006 Agency that prepared the plan Percentage of Legislation with provisions for making recovery plans plans made* Western Australia 39.8 No, but recovery planning is stated within state policy as a management instrument New South Wales 18.6 Yes, under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Commonwealth 11.4 Yes, under the EPBCA Victoria 8.5 No, but Action Statements, a type of management guidelines, are made under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Queensland 8.1 No, but recovery planning is stated within state policy as a management instrument Tasmania 5.1 Yes, under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 South Australia 3.8 No, but recovery planning is stated within state policy as a management instrument Northern Territory 3.0 No, but recovery planning is stated within state policy as a management instrument Australian Capital Territory 1.7 Yes, under the Nature Conservation Act 1980 *N=236 recovery plans

Some state/territory agencies have been more active than others in developing and submitting plans to the Commonwealth government for approval. Differences in the number of plans made by the different jurisdictions may not necessarily reflect a national priority assessment. Interviews revealed that there has been no national priority setting exercise so far. Such differences across states may be affected by several factors. For example, states with few adopted national recovery plans could have other state-based legislation and conservation mechanisms that had proved to be effective and sufficient for protecting threatened species. Contrarily, other states that lack state legislative mechanisms for threatened species conservation would seek action under the Commonwealth EPBCA. This is the case of Western Australia, which has the largest number of national recovery plans and where the state legislation does not have specific provisions for recovery planning. Queensland is in a similar position. Both states have adopted the national recovery planning by submitting draft plans to be approved under the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth government can approve national recovery plans as long the proponents meet the content requirements and the TSSC approves the draft plan. State/territory agencies that cooperate with the Commonwealth may also receive financial assistance for approved national recovery plans. This may assure funding and achieve better coordination across all states. In such circumstances, the Commonwealth extends its powers into states/territories to fill jurisdictional gaps in protection.

Although all states/territories have shown willingness to cooperate in conserving threatened species within the national scheme, the federal system of government and the diverse state legislation have inconsistencies. Barriers are related to the poor communication among federal and state/territory agencies, lack of a truly national approach with effective coordination across all jurisdictions and

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements inconsistency across listing categories, planning processes, and monitoring and reporting activities on recovery plans. Such inconsistencies and barriers observed across different jurisdictions are analysed in more detail in Chapter 6.

To overcome such problems some steps have been taken by the Commonwealth and state/territory governments towards improving the consistency between all different threatened species lists by aligning and exchanging information to support recovery planning (Chapter 6). The Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales, and Western Australian governments were the first to enter into collaborative arrangements to exchange technical information through the initiative Species Information Partnerships (SIP) (DEH 2000). Review of inconsistencies, aligning, and updating state-based lists will take time and needs additional resources. The ANAO (2007) estimates that the process of review and aligning lists will take at least six years to complete. When completed, it is expected that SIP will reduce duplication of efforts by improving communication and coordination across states.

However, great challenges remain for all governments involved in pursuit of a national scheme. These include the unification of recovery objectives and criteria of the various threatened species programs, standardising the recovery planning process, and designing a national framework for monitoring and evaluating national recovery plans. For this, governments are considering bilateral agreements as a first step to closing the gap between Commonwealth and state/territory jurisdictions. Such agreements of cooperation, if they worked well, would improve the coordination of strategic planning and reduce duplication of effort (DEH 2006).

The next section examines the main legislative and conservation mechanisms developed in New South Wales and Queensland in matters of recovery planning. This section provides the legislative frameworks developed at state level to deal with threatened species management, and shows how such state-based legislation shapes the form in which recovery planning is undertaken on a national scale. Overview of those state-based examples will assist to understand the links and ongoing mechanisms undertaken by state governments to implement national recovery plans.

New South Wales NSW is a state with comprehensive legislation on threatened species. The legislative framework is provided by the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) (TSCA) for terrestrial species and marine mammals, and the Fisheries Management Act 1997 (NSW) (FMA) for fish and aquatic plant species. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) contains substantial provisions relating to threatened species protection on protected areas. The NSW Department of Environment

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements and Climate Change (DECC) administers the TSCA while the NSW Department of Fisheries is in charge of the FMA. Other agencies that collaborate to implement some recovery activities are the State Forests of NSW and the Department of Land and Water Conservation.

NSW legislation protects threatened species and ecological communities, and it is the only state that has provisions to protect specified populations of a species. Threatened species, populations and ecological communities can then be listed under the TSCA. The NSW Scientific Committee assesses whether species, populations and ecological communities are to be listed or de-listed. Listing of threatened species triggers other management instruments: a) the Minister may declare critical habitat for a Register of critical habitat under the NSW law; b) recovery plans are to be prepared, c) key threatening processes can be identified and listed, and threat abatement plans prepared, and d) potential impacts on threatened species are considered for development consent and issuing of licenses on wildlife. In some cases a Species Impact Statement may be required by law for development activities that are likely to affect threatened species.

The TSCA provides for the preparation of recovery plans for listed species. The Deputy Director General of the Parks and Wildlife Group (DECC) should consult with the NSW Scientific Committee on the state-based priorities for making recovery plans. Decisions are made on discretion of the Deputy Director General. A list of recovery plan’s content requirement is included in the schedules of legislation which is a similar format to the one included in the Commonwealth EPBCA. Among the requirements are the identification of critical habitat and threatening processes and definition of the recovery actions necessary to ensure the recovery of the species. NSW is the second most represented state in the national strategy of recovery planning. Since 1995, 44 recovery plans have been made (18% of the total national).

Recovery planning is now attempting to follow a regional approach of biodiversity conservation through the development of the PAS (Chapter 2). This represented a change from the previous commitment of preparing recovery plans for all listed threatened species. Recovery plans are no longer being prepared for all listed species. They now are only prepared for priority species identified through the PAS. Limited staff and resource influenced to DECC to take this new direction as has happened in the Commonwealth government (see Section 4.4.5 below on legislative reforms). A new component of recovery planning in the PAS was the inclusion of a framework for reviewing recovery strategies and reporting progress of recovery actions. The PAS set performance indicators to measure the improvement of the status of the species and abatement of threats. Monitoring activities are being conducted by regional groups (Catchment Management Authorities) who report back to the DECC on the implementation of recovery plans. A database of threatened

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements species is maintained in the DECC with information concerning the conservation status of individual species, populations and ecological communities. A first PAS released in 2006 included twenty-five recovery plans and twelve threat abatement plans. No official evaluation has been conducted on the progress and effectiveness of recovery planning at state level so far. Evidence of conservation outcomes is only based on individual case studies.

Queensland The management and conservation of threatened species is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The legislative instruments in which management and conservation of threatened species are framed are the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QNCA) and the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulations 1994. The QNCA provides for the management and protection of land and wildlife, and incorporates both flora and fauna species (and marine and terrestrial) under the same law. However, there is no reference to threatened species as a generic group.

Queensland legislation has provisions for making Wildlife and Habitat conservation plans, controlling threatening processes, and protecting critical habitats of wildlife. A significant difference to New South Wales is that Queensland legislation does not contain provisions for preparing recovery plans. This means that recovery plans are not statutory documents, and they are made at the discretion of the Queensland Minister and the EPA. Thus, mechanisms for developing and implementing recovery plans are not specified by legislation, they are only defined within the agency’s strategic policy.

Under the QNCA, ecological communities cannot be listed, only single-species. Native wildlife listed is equivalent to ‘protected wildlife’ which confers restrictions of use and protection. Neither there is a scheme for preparing threat abatement plans. Listing and adoption of recovery plans is made by the Minister with the advice of an independent Scientific Advisory Committee. The listing of threatened wildlife (from the endangered and vulnerable categories) includes five hundred and ninety species; with 15% of those species covered by recovery plans (The State of Queensland/EPA 2008). The EPA has developed guidelines for preparing recovery plans while complying with Commonwealth legislation (Queensland Government 2006).

For critical habitat protection, Conservation Plans are to be developed, and a register of critical habitats maintained by the Director of EPA. Conservation Plans and Nature Refuges provide protection for wildlife in critical habitats.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

The Queensland regulatory framework and the conservation strategies in place point towards an ecosystem approach for management taken by the EPA. This reflects that the recovery planning scheme in Queensland has a less important role in management than in other states such as Western Australia or New South Wales. Recovery planning could be adopted in Queensland as a response to the Commonwealth call for the national approach. By January 2006 Queensland had adopted nineteen recovery plans (8% of the national total). No formal evaluation has been made at state level on the effectiveness of recovery planning, and the scarce evidence of conservation outcomes is based on case studies.

Following this review of the Commonwealth and two state-based regulatory mechanisms for threatened species conservation, the next section presents the achievements of the national recovery planning strategy. Achievements are considered in terms of the results of the program operation, which were classified as program outputs and outcomes.

4.3.3 Program outputs

The section revises the achievements of the Commonwealth CESP in regard to the listing process, preparation of recovery plans and identification and register of critical habitats. The program outputs presented here assisted to estimate the extent of implementation of the CESP as achieved by the Commonwealth and state/territory agencies. However, it is important to keep in mind that these achievements (outputs) are only stepping stones of the recovery process; they are not the end point of recovery. Progress towards recovery, the final outcome, will be reviewed below in section 4.3.4. Although the analysis is mainly focused in recovery plans, it was also necessary to briefly analyse the progress of listing because it is intimately linked to and influences, the preparation of recovery plans.

Listing and de-listing of threatened species Given that one of the main objectives of the EPBC Act is to avoid further extinctions, a criterion to assess the worth and success of legislation would be the number of saved species, in other words, the number of de-listed species. Since 2000 the number of listed species has increased substantially. As reference, Figure 4.3 shows an increase of one hundred and thirty one new species listed between 2000 and 2007. For ecological communities the process has been slower, with only fourteen listings in the same period. The graph also shows the increase in recovery plans prepared – from ninety in 2000 to three hundred and four just seven years later.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

10000

1566 1581 1595 1611 1663 1682 1684 1697 1000 r 291 304 222 235 Listed species 137 174 117 Recovery plans Numbe 90 100 Listed ecol. communities 32 36 38 22 27 27 29 29

10 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Figure 4.3: Development of threatened species and ecological communities listing and preparation of recovery plans from 2000 to 2007(including plans from all jurisdictions)

The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment is responsible for ensuring that inventories of threatened species, including terrestrial and marine, are maintained and up-to-date (Section 174 of the EPBCA). The Minister is also responsible for amendments to the lists, which can be made through de-listing, or transferring species from one category of endangerment in the list to another category (Section 184 of the EPBCA). In this matter, it was attempted to review the cases of listing changes in order to obtain some evidence of conservation and management outcomes. DEWHA recorded fifty-one threatened species that had been de-listed between 2000 and 2007 (DEWHA 2008c). Thirty-five cases contained an explanation of the resolutions made by the TSSC to consider the de-listing. The review showed that not all species were de-listed as a result of recovery efforts. Only 28.6% of the de-listings occurred as a result of management practices such as establishing protected areas, control of threats and captivity/cultivation. The remaining 74% of de-listings were related to wrong taxonomic determinations, changes in nomenclature and availability of new species’ information (Figure 4.4).

More survey information available 42.9

Population growth from management 28.6

Wrong species description 17.1

Changed taxonomic determination 5.7 Cause of de-listingCause Species being non-native 5.7

0 1020304050 Percentage of cases

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Development and adoption of recovery plans Preparation of recovery plans by the Commonwealth government began in 1991 through the CESP. Before the recent reforms of the EPBCA in 2007, it was mandatory for the Minister to ensure that a recovery plan was in force for each listed threatened species and ecological community (Sections 267 and 269A of the EPBCA). Of two hundred and thirty six plans adopted by 2006, 31.4% (n=74) were adopted under the ESPA, and 68.6% (n=162) were adopted after July 2000 when the EPBCA began, indicating a significant increase in the rate of preparation of recovery plans under the new legislation (Figure 4.5).

50 45 40 35 30 Single-sp 25 Multi-sp 20

No. plans Ecol. comm. 15 10 5 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

Recovery plans have been made for single species, multi-species, and ecological communities. According to the approach followed in the plan, the number of species covered by recovery plans varied from one up to twenty-five. Only single- and multi-species recovery plans specifically described the number of species covered in the plan. Single-species plans have been by far the most common approach in recovery planning accounting for the 84.7% of adopted documents. Multi- species plans and ecological community plans represented 10.2% and 5.1%, respectively. By state, Western Australia had the highest number of single-species plans adopted (35.2%), and also the greatest number of plans focused on ecological communities (4.2%). Only Western Australia, New South Wales, and the Australian Capital Territory have developed plans for ecological communities to date. It is estimated that current recovery plans cover four hundred and fourteen listed species, and another four hundred species will be covered by the plans in preparation (DEWR 2007). The rate of adopting national recovery plans is considered slow (up to four years); some of the reasons

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements expressed by DEWHA staff for this were insufficient resources and limited institutional capacity (ANAO 2007).

Since DEWHA has recognised that there is a limit to the rate at which recovery plans can be developed, and the Commonwealth is now exploring alternative approaches. During 2007 the Commonwealth and South Australian governments began a pilot project for a regionally focused recovery program. The Regional Recovery Pilot of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges is seeking a more integrated approach to recovery and abatement planning at a regional scale. It integrates a multi-taxa recovery plan with threat abatement actions for many of the species and ecological communities of the region, as a mechanism to provide more efficient and effective conservation outcomes and speeding up the recovery planning process. As the project is in an early trial phase, its feasibility and effectiveness have not been assessed.

It is important to clarify that the preparation and adoption of a recovery plan does not necessarily lead to its full implementation. Insufficient funds, limited institutional capacity and other factors may influence the extent of implementation. On the other hand, the operation of recovery plans is costly. Budget estimates for implementing a single recovery plan averaged around $100,000- 200,000 (Chapter 6). Information about the amount of funds invested in each plan and the extent of its implementation was not available. Some plans have been in place since the commencement of the first legislation and have lasted over a decade.

Identification of critical habitat As another legislative mechanism for threatened species protection, recovery plans must identify the habitats that are critical to the survival of a species or ecological community (Section 270 of the EPBCA). Critical habitat may include areas that are necessary: a) for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal; b) for succession; c) to maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development; or d) for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species/ecological community (DEH 2000). Then, the Commonwealth Minister may list the critical habitats identified in recovery plans in the Register of Critical Habitat (Section 207A of the EPBCA). In doing so, the Minister may consider scientific advice from the TSSC given that the identification of critical habitat, including location and extent information, is a matter of ecological judgment. Threatened species with registered critical habitat may obtain benefit from having additional legal restrictions against detrimental activities to the listed habitats. If the Commonwealth agency executes a contract for the sale or lease of Commonwealth land that includes critical habitat, the agency must ensure that the contract includes a covenant the effect of which is to protect the critical habitat. Thus the covenant may bind the successors in title of the

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements buyer or lessee (Australian Government 2000). To date, only five Critical habitats have been registered under the EPBCA (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4: Total number of critical habitats recognised in the Register of the Critical habitats under the EPBCA (period 2000 to 2006) Register of Critical Habitat Effective 1. Diomedea exulans (Wandering Albatross) - Macquarie Island 1 Jul 2002 2. Thalassarche chrysostoma (Grey-headed Albatross) - Macquarie Island 1 Jul 2002 3. Thalassarche cauta (Shy Albatross) - Albatross Island, The Mewstone, Pedra Branca 1 Jul 2002 4. Manorina melanotis (Black-eared Miner) - Gluepot Reserve, Taylorville Station and Calperum Station, excluding the area of Calperum Station south and east of Main Wentworth Road. 5 May 2004 5. Lepidium ginninderrense (Ginninderra Peppercress) - Northwest corner Belconnen Naval Transmission Station, ACT 28 Feb 2005

The number of registered critical habitats raises concern about the low compliance with this legislative requirement. I then assessed the identification of critical habitats within the procedure of recovery plan development. I found that 61.1% of plans did comply with the requirement (Figure 4.6). Review of plans that did not make the identification revealed that a) 12.3% did not mention the requirement at all; b) 11.7% prescribed a habitat assessment as an action within the plan; c) 6.8% mentioned that the authors of the plan chose not to identify critical habitats because they considered it as a procedure of no additional conservation value when other conservation instruments were in place; d) 5.6% had not sufficient ecological information to make the assessment of critical habitat; and e) 2.5% of plans contained a species under the vulnerable category which is not eligible for critical habitat identification.

Was critical habitat identified in the plan?

Yes 61.1

Not mentioned at all 12.3

No, but habitat assessment was prescribed 11.7

No, because it was thought not to be necessary 6.8 Response Response No, because there was not enough ecol. information 5.6

No, because the species is not elegible 2.5

0 10203040506070 Percentage of plans

Figure 4.6: Assessment of the identification of critical habitat in recovery plans

The fact that the 61.1% of recovery plans identified and delineated the critical habitat of target species within the document does not necessarily lead to the registration of those critical habitats

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements under the EPBCA represents a gap in this procedure. Another point that raises attention is the fact that all registered critical habitats (see Table 4.4) are occupying island, reserve and naval station territories. No critical habitats have been registered for state/territory or private lands. The NSW DECC was the only agency that expressed (in eleven recovery plans) the view that identification of critical habitat was not a priority for the species concerned because other conservation mechanisms were in place at state level. They mentioned that all known populations of the concerned species were protected by National Parks, and in the case of needing management outside parks, they would first seek other, more cooperative approaches (e.g. Recovery plan for the Wollemi Pine in NSW). Nomination of critical habitat would only be considered as a management option where such other cooperative approaches were unavailable.

On the other hand, some concerns were expressed about the technical challenges and the need for better guidance to identify critical habitat under the EPBCA. From ninety nine recovery plans that included identification of critical habitat, 43.4% included a letter of rejection by the Commonwealth TSSC, giving the following argument: ‘The plan identifies a broad area as critical habitat, including buffer zones of a set distance around known populations. The TSSC does not necessarily believe that such an area qualifies as habitat critical to the survival of the species, as defined in the EPBCA’.

The Commonwealth TSSC has also been reluctant to develop an extensive list of registered critical habitats as it is very resource intensive and would not necessarily provide any greater protection for threatened species than the listing process itself (ANAO 2007). DEWHA’s guidelines of content requirements request identification of critical habitats without providing clear and detailed instructions for a plan’s authors. To date there is no intention expressed to provide better guidance for identifying critical habitats under any of the Commonwealth or state/territory legislation.

Progress of the EPBCA and the CESP towards recovery In terms of intent, a program is a success if it has achieved its goals. In some cases, program outputs can assist in measuring the extent to which goals have been achieved, making sure that all program objectives have been articulated. However, in terms of outputs, the success of the EPBCA is difficult to judge. Legislation, through implementation of the CESP, could be considered effective when all states fully implement its provisions, and all federal, state and territory authorities and agencies apply and enforce the rules for the threatened species conservation. In this matter, state/territory authorities have supported the national approach by developing state-based laws, listing threatened species, and preparing and implementing national recovery plans. Achievements

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements of the CESP may be considered the adoption of more than three hundred recovery plans, the register of five critical habitats, the listing of seventeen threatening processes, and preparation and implementation of ten threat abatement plans. From strictly legal and administrative points of view, the EPBCA and the CESP appear to be effective. Now the substance of the CESP – the outcomes – is reviewed below.

4.3.4 Program outcomes

As seen above, CESP’ outputs are important achievements; however, it may not necessarily lead to threatened species recovery. Recovery plans could be considered effective if they actually prevent biodiversity loss or, even better, if they lead to recovery of all listed threatened species. With these measures of effectiveness, the figures show rather a poor situation. From 1,632 listed species and ecological communities, and over three hundred recovery plans in place, only ten species have been de-listed as a result of management and conservation (DEH 2007). Most of the de-listing cases occurred as a result of reasons other than recovery plan implementation (Section 4.3.3). Thus, a question emerges: Have recovery plans lead to the conservation and restoration of threatened species? There is some evidence about successful cases and progress towards recovery. I present here a case study to illustrate how a recovery plan has been successfully implemented, showing progress towards the conservation objectives and demonstrating the worth of recovery efforts (Box 4.1). I chose to present this example because it was one of the few cases where an implementation report of a recovery plan was available. Such reports may be the only point of reference to evaluate recovery planning. But even with this small number of reports it is challenging to assess the effectiveness of the whole recovery planning scheme. So a definitive answer to the question of whether recovery planning is leading to the conservation and restoration of threatened biodiversity cannot be given.

The issue shown below can be considered as an example that provides important lessons from which other recovery teams can learn. Even from failures there are lessons that anyone involved in recovery planning may find useful, for example, by identifying situations or decisions that should not be repeated. Unfortunately, the cases where a recovery team undertakes regular monitoring, reviewing and reporting are not the rule. Although reviewing and reporting of recovery planning is required by legislation, it is not a normal practice in most of the Commonwealth and state/territory agencies. For many listed species and ecological communities the accurate conservation status and the extent of progress towards their recovery are unknown. Why are agencies not conducting regular monitoring and evaluation on recovery planning? The next section seeks to provide the answer.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Box 4.1: Case study: Implementation of the recovery plan for the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby (based on Jarman et al. 2001). This box was inserted to illustrate the outcome-based evidence about implementation of a recovery plan. However, this type of evidence was not available in a systematized and comprehensive manner at Commonwealth, state and territory agencies

The Bridled Nailtail Wallaby is a medium-sized macropod that, at the time of the European settlement, was relatively common west of the Great Divide, Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. The species’ range declined dramatically during the last century due to competition with sheep, habitat alteration, and predation by foxes. It was only known from one population in Taunton National Park, Queensland. Due its critical status, the species was listed as endangered under the Commonwealth EPBCA and the QNCA. The first recovery plan was prepared in 1991 in Queensland to foster its recovery. Conservation initiatives were put in place such as land acquisition for reserving the habitat, and two projects for captive breeding and translocations. A second recovery plan was made in 1997 to complete a second five-year period of conservation and management activities. Objectives of that recovery plan were: Improve the conservation status of the species by maintaining or expanding existing wild and captive populations, and establishing new wild and captive populations. In the recovery plan, a series of priority recovery actions were set, including: Management of Taunton to enhance breeding and survival of the species; captive management and translocation; surveys to identify other extant colonies; community conservation initiatives and public education; and maintenance of the recovery team. Recovery criteria were also set to measure the progress towards the objectives. Such criteria were related to measures of population counts and densities, number of additional populations, extent of suitable habitat managed in collaboration with landholders, and establishment of self-sustaining captive populations. The series of recovery tasks required participation of several governmental and non-governmental organizations, academic groups, regional conservation groups, zoos, local councils and private individual and volunteers. Reviews of the recovery plan identified achievements and shortcomings that provides opportunities for learning about the recovery planning process: a) Surveys were conducted regularly to monitor populations of the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby and detected population increase. b) Predator control activities were carried out on cats using baiting with 1080 solution, and then monitored. The number of cats killed was not indicative of the effectiveness of the baiting method. The review discussed recommendations about increasing the locations of baiting and carefully monitoring of predator abundance. c) Habitat research and manipulation activities were formulated in the plan, but in practice, they had little guidance about its implementation. Reviewers found deficiencies in the restoration activities and the habitat monitoring methods employed. A more careful design and experimentation of habitat restoration was recommended. d) Captivity management and translocation was adequately and successfully undertaken by the recovery team. The reviewers noticed differences of the management objectives of captive individuals (education and publicity/reproduction). They recommended improve management in terms of developing a policy to guide captive sites, reproduction programs, careful genetic management, and interchange of individuals. Successfully reintroduction in the Taunton led to the establishment of a self-sustaining population that doubled the number of individuals released. The reviewers applauded the ‘excellent’ design of the translocation project.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

e) Management in captivity was fostered by the recovery team to establish captive individuals in six public and private wildlife parks. Although reproduction was a success, there were concerns about the unplanned and unreported transfers between captivity sites. Recommendations were given to improve the control of transfers and take into account genetic management. f) Surveys to identify further individuals were criticized because inspections of new sites were conducted only on those areas where reports were received. The reviewers recommended taking a proactive approach rather that reactive. In areas off-reserves there was reluctance by landholders to report the presence of the species on their properties, possibly due to concerns over potential acquisition of properties by the Queensland EPA, and landholder’s perception that restrictions would be placed on their management practices. This limited the number of surveys to find new individual off-reserves. g) Community awareness activities were undertaken, including a survey of public attitudes towards the wallaby. Seminars, talks in schools and wildlife parks were presented to the public and targeted audiences. As a result, community involvement in recovery efforts were strengthened and public awareness rose. The need of engaging effectively with landholders was highlighted. The establishment of voluntary conservation agreements was thought to be slow, mainly because the reluctance of landholders. However, substantial efforts were in place in several areas to negotiate areas for conservation. h) Research was conducted by scientists from universities on population ecology, management of remnant habitats, reproduction and mating systems, genetic population modelling, and experimental management of vegetation. Reviewers applauded the recovery team for adequately identifying needs of future investigations.

As general comments, reviewers recognised the ‘extraordinary’ efforts undertaken by members of the recovery team to coordinate the recovery plans, even in the absence of a Recovery manager or team leader. They recommended improving coordination with other groups involved in the recovery plan since transfers of wallabies between private zoos took place without notifying the recovery team. They also recommended fostering communication with managers in NSW where the species also occurs but where little coordination existed. Finally, the efficient structure and effective operation of the recovery team were acknowledged and recommended as a model for other recovery teams.

Are monitoring, review and reporting taking place within and across relevant agencies? From the beginning of this research, DEWHA information archives revealed a lack of documentation on progress of the CESP or reports of recovery planning implementation. Interviews with DEWHA staff corroborated that there was no formal reporting and evaluation framework on recovery plans being employed up to 2006. Only 36% of reviewed recovery plans established an appropriate scheme for conducting systematic monitoring and evaluation of the plan (Chapter 5), yet, there were no reports available from such plans. An examination of a database at DEWHA (SPRAT) containing profiles of the species listed under the EPBCA revealed that there was advanced information for some species, but limited information for others. Database records

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements included the species’ conservation status (e.g., endangered or vulnerable), population and distribution, habitat and other ecological features. Four hundred and thirteen profiles were publicly available on DEWHA website; however, there was no information on population trends, recovery activities or changes in species’ conservation status as a result from management. Although DEWHA officers had information on implementation of specific recovery plans, overall analysis of the CESP and outcome-based evidence was missing.

DEWHA staff commented that one major obstacle was the challenge to establish appropriate performance and recovery indicators. Types of established performance criteria in recovery plans were mainly related to ecological indicators such as population trends and range (Chapter 5). This was particularly problematic as most of the threatened species lacked historical survey information and there was insufficient data available to indicate past and present population trends. Additionally, many species were not being routinely monitored because of the great numbers, wide distribution, and the amount of staff and resources that would be necessary to conduct such tasks. As a result, population trend data was unavailable for most listed threatened species, and the conservation status was not regularly updated in DEWHA database (ANAO 2007). Information gaps, errors and inconsistencies in species’ conservation status were impeding establishment of adequate and standardised indicators of recovery. This was affecting several administrative and management procedures of the recovery process, from listing to preparing recovery plans, because agencies could not assess the impact and progress of their management interventions and assess species’ recovery.

Agency’s Annual Reports and State of the Environment Reports are other official sources of information about the strategies, actions, and resources put in place by the Commonwealth government to care for and manage biodiversity. A review of all recent reports (from 1990 to 2007) shows that scarce information is available on the CESP and recovery planning. Most of the reports presented information on the outputs of the CESP (e.g. number of listed species, number of adopted recovery plans, and number of threat abatement plans), rather than reporting progress towards achievement of objectives. Those indicators may have been adopted in governmental reports after Saunders et al. (1998) proposed a series of indicators for measuring progress towards biodiversity conservation. Those indicators were incorporated into the Commonwealth State of the Environment reporting and in annual reports (e.g. DEH 2004; 05; 06).

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

The indicators relevant to threatened species management that were proposed by Saunders et al. (1998) are: • Number of recovery plans made • Amount of funding for recovery plans • Percentage of species changing distribution • Number of ex-situ research programs • Number of releases to the wild from ex-situ breeding • Conservation status of species • Demographic characteristics of target taxa

A look at those indicators reflects an output-based character for most of them. ‘Conservation status of species’ and ‘Demographic characteristics of target taxa’ may be the only outcome-based indicators, but they are not employed in governmental reports because of the lack of species’ baseline and trends data. Most reports are only using the Number of recovery plans made and the Amount of funding for recovery plans (see DEH 2004; 05; 06). Recovery plans themselves generally rely on biological measures as criteria for recovery (Chapter 5). I consider that this approach is inadequate for Australian recovery planning because: 1) Most threatened species lack of populations estimates, population trends information, and thresholds for recovery; 2) Managers and scientists associated to recovery teams cannot conduct regular population monitoring over the hundreds of the species in recovery plans given the limited institutional and resource capacity; 3) There is no databases in Commonwealth and state agencies for keeping revised and updated records of population trends of the species; the national list of threatened species contains errors and is always well behind taxonomic revision (Chapman 2005), and it is inconsistent with state listing; state lists also contain errors, and they are not systematically maintained and updated on regular basis; 4) Many threatened species that were listed under the ESPA have not been updated after the passage of the EPBCA, and are still in review by the TSSC (ANAO 2007). 107 plant species require nomenclature changes, and 51 require a review of eligibility for listing under the EPBCA as a result of taxonomic revision and change to circumscription (TSSC 2005); 5) Before the legislative amendments of 2006, there was a provision for the Minister to maintain monitoring on all listed threatened species and keep up-to-date the assessments of conservation status. After the amendment, this is not longer a requirement.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Lack of complete and comprehensive evidence is a major problem for undertaking any assessment of the CESP, which it was also a major obstacle for this thesis. Although monitoring, reviewing and reporting are legislative requirements of recovery plans, DEWHA has made little effort to compile information, provide better guidance to the state/territory agencies, or develop a framework to comply with M&E. From interviews, it was evident that DEWHA staff had little knowledge about the on-ground implementation of recovery plans in the states and territories. In 2006 DEWHA staff reported that steps were being taken to develop a national framework for M&E for recovery planning, and that several recovery plans were in review (V. Ritchie DEWHA, pers. comm.). To date of thesis culmination, no reports from such reviews were available.

At state level there have been good attempts to report advances of recovery plans. There exist some isolated reports, mostly kept within state agencies or recovery teams. They are the only evidence that exists about implementing national recovery plans. However, such reports only provided narratives in the form of cases studies, and lacked a standardised format, performance indicators, and measures by which achievement of objectives could be assessed. Those reports had been prepared mostly by members of recovery teams or independent reviewers, but they were not easily available for consultation.

Up to 2004 both New South Wales and Queensland were facing the same problem as the Commonwealth regarding lack of M&E. In 2004, when the first interviews of the thesis were conducted, those agencies lacked a register of reports on recovery planning. During the course of the investigation, the NSW DECC developed a tool to follow up the implementation of recovery actions, collect evidence of the recovery process and increase efforts to obtain records about the condition of threatened species (PAS) (DEC NSW 2006). However, that framework is still in the early stages of development and has not proved its utility in enhancing reporting and evaluation of recovery plans. To my knowledge, no M&E framework has been developed or used in Queensland to assess the whole recovery planning scheme, although some individual reports exist. Interchange of information from different data formats and across jurisdictions is still a matter of concern for achieving an effective national approach.

4.3.5 Legislative reforms in matters of recovery planning

This section addresses how the Commonwealth legislation on threatened species has evolved during the past decade and its repercussions on recovery planning. The passage of the EPBCA in 2000 added new important provisions to the legislation in this matter. Reforms substantially increased the government effort for recovery planning at the national level as one of the major strategies for

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements biodiversity conservation. The EPBCA also reinforced the protection of threatened species through other complementary conservation schemes such as the identification of critical habitats, listing threatening processes and preparing threat abatement plans. These reforms led to a series of institutional and administrative changes in the Commonwealth agencies responsible for the environment, with repercussions on state/territory legislation and administration. The amendments to the EPBCA that had impact on recovery planning, and the consequences of those changes on the recovery process, are analysed in Table 4.5

Table 4.5: Amendments of 2007 to the EPBCA related to listing and recovery planning of threatened species (extracted from the Australian Government 2007 and ANAO 2007) EPBCA Repercussions on listing and recovery EPBCA previous provisions Amendment Regulations planning (Commenced 19 Feb 2007) Section 172 and 173: ‘The Minister ‘The Minister may prepare There is no obligation now for the Minister must prepare inventories and inventories and surveys…’ No to assess the status of all threatened species surveys that identified and state the time frames apply. and incorporate this essential information abundance of listed threatened for management. This information when species in Commonwealth land and available and updated could support the water areas within 5 and 10 years preparation of recovery plans following after the commencement of the Act’. priority criteria. There is now the risk of lists becoming inaccurate, more inconsistent across jurisdictions, and irrelevant. Section 269A: ‘The Minister must ‘The Minister is to ensure that Recovery plans are no longer a exercise his or her powers under this there is approved conservation requirement for all species or ecological section to ensure that there is always advice for each listed communities. Instead, the Minister has the in force a recovery plan for: a) each threatened species at all times discretion to decide which species require listed threatened species (except one while the species continues to a recovery plan. that is extinct or is a conservation be listed’. dependent species); and b) each listed threatened ecological community’. Section 273: ‘Ensured that plans ‘The decision whether to have Currently national recovery plans are in were in force 2, 3 or 5 years after a recovery plan is to be made place for only 25% of the listed species. the species became listed in the within 90 days of a species The DEWHA is expecting to prepare following categories: critically being listed’. Once the decision multi-species, ecological communities, and endangered, endangered and is made, there is no timeframe regional plans for covering up to 50-60% vulnerable, respectively’. for preparing recovery plans. of the listed species. The remaining species will be covered by Conservation advices.

The likely negative impacts that the last EPBCA amendments of 2007 will have on the CESP and recovery planning are serious. Some modifications seemed to be made to accelerate the administrative processes of listing and have all species under some type of management instrument, to decrease the workloads at DEHWA, and facilitate the meeting of objectives of the EPBCA (Table 4.5). However, there are two main issues affected negatively by legislative changes: a) compulsory inventories and survey efforts to identify and state the abundance of listed threatened species on Commonwealth jurisdictions are no longer a requirement; and b) preparation of recovery

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements plans for all listed species is no longer mandatory. Inventories and surveys that state the abundance of threatened species are important for management. Great efforts have been taken to collect technical data and keep the national list of threatened species up to date (SPRAT database). The list can be used to support decision-making and setting priorities for preparing recovery plans, protected areas management plans, threat abatement plans, and assessment of referrals of development. After the reform, there is no assurance that accurate and valid inventories will be maintained, putting this valuable information source at risk.

Before the EPBCA amendments of 2007, recovery plans were required for all listed threatened species. Now, recovery plans will be made only at the discretion of the Minister. Where a native species is listed as threatened, a ´conservation advice´ may be developed instead of a recovery plan. Conservation advice is another management mechanism that provides information on key threats, priority on-ground local and regional conservation actions and threat abatement actions for listed species or ecological communities (DEH 2007). They have been developed by the TSSC based on the best available information regarding the conservation status and threats to the species. Previously, conservation advice would only be used as a guide for identifying priority conservation actions for species, and intended only as an interim measure prior to the development of a recovery plan. This mechanism may now substitute in some circumstances the need for recovery plans by providing a simpler way to dictate management to those agencies and other involved stakeholders. Conservation actions can be implemented by local communities, natural resource management groups or interested individuals. I consider conservation advices as a less powerful instrument because: a) the management recommendations are more vague; b) there are no established recovery criteria and objectives; c) established responsibility to coordinate management activities is not defined; d) monitoring and review of the conservation/management efforts is missing; e) task-linked implementation responsibilities for agencies and other stakeholders are lacking; f) there are no timeframes for implementation; g) there are no performance indicators or any measures by which the Commonwealth and state/territory agencies may assess progress in implementation and achievement of species’ recovery; and h) there is no public consultation on its approval.

There are still circumstances warranting the preparation of a recovery plan for species or ecological communities if the TSSC considers it necessary. The TSSC has strengthened its participation in determining national priorities for preparing conservation advices and making recovery plans in accordance with the state and territory considerations, although it has also increased its workloads.

In NSW recent legislative amendments followed the same direction. Before 2004 recovery plans were required to be made by the NSW Minister for all listed threatened species under the NSW

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements legislation. After the last amendment (Threatened Species Legislation Amendment Act 2004) the Minister and the DECC has discretion to prepare recovery plans. Preparation of plans will be carried out only for those species that are assessed as a priority through the PAS.

Queensland has not changed legislation recently, but since recovery planning is not mandated in legislation, it follows a similar approach to the new changes in Commonwealth and New South Wales governments where recovery plans are made only for those cases considered necessary. In other cases, various conservation mechanisms can be put in place such as reservation or private land management agreements.

From the legislative amendments made recently at the Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales state level, and given the opinions of agency’s staff, it is foreseeable that recovery planning for threatened species will have a less preponderant role in management. Although there is no conclusive evidence about the effectiveness of recovery planning on the conservation of Australian biodiversity, some agencies are looking for new different approaches.

4.4. Discussion Operation of the national strategy of recovery planning As an ambitious conservation program, the designing, planning, implementation, and evaluation of the recovery planning scheme offers important opportunities for learning. Research in this area is in its infancy in Australia. Reviews of the EPBCA and its related conservation strategies have said little on recovery planning (e.g., Woinarski & Fisher 1999; Chapple 2001; Kennedy et al. 2001; Macintosh 2002; Macintosh & Wilkinson 2005; Briggs 2007). This investigation has generated new information about two facets of recovery planning: as a policy instrument and as a conservation strategy.

Is recovery planning working? Overall recovery planning has advances on the setting of administrative structures and operational procedures, although the implementation of the whole scheme has shown a slow pace. During the first years under the ESPA, the CESP had a phase of designing and planning of the conservation and management scheme, and the formation of government administrative structures and inter- institutional arrangements. After the passage of the EPBCA the CESP strengthened the schemes of listing and recovery planning, and efforts were more targeted towards national priorities. Technical groups were formed at DEWHA to deal with the management of hundreds of species, which is one of the greatest challenges in this issue. Listing of threatened species has been linked to the preparation of recovery plans, as was mandated in legislation. However, preparation of recovery 77

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements plans has become a slow and difficult process for managers, scientists and others. Poor biological/ecological information for many species, lack of coordination across jurisdictions, and lack of sufficient resources and staff have been limiting factors in achieving legislative objectives of recovery planning. The ANAO audit (2007) identified three main factors that are constraining progress and limiting achievements of the objectives of the EPBCA: a) the scale of the prescribed tasks required by legislation; b) the technical requirements for assessing, protecting, and conserving over a thousand individual species and hundreds of ecological communities; and c) the limited resources allocated to the task.

Recovery of threatened species is being challenging for agencies and conservation organisations around the world. The recovery planning scheme has been used for more than three decades in the US, where similar challenges have been observed. The US ESA has had many amendments and had evolved as a result of several reviews of its performance and achievements. Appropriateness and adequacy of legislation, the need of institutional and administrative arrangements, management of private lands, under-funding, the role of stakeholders and intergovernmental agreements are some of the many issues discussed in research (e.g. Rohlf 1991; Tear et al. 1995; Hoekstra et al. 2002; Scott et al. 2006). Recovery planning in Australia shows many similarities to the US process, including several of the issues stated above.

One of the big concerns for governments is that the timescale for recovery does not match political timeframes and agendas (U.S. GAO 2006b). Achievement of policy outcomes cannot happen fast enough to reward politicians with short-term results. This is especially the case given that major threatening processes such as land clearing, changed fire regime and introduced weeds and feral animals are still impacting and escalating (Williams et al. 2001; Sattler & Creighton 2002; Beeton et al. 2006). During the past twenty years the CESP established the governance structure for threatened species management, but this represents only a fraction of the efforts undertaken. Many other groups, such as conservation organisations, academics, private groups, zoos and the community, have also collaborated to implement the CESP and recovery plans on-ground (Smales et al. 1995; Webster et al. 1995; Brebach 2004). Challenges to an effective implementation of recovery plans at national scale remain. These challenges are perhaps the most difficult barrier for an effective operation of the CESP. As noted above, rather than just technical issues related to biological/ecological knowledge, the CESP and recovery planning have to deal with a variety of socioeconomic aspects, as evidenced in the US. Jurisdictional barriers and lack of coordination across agencies have been stated as major obstacles to recovery plans’ implementation (Yen & New 1995; Goble et al. 1999; Thomas 2003; New 2006) (Chapter 6). Steps are being taken in the

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Commonwealth government to improve coordination and communication across jurisdictions through establishing bilateral agreements. Aligning listing and conservation categories across the Commonwealth and states is still in process. Better access to standardised sets of information and evidence from management interventions is necessary to enhance operation of recovery planning. Improved cooperation of stakeholders is essential for carrying out the difficult task of implementing the many recovery actions. Entering conservation agreements with landholders is also important since nearly sixty per cent of recovery plans need to be implemented, partially or completely, on private lands. Increase of Commonwealth funding is necessary, considering that four hundred recovery plans are still in preparation and need to be completed. These and other critical issues are discussed below, and analysed in further detail in Chapter 6.

Are the program outputs meeting the expectations and desired results? Regardless the lack of comprehensive data and the likely negative impacts that recent legislation amendments may have on the CESP, there is progress in some of the elements of recovery planning, specifically regarding the operation. Recovery planning had a boom after the passage of the EPBCA, leading to an increase in the rate of preparation of recovery plans by the states/territories. The number of adopted recovery plans has been used regularly as a response indicator in the State of the Environment reports (Saunders et al. 1996; Williams et al. 2001; DEH 2007). However, the goal of having plans for each of the listed species became a difficult target (Griffin 2004). Government statistics show that only 25% of listed species have completed plans (DEH 2006a; DEWR 2007a). The single-species approach has led to criticism because of the large number of threatened species and the costly effort to prepare a plan for each species (Franklin 1993; Orians 1993; Tear et al. 1995; Brown & Shogren 1999). Now the Commonwealth and some state agencies are seeking to move recovery planning towards ecosystem-based and regional approaches (A. Schumacher, NSW DECC, pers. comm.). These approaches, although considered promising in terms of conservation outcomes (Hecht & Parkin 2001), are still in the exploratory phase. Advantages of the multi-species approach over the single-species approach for recovery planning are not definitive (Gilpin 2000; Hornaday & Boom 2006; Mace et al. 2007). For example, research has proved that single-species recovery plans included better technical knowledge than multi- species plans (Clark & Harvey 2002a); single-species plans had greater task implementation and they were implemented faster (Lundquist et al. 2002); and species within single-species plans were more likely to be improving in their conservation status (Boersma et al. 2001; Taylor et al. 2005). Scarce review and research limits the ability to judge the value of the Australian recovery planning scheme. More research should be undertaken on recovery planning before moving away from single-species towards other approaches.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

No matter the approach, however, recovery plans have proved their value to assist the recovery of threatened species – as evidenced by the research carried out in the US. The adoption of recovery plans for some species has had a correspondence with improving species status (Taylor et al. 2005; Kerkvliet & Langpap 2007). Outputs of Australian recovery plans have provided evidence of some progress and achievements. Listing has improved substantially, leading to obtaining a better knowledge of Australia’s biodiversity, threatening processes and issues that government and conservation organisations need to address. Listing is now one of the most important schemes guiding protection and management of natural resources in general. Listing can be used to guide decision-making on management of protected areas, regional conservation plans, regulation of exploitation and trade on wildlife, and the referral and approval processes of development projects (DEH 2000; Macintosh & Wilkinson 2005). Recovery planning, the complementary scheme, has allowed the preparation of management documents using the most relevant and available scientific information. Because plans are accessible over the internet, these documents provide useful information to all stakeholders. Recovery plans have also lead to the formation of recovery teams integrated by experts, relevant managers, and conservationists. Recovery teams are also the links with the community. Thus, recovery planning has fostered the establishment of networks, public participation and community involvement in activities to protect and manage biodiversity (Copley & Garnett 1996; Papps 1996). These elements of reference, perhaps, have not been adequately acknowledged when looking at the worth of recovery planning.

Protection of critical habitats is another mechanism that may lead to improved species conservation (Rachlinski 1997; Clark et al. 2002a; Taylor et al. 2005). However, this scheme has had a poor acknowledgement in recovery planning. Identification and registration of critical habitat under the EPBCA is considered by the TSSC and some states as a difficult conservation scheme to put in place (ANAO 2007). Where the target species occur on protected areas, registration of critical habitat is considered to offer no additional conservation benefits (e.g. the NSW DECC). Where species occur on private lands, it may create conflict of interest with private landholders who may not be willing to participate in conservation programs for threatened species (Hatch et al. 2002; Hoekstra et al. 2002b; Hagen & Hodges 2006). This is an important issue since some recovery plans mentioned that discontented private landholders avoid reporting the occurrence of threatened species on their properties to evade future restrictions. The lack of cooperation of private landholders can be a barrier to fully implement recovery plans. This may be the reason why governments such as New South Wales have chosen to carry out other more attractive and negotiable conservation measures on private lands (Beynon et al. 2005; NCCNSW/EDO 2006; Farrier et al. 2007). Another possible explanation for the low registration of critical habitats is the

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements poor ecological knowledge for most threatened species. Thus, agencies are limited in their capacity to assess critical habitats. This factor would be even more complex in plans made for ecological communities. In this matter, DEWHA guidelines on content requirements request identification of critical habitats without clearly providing instructions for authors. In these circumstances it is likely that more plans will fail to identify critical habitats. Taking into account these important shortcomings, the potential for protecting habitats under the scheme of Register of critical habitats has been significantly reduced.

Are the program outcomes meeting the expectations and desired goals? Preparation and implementation of recovery plans sets the strategic and organisational basis that may lead to an adequate management intervention and consequent recovery – the ultimate outcome. Recovery plans are the necessary stepping stones towards meeting protection and restoration objectives. On this basis, given the lack of comprehensive evidence, it is difficult to judge the impact of recovery planning on the threatened Australian biodiversity. Based on the few cases with evidence of success, the effectiveness of Australian recovery planning varies. If recovery was happening, one might expect to observe a decrease in the number of listed threatened species. However, recovery is more complex than de-listing species and it should not be assessed by this simple measure alone (Scott et al. 2006). There are many issues around the recovery process that are not often perceived when judging the success of conservation strategies. Recovery may depend on many factors such as the biological characteristics of species, its status and degree of endangerment, the condition of remanent habitats, the capacity and willingness of the responsible agencies to administer adequately the legislation and programs, the cooperation of states and territories, and participation of private landholders (Saunders et al. 1996; U.S. GAO 2006a). Individual cases such as the Bridled Nailtail Wallaby (this chapter, Section 4.3.4) provide evidence of successful outcomes from recovery activities. Other cases are still in early days, and will require decades to see results, making it difficult to assess outcomes. Many species may need indefinite protection which means that they will remain listed in the long-term (Doremus & Pagel 2001; Scott et al. 2005). So the number of listed or de-listed threatened species is misleading as a metric to assess threatened species recovery. The same challenge has been stated in the US ESA where the scheme has been operating for more than 30 years and the goal of recovering hundreds of species from extinction has not been achieved completely (Scott et al. 2006).

Lack of systematic reporting and comprehensive evidence are the main obstacles to effectively assess recovery planning (Cork et al. 2006; ANAO 2007; 2008). Research on the establishment of measures for recovery planning has been poor. Environment reports have shown that the

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Commonwealth government is promoting various complementary schemes such as the management of protected areas in addition to recovery plans to conserve biodiversity. However, most evidence of recovery planning is output-based which is insufficient for a comprehensive evaluation. Indicators used in official reports have failed to cover other important elements of the CESP such as the restoration of habitats, threat abatement, effectiveness of private land conservation, and community engagement. Without this evidence, an evaluation of the CESP may give only an incomplete perspective of the program performance and achievements. Other measures of recovery success need to be acknowledged such as the social aspects involved in conservation. So far, the performance indicators chosen by Australian agencies to assess the CESP progress are incomplete. This happens perhaps due the adoption of the measures and criteria used in the US that are not adequate for the Australian context (see Discussion in Chapter 5). More research is needed in this area for supporting the definition of appropriate indicators of recovery and establishing an M&E framework for conducting regular review. A proposal of an M&E framework as part of this thesis is shown in Chapter 8.

It is still too early to make final comments and judge the worth of recovery planning. Most recovery plans have been in place for less than ten years. The scheme is relatively young compared with the establishment of protected areas. Control of the major threatening processes will require in some cases enormous efforts and dramatic changes in the way resources are being exploited (Lindenmayer 2007). One major achievement is evident: all recovery efforts together have avoided further extinctions, at least as far as it is known so far.

Do legislative reforms drive recovery planning to improvement? Amendments of legislation are made to enhance regulatory processes and generate better outcomes, but sometimes they may create unexpected consequences. Positive consequences of the passage of the EPBCA were a streamlined process for preparing recovery plans and major participation of states/territories within a national approach. More recent amendments, however, may bring negative results in relation to recovery planning. Legislative changes seek to improve the compliance of the CESP with the objectives of the EPBCA. However, there is now a shift from recovery plans into another less powerful mechanism: conservation advice. Since no formal review of the CESP and recovery planning has been undertaken, there is no evidence of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the various schemes employed to conserve biodiversity (listing, recovery planning, and threat abatement planning). Without knowing the impact of nearly two decades of recovery planning, amendments of legislation have been made in a form that may reflect concerns for alleviating DEWHA’s workload alone, not the impact on species recovery. DEWHA recognises that

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements the current institutional capacity, staff, and resources are insufficient to achieve the objectives of the EPBCA and deal with the recovery of hundreds of species. DEWHA has reassessed strategies and reallocated funds to give priority to some of the most urgent demands (ANAO 2007). They estimate that current recovery plans in place offer protection to four hundred listed species and that the plans to be finished will add protection to other four hundred species (DEWR 2007a). This is yet the 50% of the listed species under the EPBCA. If the aim of the recent legislative changes is to reduce the number of recovery plans to be made and accelerate the government response to all listed threatened species, the new procedure of preparing scientific advices for the approximately eight hundred remaining listed threatened species will increase the workloads for the TSSC.

If recovery planning remains unevaluated and is now diminished, the opportunities to learn from that strategy and assess its impacts on restoring biodiversity will be wasted. We will not be able to compare the impacts of recovery planning with those of conservation advices in the future. Careful examination of the impacts of conservation advices will be necessary to assess whether the amendments to the EPBCA improved the strategy towards recovering threatened species.

4.5 Chapter summary

Chapter 4 presented an analysis of the operation of recovery planning since it began in 1992, passing through two periods of Commonwealth legislation (the ESPA and the EPBCA). The chapter examined how implementation of recovery planning varies across jurisdictions, showing the operation and progress made by the Commonwealth, and New South Wales and Queensland states. The main outputs and outcomes of the program towards meeting the objectives of Commonwealth legislation were examined, including progress in listing, recovery planning and register of critical habitats. A section with a review of the last amendments to the EPBCA in matters of recovery planning was included, showing how the last reform will impact on recovery planning.

Chapter 4 Recovery planning: Operation and achievements

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

CHAPTER 5 – ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF RECOVERY PLANS

5.1 Chapter overview 5.2 Research methods 5.3 Results 5.3.1 How do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements? 5.3.2 How do recovery plans respond to scientific information gaps? 5.3.3 How do recovery plans respond to threats? 5.3.4 Consistency of performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives 5.4 Discussion 5.5 Chapter summary

5.1 Chapter overview One of the major concerns that emerged after reviewing the CESP and its main components was the appropriateness and effectiveness of recovery planning. Assessing the effectiveness of national recovery planning is a challenging task given the lack of comprehensive evidence. But an assessment of the appropriateness of recovery planning is possible given the availability of the full set of national recovery plans. Therefore, the aim of this chapter was to investigate the content of recovery plans to assess their appropriateness as management instruments. Recovery plans were the focus of this study because they are the primary documents established to guide the protection, management and restoration of important populations and habitats of threatened biodiversity.

In order to assess the appropriateness of recovery plans I established two indicators: the plan’s degree of compliance with legislative requirements, and the internal consistency of a plan’s design. Compliance was selected as an indicator given that the Commonwealth has prepared guidelines for authors of recovery plans. Besides the scientific input incorporated into drafts of recovery plans, public consultation is also requested before documents are officially approved. Thus, it was pertinent to assess the degree of compliance with each one of the content requirements stated in the official guidelines. This allowed assessment of which plan components were effectively covered in documents and which elements had poor information/coverage. In the same way, the analysis of

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans internal consistency was conducted to assess whether plans had an appropriate design. Internal consistency of plans was assessed as a complementary measure of logic and coherent management planning (Brigham et al. 2002). Poor compliance and internal consistency may reflect poor planning, which could have negative repercussions when implementing plans.

I also examined the possible influence of certain plan attributes on the variables stated above. Studies of recovery plans in the US identified differences of content, quality and development in relation to taxonomic characteristics of target species (e.g., Campbell et al. 2002; Hoeckstra et al. 2002b; Schultz & Gerber 2002), to revisions conducted on plans across time (e.g., Gerber & Hatch, 2002; Lundquist et al. 2002) and to the focus on single- and multi-species plans (e.g., Boersma et al. 2001; Clark & Harvey 2002a), among others attributes. Thus I considered those previous studies to explore the likely influence of taxonomic group, type of legislation and approach on the appropriateness of recovery plans made in Australia. The study focused on the planning phase; it did not review implementation of completed plans given the lack of evidence. This study was conducted as a formative evaluation to identify any possible pattern, and the strengths or weaknesses in the recovery planning process.

Research methods employed in the investigation are described in Section 5.2. The results are presented in four main subsections: 5.3.1 How do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements; 5.3.2 How do recovery plans respond to scientific information gaps; 5.3.3 How do recovery plans respond to threats; and 5.3.4 Consistency of performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives. Section 5.4 discusses the main findings of the study, and a summary of the chapter is provided in Section 5.5.

In this chapter I addressed the second research question relating to an examination of appropriateness of national recovery plans:

Do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements and coherent conservation planning?

5.2 Research methods

To assess the appropriateness of recovery plans I used two indicators to be analysed quantitatively: the degree of compliance with legislative requirements, and the internal consistency of plan design. Because draft recovery plans pass a revision on scientific and technical matters, and a public consultation before being approved and utilised for management, it may be expected that all official recovery plans had reasonable level of compliance and coherent design. Thus, this analysis may

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans allow for assessment of the overall design and identification of possible shortcomings of recovery planning. The appropriateness of recovery plans was assessed through examination of four measures:

1) Compliance with legislative requirements 2) Consistency of prescribed actions calling for research 3) Consistency of prescribed threat abatement actions 4) Consistency of performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives.

The research method employed in this chapter was a quantitative analysis of recovery plans.

Quantitative analysis of recovery plans A database that contained content attributes of recovery plans was developed (Chapter 4). Taking into account the legislative requirements listed in Section 270 of the EPBCA and the Commonwealth’s guidelines of content requirements for recovery plans (DEH 2002), key attributes were selected to assess the degree of compliance. Since content terminology varied due to the different authorship of recovery plans, a classification guide of attributes was developed based on a preliminary review of ten plans, review of the IUCN Authority Files for Threats (IUCN 2006b) (Appendix III), and the nomenclature used in similar studies (Foin et al. 1998; Hoekstra et al. 2002a; Moore & Wooller 2004). To collect the attributes from recovery plans into the database a series of forms were developed. In order to minimise subjectivity of judgment and inconsistency across plans’ formats, only information contained within recovery plans was used to fill the database. Each form asked questions about the four measures of appropriateness which were analysed separately in four sections. Responses were expressed as data sets of coded numerical values. All records in the database were filled using my own judgment following a pre-defined system of classification and judgment criteria (Appendix IV).

1) Compliance with legislative requirements Given that the coverage of legislative requirements is a compulsory procedure in order to have a recovery plan approved by the Commonwealth, I assessed the extent to which all recovery plans met this step. The degree of coverage was assessed against the list of topics specified in the Commonwealth’s guideline (Appendix IV). The topic Management practices was not included in the analysis because the explanation given in the guideline was considered insufficient for making an assessment, and the topic was not addressed in a separate section within plans as was done for other topics. The list of requirements of the guidelines included six major topics: Species’

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans information and general requirements, Distribution and location, Known and potential threats, Objectives, performance criteria and actions, Duration of the recovery plan, and Estimated costs of the plan’s implementation. Each topic contained several themes. Definitions of the topics and themes are provided in Appendix IV.

Since legislation also requires the establishment of a series of elements for conducting monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of plans, these elements were examined. The Commonwealth guidelines include instructions for conducting M&E of plans. They mention that recovery plans must be monitored and reviewed, ensuring that effectiveness is regularly assessed. The guidelines also require the identification of measurable objectives, and the performance criteria by which progress and achievement of objectives are to be measured and evaluated. Finally, the guidelines request the definition of the organisation that will be involved in evaluating the performance of the plan. These elements were addressed by the following questions in the database: I. Does the plan establish a scheme to monitor and evaluate its implementation and effectiveness? II. What types of measures are proposed to be monitored? a. Biological/ecological measures b. Threat abatement measures c. Social aspects external to the recovery plan d. Social aspects within the recovery plan III. Does the plan specify the organisation responsible for reviewing the plan?

Definition of responses, categories of measures, and criteria for assessing the responses are provided in Appendix IV.

The following three indicators are related to measures of internal consistency. These three indicators may give a signal that the design of recovery plans is coherent and follows a coherent planning structure.

2) Consistency of prescribed actions calling for research In each plan, I reviewed the coverage of scientific information in relation to seven topics: Habitat, Population biology, Life history, Genetics, Behaviour/dispersion, General ecology, and Threatening processes. A description of each topic category is in Appendix IV. Once the review of scientific topics was conducted, I assessed the need for scientific information and whether recovery plans had a consistent response to this by prescribing research tasks. For analysis I only considered the recovery plans that mentioned the need of scientific information on the seven topics previously

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans analysed, and verified whether the gaps of knowledge were consistently addressed by prescription of actions to conduct research.

3) Consistency of prescribed threat abatement actions I considered a consistent response as the formulation of recovery actions to address each of the threats cited in the plan. For this assessment, only management actions formulated specifically to address each cited threat were counted. I adopted the following procedure for the analysis: 1. I counted the number of plans identifying each of the fifty eight categories of threat proposed by the IUCN Authority File (Appendix III), and then I assessed the ten most cited threats. This allowed standardising threat definitions in the database, 2. I counted only the number of plans that prescribed threat abatement actions to address the ten major threats, and the number of actions prescribed in the plan to address each of those threats. This procedure allowed an analysis of the overall response of the recovery planning scheme to the ten major threats, 3. I assessed the consistent response of each plan by prescribing threat abatement actions for the group of threats identified within each plan. This was the individual response of each plan. Criteria for assessing the consistency of overall and individual plan’s responses are included in Appendix IV.

4) Consistency of performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives The Commonwealth guidelines require the establishment of measurable objectives and performance criteria by which progress and achievement of objectives can be measured. With these elements of analysis, the consistency between established recovery objectives and performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives was examined. Performance criteria are important tools to undertake M&E activities throughout the timeframe of the plan, and are used as indicators to assess the performance and progress of recovery plans. Criteria for assessing consistency between objectives and performance criteria are shown in Appendix IV.

Results of the measures of consistency were compared with a similar study conducted in the US (Brigham et al. 2002). According to those authors, it is difficult to determine high or low levels of consistency. The same authors mention that a value of 100% consistency for each plan for every measure is not an appropriate goal; acceptable values would range between 60 to 80%. Given that the paper stated above is the only point of reference of this thesis, those parameters were used when judging the degree of consistency of Australian recovery plans.

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

Statistical analysis I examined the overall results from the four measures of appropriateness across all recovery plans. I then tested three statistical hypotheses to find likely patterns and strengths/weaknesses across plans’ characteristics: Hypothesis No. 1 was that recent recovery plans made under the EPBCA were better prepared than recovery plans made under the previous ESPA as a result of accumulated management experience and improved legislation and guidelines. Hypothesis No. 2 was that recovery plans made for single-species were better prepared than plans for multi-species due to greater availability of technical knowledge and better understanding of biological aspects at species level (Hornaday & Bloom 2006). Thus, it may be expected that single-species plans are more focused and consistent in prescribing management actions than multi-species plans (Clark & Harvey 2002a). For this analysis I separated recovery plans in two groups: ‘single-species plans’ and ‘multi-species plans’. In order to meet minimum statistical requirements for a robust analysis, plans classified as ‘multi-species’ and ‘ecological communities’ in the database were grouped in a single category named ‘multi-species’, and compared against the category ‘single-species’. Finally, I tested Hypothesis No. 3: that recovery plans made for animal species have better planning attributes than plans made for plant species, as there is more public interest and scientific information on the former (Tear et al. 1995; Clark & May 2002). Thus, three paired comparisons of nominal variables (coded responses) were analysed using a Pearson Chi-square test of association (de Vaus 2002): a) Plans made under the ESPA versus plans made under the EPBCA b) Plans made for single-species versus plans made for multi-species c) Plans made for animal species versus plans made for plant species.

5.3 Results

5.3.1 How do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements?

Compliance varied greatly according to the topic being assessed. Duration of the plan was the best- addressed topic (> 90% of plans) perhaps due the simplicity of setting a time-framed schedule, followed by the topic Objectives, performance criteria and actions (complete in 70% of plans) (Figure 5.1). The latter is one of the most important topics as it contains the objectives and recovery actions – key elements for guiding management. Most plans included a single performance criterion that was generally related to the population status of target species. Cost of the plan was the only topic that was not addressed at all in some plans (nine plans).

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

Duration of plan

Objectives, recovery criteria and actions Complete s Cost of plan Poor information Partially addressed Species' information & gral. requirements Not addressed

Content topic Content Threats

Species' distribution & location

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage plans

Figure 5.1: Coverage of topics within recovery plans as required by the EPBCA (N=236 plans)

The remaining three topics had poorer compliance, perhaps because they required more complex information. In nearly half of the plans the topic Species’ information and general requirements had complete information, and 47.9% of plans fell within the category ‘partially addressed’. Here, some plans failed to address some of the themes within the topic such as International obligations, Affected interests, Role and interests of indigenous people, Benefits to other species/communities, and Social and economic impacts (see Appendix IV for explanation of themes). Many of the documents did not mention those themes at all. The topic Threats was only completed effectively in 42% of plans. The remaining plans fell into the categories ‘poor information’ and ‘partially addressed’ for Threats. Within this topic, most plans failed to mention the themes Biology and ecology relevant to threatening processes, and the Identification of geographical areas and populations under threat. Finally, the poorest compliance was for the topic Species’ distribution and location. In most plans the topic was ‘partially addressed’ (84% of plans). Plans mostly failed to address the themes Identification of habitat critical to the survival of the species and Mapping of habitat critical and important populations. Fifty per cent of plans did not include information on critical habitat of target species. The poor compliance of the last three topics may show a lack of technical knowledge regarding biological/ecological information of target species.

Compliance with legislative requirements across legislation, approaches and taxa Significant differences were detected across legislation in five of the six topics about content requirements (Table 5.1). This showed an important planning improvement made under the EPBCA for the topics: Species’ information and general requirements (X2 = 94.49, p < 0.001), Species’ distribution and location (X2 = 15.64, p < 0.001), Threats (X2 = 32.70, p < 0.001), and Objectives, recovery criteria and actions (X2 = 49.11, p < 0.001). However, the topic Costs of the plan had a

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans better response under the ESPA (X2 = 8.82, p < 0.05). Duration of the plan showed no significant difference between legislative eras.

Legislation Approach Taxa Topics ESPA EPBCA Single-sp Multi-sp Animals Plants Species' info. and gral. requirements Species' distribution and location Threats Objectives, criteria and actions Duration of the plan Costs of the plan Black cells denote a significantly better response over blank cells and grey cells denote no differences.

There was no clear pattern of better compliance in either single- or multi-species plans (Table 5.1). The topics Species’ distribution and location (X2 = 6.28, p < 0.05) and Threats (X2 = 6.04, p < 0.05) were better covered by multi-species plans. These results are surprising as it may be expected than single-species plans had better species ecological information than multi-species plans, but this was not the case. Contrarily, the topics Duration of the plan (X2 = 17.01, p < 0.001) and Costs of the plan (X2 = 19.02, p < 0.001) were better addressed in single-species plans. Species’ information and general requirements and Objectives, recovery criteria and actions – two of the most important topics – showed no significant differences.

In relation to taxa, there was no clear pattern either, although the Hypothesis No. 3 was proved regarding the extent of ecological knowledge: plans made for animal species had better coverage of Species’ distribution and location (X2 = 23.05, p < 0.001) (Table 5.1). Costs of the plan was also better addressed in plans made for animals (X2 = 43.51, p < 0.001). The topic Threats, which reflected the extent of knowledge regarding the ultimate threatening process, was better addressed in plans made for plant species (X2 = 16.77, p < 0.001). Three topics showed no significant differences between animal and plants plans regarding the extent of information about species general biological information, objectives, recovery criteria, prescribed actions, or duration of the plan.

Monitoring and evaluation scheme Only 35.6% of recovery plans included a well formulated scheme of M&E and 50.8% lacked any scheme (Figure 5.2). The M&E scheme in some documents varied widely across the different Commonwealth and state/territory agencies, and it was not standardised and consistent even within

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans same agencies. Plans from Western Australia showed the most complete and consistent format of M&E. Plans that were qualified as ‘incomplete’ had deficiencies such as a lack of instructions to undertake regular reviews of implementation and/or definition of the organisation responsible for conducting the evaluation of the plan.

60 50.8

t 40 35.6

Per cen 20 13.6

0 No Incomplete Well formulated

Response

Figure 5.2: Plans with well-formulated, incomplete or no monitoring and evaluation scheme (N=236 plans)

Type of measures proposed to be monitored Biological- and threat-related indicators predominated in plans (99.6%), with much less attention given to the social aspects of the plan (Figure 5.3). Biological/ecological measures regarding population size, abundance, and distribution were covered in all recovery plans. This was consistent with the setting of tasks to monitor those aspects; nearly all recovery plans had set tasks to monitor population trends and distribution. However, tasks for monitoring habitat condition were rarely proposed.

120 99.6 100 t 80 73.7 61 60

Per cen Per 40 20 4.7 0 Biological Threat Internal social External social measures measures aspects aspects

Figure 5.3: Types of measures established for monitoring and evaluating recovery actions and the various aspects of recovery plans (N=236 recovery plans)

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

Measures to monitor threat abatement were the second most common (73.7% of plans). This was consistent with 82.2% of plans that set recovery actions to abate threats. In contrast, consistency was poor for monitoring social aspects (Figure 5.3). Sixty one percent of recovery plans set measures for monitoring the social aspects of the plan (e.g. performance of the recovery team or review of the recovery plan) against 80% of plans that prescribed recovery actions for working on those aspects. Recovery plans including measures for monitoring social aspects external to the plan (e.g. community engagement or public attitude) were even more scarce (4.7%). This contrasted with 78.4% of plans that prescribed actions to conduct educational programs and 52.1% of plans that set activities to involve the community.

It was evident that recovery plans rely heavily on measures of biological and ecological parameters for assessing progress towards recovery. Social aspects of management that are important in the recovery process and that could also be measured to assess progress have been ignored. Prescribed monitoring activities were mainly associated with two different facets of the plan’s development: a) monitoring of biological/ecological parameters of target species as part of research activities; and b) monitoring of the performance criteria used to measure achievement of objectives as part of the M&E scheme.

Organisation responsible for conducting review Fifty seven per cent of documents stated that recovery teams, the responsible agency, or independent reviewers, conducted the review and evaluation of the plan. Some plans proposed conducting annual iterative reviews for assessing program performance and others only a summative evaluation at the end of the plan’s timeframe. The remaining 42% of plans did not comply with this requirement, which may be related to the poor M&E of recovery planning within agencies (Chapter 4).

5.3.2 How do recovery plans respond to scientific information gaps?

Overall, recovery plans performed well in identifying scientific information gaps and formulating consistent research actions. Four of the seven biological/ecological topics were well addressed by over 80% of recovery plans: Population biology, Habitat, General ecology, and Threats (Figure 5.4). The topics Life history, Genetics, and Behaviour/dispersal were addressed less often. These results show that the consistency of response varied across the topics of scientific information. Greater attention was paid to address the lack of information on Population biology which consisted mostly of prescription of research and monitoring actions on population parameters. Topics more

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans consistently addressed may have more relevance for management and for assessing progress towards recovery, as most of the established recovery criteria were based on those measures.

Population biology Habitat General ecology Threats Addressed Life history Not addressed Genetics Topics of information Behavior/dispersal

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage plans

Figure 5.4: Consistency in prescription of research actions across scientific topics (N=236 plans)

Response to knowledge gaps across legislation, approaches, and taxa No significant differences were detected across six of seven topics of scientific knowledge across the two periods of legislation (Table 5.2). Only the topic Life history showed a significantly better response by plans made during the ESPA (X2 = 8.19, p < 0.01). These results mean that no improvements were observed under the EPBCA.

Table 5.2: Paired comparisons of internal consistency between the scientific information gaps and prescription of research actions (Legislation N=236: ESPA=74, EPBCA=162; Approach N= 236: Single sp=200, Multi-sp=36; Taxa N=223: Animals N=79, Plants=144)

Legislation Approach Taxa Scientific topics ESPA EPBCA Single-sp Multi-sp Animals Plants Habitat Population biology Life history Genetics Behaviour/dispersal General ecology Threats Black cells denote a significantly better response over blank cells and grey cells denote no differences.

In relation to approach, single-species plans were significantly better at addressing four of the seven topics: Population biology (x2 = 16.17, p < 0.001), Life history (x2 = 33.6, p < 0.001), Genetics (x2 = 19.6, p < 0.001), and General ecology (x2= 9.58, p < 0.01) (Table 5.2). For the remaining topics (Habitat, Behaviour/dispersal, and Threats) there was also a slightly better consistency in plans

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans focused on single-species, although the test showed no significant differences. No clear pattern was observed across taxa.

5.3.3 How do recovery plans respond to threats?

All species within recovery plans faced multiple threats; each recovery plan cited on average six threats to the target species (Table 5.3). As a response, the number of prescribed threat-related actions per plan ranged from one to eleven, with a median of 1.52±1.45 actions per threat. However, there were differences across the ten major types of threat. The highest values of mean actions per plan were for the Invasive weeds on habitat and Introduced predators threats (Table 5.3). Those highest values did not correspond to the threats most commonly mentioned in plans: Fire related to management and Agriculture that occupied third and fourth places in the table. The lowest values were for the threat Infrastructure development and Extraction, which were addressed on average by less than one action per plan.

Table 5.3: Number of actions per plan formulated to address the ten major threats (N=236 plans) No. of plans that Mean actions Range number of Type of threat* cited the threat per plan actions per plan Invasive weeds on habitat 136 2.12 ± 1.41 0 - 7 Introduced predators 113 2.07 ± 1.50 0 - 9 Fire related to management 150 1.86 ± 1.30 0 - 11 Agriculture 140 1.84 ± 1.27 0 - 6 Native predators 48 1.61 ± 1.09 0 - 6 Other related to habitat 44 1.49 ± 1.30 0 - 6 Land management non-agriculture 84 1.31 ± 0.94 0 - 5 Recreation/tourism 59 1.07 ± 1.13 0 - 7 Infrastructure development 66 0.96 ± 0.91 0 - 4 Extraction 54 0.89 ± 0.88 0 - 3 * After assessment of the ten major threats

Consistency of plans’ response to the ten major threats Recovery plans responded well in addressing most of the ten major threats, but the consistency varied across the type of threat. In general, the response by recovery plans was adequate, since eight of the ten major threats had a consistent response across 60% of plans (Figure 5.5). Fire related to management, Invasive weeds on habitat, and Introduced predator had the highest percentage of plans with a ‘good’ response (75-80% of plans). For Agriculture which was the second most common threat mentioned within plans, 70% responded adequately. Infrastructure development and Extraction were the most poorly addressed threats. However, all major threats had a percentage of recovery plans that did not respond to them at all (from 8% to 40%).

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

Fire related to management (150)

Invasive weeds on habitat (136)

Introduced predator (113)

Native predator (48)

Agriculture (140) Good response Limited response Recreation/tourism (59) No response

Ten major threats Ten major Other related to habitat (44)

Land manage. non-agricult. (84)

Infraesctructure development (66)

Extraction (54)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage recovery plans

Figure 5.5: Plans’ response to the ten major threats (the number between parentheses denotes the number of recovery plans that cited the threat) (N=236 recovery plans)

Consistency of response to major threats across legislation, approach and taxa In relation to the two periods of legislation, Extraction was the only threat that had better consistency during the EPBCA period (x2 = 6.35, p < 0.05; Table 5.4). No statistical differences were detected across the remaining types of threat.

Legislation Approach Taxa Type of threat ESPA EPBCA Single-sp Multi-sp Animals Plants Fire related to management (150) 47 103 131 19 36 114 Agriculture (140) 47 93 114 26 54 86 Invasive weeds on habitat (136) 39 97 121 15 30 106 Introduced predator (113) 31 82 95 18 48 65 Land manage. non-agriculture (84) 26 58 81 3 13 71 Infrastructure development (66) 13 53 54 12 31 35 Recreation/tourism (59) 18 41 47 12 17 42 Extraction (54) 11 43 42 12 15 39 Native predator (48) 16 32 44 4 10 38 Other related to habitat (44) 16 28 37 7 14 30 Black cells denote a significantly better response over blank cells and grey cells denote no differences.

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

In regard to approach, only the consistency of the threat Fire related to management was significantly different, with a better response in plans focused on single-species (x2 = 12.4, p < 0.01) (Table 5.4). No statistical differences were detected across the remaining types of threat.

Significant differences between taxa were observed in three types of threats: Fire related to management (x2 = 7.57, p < 0.05), Infrastructure development (x2 = 7.58, p < 0.05) and Invasive weeds impacting on habitat (x2 = 9.36, p < 0.01), with better responses by plans made for plant species (Table 5.4). These differences were perhaps because fire- and weed-related threats are more commonly related to plant species than animal species.

Individual response to the threats identified within the recovery plan I assessed the individual response of plans to all threats that they cited, regardless of whether they were major threats or not. Reponses were mostly assessed as Yes, well formulated (44.1%) and Yes, with minor deficiencies (34.3%; Figure 5.6). Both categories of responses summed to 78.4% of recovery plans, which is a good sign of the degree of appropriateness of recovery planning. However, there were still 21.6% of recovery plans within the categories No, there are several deficiencies and No, major inconsistency. Those documents need a more careful definition of actions to address the cited threats.

60 50 44.1 40 34.3 30 20 10.6 11 10 Percentage of plans plans of Percentage 0 Yes, well Yes, with minor No, there are No, major formulated deficiencies several deficiencies inconsistency

Consistency

Figure 5.6: Individual response of recovery plans to all threats cited in the plan (N=236 recovery plans)

Consistency across legislation, approaches and taxa No significant differences were detected in the statistical tests when comparing the paired groups of legislation, approach and taxa.

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

5.3.4 Consistency of performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives Results showed that the overall consistency was variable. Just over half of recovery plans had ‘well defined’ performance criteria for measuring progress in recovery (Figure 5.7), while slightly less than half had a ‘limited’ definition of performance criteria. Limited responses corresponded primarily to the lack of quantitative recovery criteria. Although recovery criteria were consistent with the objectives, the measures were only qualitative which would not allow monitoring and assessing progress effectively. For example, many recovery plans mentioned a recovery criterion such as: ‘The population has grown or decreased’. This recovery criterion is limited as it does not specify a threshold, growth rate or timeframe against which progress and achievement of objectives could be assessed. Cases like this (40.7% of plans) could be easily corrected by adding quantitative measures and thresholds.

Are the recovery criteria consistent?

60 51.3

40.7 40

20 8.1 Percentage of plans plans of Percentage 0 Well defined Limited No

Response

Figure 5.7: Prescription of consistent performance criteria to measure achievement of objectives (N=236 recovery plans)

Consistency of performance criteria across legislation, approach and taxa Responses were not significantly different either across legislation or taxa (Table 5.5). The only significant differences were detected across approaches where plans focused on single-species had a higher percentage of ‘well defined’ recovery criteria (x2 = 16.48, p < 0.001).

Table 5.5: Paired comparisons of the consistency of criteria for measuring achievement of objectives (Legislation N=236, ESPA=74, EPBCA=162; Approach N= 236, Single sp=200, Multi-sp=36; Taxa N=223, Animals N=79, Plants=144)

Legislation Approach Taxa ESPA EPBCA Single-sp Multi-sp Animals Plants

Black cells denote significantly better response over blank cells and grey cells denote no differences.

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

5.3.5 Summary of the evaluation of recovery plans: what plans are better?

Table 5.6 summarises findings from the assessment of appropriateness of recovery plans across the paired comparisons (legislation, approach and taxa).

Table 5.6: Summary of findings across the paired comparisons of recovery plans On the assessment of compliance with legislative requirements Class Comments Legislation Recovery plans had a better compliance under the EPBCA, with four of the six topics of legislative requirements better addressed. Approach No clear differences were evident across single- and multi-species plans. Single-species plans had two topics better addressed (Threats and Duration of the plan), and multi-species also had two topics better addressed (Species’ information and general requirements and Costs of the plan). The two remaining topics (Species’ distribution and location and Objectives, recovery criteria and actions) were equally addressed in both approaches. Taxa No clear pattern was found; recovery plans made for animal species addressed better two topics (Species’ information and general requirements and Costs of the plan), and plans made for plant species addressed better the topic Threats. On the assessment of response to knowledge gaps Legislation No clear pattern was observed under the two periods of legislation. Approach Four topics of scientific information were better addressed by plans focused on single-species, and none on multi-species. The three remaining topics had similar response between both types of plans. Taxa No differences were observed. On the assessment of response to the major threats Legislation No clear pattern was observed in the overall and individual responses under the two periods of legislation. Approach Although only Fire related to management had differences in the overall response, it is worth to mention that this threat (considered among the most important) was better addressed in plans made for single-species. No clear difference was observed in the individual response. Taxa Three major threats were better addressed in plans made for plant species and none in plans made for animals. No clear difference was observed in the individual response. On the assessment of consistent performance criteria Legislation No clear pattern was observed under the two periods of legislation. Approach A better response of plans made for single-species was observed Taxa No clear difference was observed.

These results suggest that better planning was observed under the EPBCA in some areas such as compliance with content requirements, but still there are other areas that need more attention, such as the response to threats and setting of performance criteria. Results also suggest that it is worthwhile maintaining the single-species approach in recovery planning due to its better performance in the definition of clear and measurable objectives, better definition of threatening processes affecting the species, better response to the gaps of scientific information on population biology, life history, genetics and general ecology; and better definition of performance criteria. Planning for single-species may facilitate the diagnosis of primary issues and the formulation of a more targeted management response. Across taxa no clear pattern was observed between plans made for animal and plant species.

100

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

5.4 Discussion

Recovery plans have been the primary mechanism for delivering government protection to threatened species, and are the most specific management documents prescribed by agencies to guide the conservation of threatened species. Lack of compliance and internal consistency in some areas of planning such as the poor response to threatening processes or the inappropriate definition of performance criteria, may negatively affect the success of recovery efforts. Evaluating those elements is therefore an important means to assess the appropriateness of recovery plans. Weaknesses and missing information can be identified and corrected before plans are implemented. This evaluation framework may also assist in identifying knowledge gaps and addressing threats more effectively.

Compliance with legislative requirements Compliance with legislation is crucial to the effective planning of threatened species. According to the results of this study, gaps in scientific and managerial information are the main factors affecting adequate compliance with planning requirements. It could be expected that the extent of biological/ecological knowledge varied across species, ecosystems and regions. However, my evaluation showed that compliance varied between plans made under the two periods of legislation. The guidelines prepared by the Commonwealth may support the preparation of better recovery plans. I consider that the guidelines have been a useful tool for managers and those other authors involved in preparing recovery plans. Another likely intervening factor is time, which is difficult to measure, but it could have influenced as the accumulation of knowledge, technical expertise and experience of those involved in recovery planning (Boersma et al. 2001). As a result recovery plans have mostly addressed the key content elements necessary for guiding management. Recovery plans are doing very well in addressing the definition of objectives, recovery criteria and formulation of recovery actions, which are critical elements for management (Burbidge 1996). Establishment of recovery criteria has been particularly analysed in other studies. Gerber and Hatch (2002) found in the US recovery plans that species with improving status had more quantitative criteria specified within plans. The use of adequate quantitative criteria has improved in recent years in Australian recovery plans. Other components such as Duration of the plan and Cost of the plan were also well addressed in most plans, perhaps due their simplicity. However, a small proportion of plans did not include costs. This was the only content requirement that was not addressed by some plans at all. Species information and general requirements, another key topic, was poorly addressed because of the lack of information on some themes within the topic (e.g. role and interest of indigenous people, social and economic impacts, and ecological benefits to other species).

101

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans

Attention to the topic Known and potential threats still requires improvement. Plans did well identifying the actual or potential threats affecting the species; but the themes related to the biology and ecology relevant to threatening processes and the identification of the geographical areas or populations under threat were not well addressed. For this reason, only 42% of plans completed this topic. Those themes need to be more carefully addressed, since abatement of threats is one of the main goals of recovery plans. Another requirement that was far from adequately addressed was Distribution and location. The guidelines call for identifying species’ distribution, habitat critical for the survival of the species, and mapping of critical habitat and important populations. Here, information about the species’ distribution was limited. The identification, description, and mapping of critical habitat was lacking in 85% of plans. Findings in Chapter 4 suggest that identification and registration of critical habitat has not been recognised as a useful conservation tool or it is being ignored by agencies to avoid controversies and conflicts with landholders. The same issue has been identified in the US where there exist a register of critical habitats under the ESA. As of 2004 critical habitat had been designated for 450 species (35.6% of all listed species in the US), often associated to delays and controversies (Hoekstra et al. 2002b; Scott et al. 2006).

Monitoring and evaluation of recovery plans Given the lack of outcome evidence of recovery planning, I put special emphasis on examining compliance with the requirements for M&E, as this is critical for examining performance and the achievement of objectives, and for incorporating adaptive management (Bryant & Male 1996; Kleiman et al. 2000; Bisbal 2001; Campbell et al. 2002; Clark 2002; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006). Monitoring and evaluation activities are also key components of recovery plans as a part of the recovery process. However, as seen in Chapter 4, DEWHA is still lacking a M&E framework that can be applied on recovery planning. My results showed that half the recovery plans failed to establish a scheme for M&E. DEWHA has recognised that it lacks sufficient institutional capacity to monitor plans; resources are stretched just to manage the preparation of recovery plans (ANAO 2007). As a result implementation of plans is not being monitored in most cases, which is a major challenge for the recovery process and the achievement of the EPBCA’s objectives (Chapter 4). With this constraint, agencies rarely have the opportunity to know whether their targets have been met and whether the management interventions have been appropriate and effective. Operation of recovery planning rarely provides feedback for reassessments of species’ conservation status and for the listing and planning processes. Without proper M&E there is little information that can be incorporated into decision-making of future investments and recovery strategies. Research in the US has also found that monitoring of recovery planning is facing similar challenges, specifically to the aspects related to poor consideration of monitoring activities within plans and inconsistency

102

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans between the type of criteria defined in plans and the proposed monitoring activities (Boersma et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2002). Monitoring in Australian plans has also addressed two main facets, as in the US recovery plans: a) monitoring of the biological/ecological aspects of the target species, and b) monitoring of criteria used to measure recovery (Campbell et al. 2002), with more attention paid to the latter.

Fortunately, there are now several approaches for conducting M&E in conservation programs that could be incorporated into Australian recovery planning (e.g., Margoluis & Salafsky 1998; Yoccoz et al. 2001; Sutherland et al. 2004; Stem et al. 2005). Recommendations for incorporating elements of M&E for recovery planning are included in Chapter 8.

Measures of recovery Results evidenced that most recovery criteria used in Australian recovery plans are linked to biological/ecological measures of the target species, ignoring other aspects such as habitat condition and threats. The same results are found in US recovery planning (Campbell et al. 2002). For many, monitoring the target species is a logical measure, since assessment of the species´ status may reflect the progress of recovery planning. Several papers recommend that recovery criteria should have a clear link to biological information (e.g. Tear et al. 1993; Boersma et al. 2001; Gerber & Hatch 2002). However, the emphasis on using only this type of criterion for assessing achievement of objectives and progress of management is problematic. Caution is recommended against overemphasising the use of population size or conservation status as the sole measure to assess recovery progress (Campbell et al. 2002). The use of biological criteria alone gives a limited and misleading evidence of recovery (Possingham et al. 2002; Cork et al. 2006; DEH 2006). Perceived changes in species status may reflect incorporation of new information or changes due to taxonomic revisions resulting in either the creation or loss of species (Possingham et al. 2002; Marohasy 2003; DEH 2006). Therefore, it is recommended that species’ conservation status, when used as a gauge, should be accompanied always by other measures of management (Campbell et al. 2002). Complementary measures that acknowledge the many aspects of recovery, such as the scientific, managerial, organisational and policy issues, need to be recognised and incorporated (Backhouse & Clark 1995a; Bryant & Male 1996; Campbell et al. 2002; Salafsky & Margoluis 2003; Marsh et al. 2007). There are several examples of the application of complementary indicators that can be incorporated perfectly into the monitoring systems of recovery plans. Such indicators are related to threat control (Olsen 1998; Doremus & Pagel 2001; Mace & Baillie 2007) and habitat condition and protection (Gerber & Hatch 2002). Monitoring these two types of measures is also crucial given that many threats are related to habitat condition (Campbell et al. 2002). There are also useful social

103

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans indicators such as community awareness and education (Jacobson 1991; 1999; Morris et al. 2007), compliance with legislation, capacity building, establishment of partnerships, and community engagement (Kellert 1985; Zammit et al. 2000; Meffe et al. 2002; NRM Ministerial Council 2002; McDonald et al. 2003; Mathevet & Mauchamp 2005; Fenton 2006; Wiley et al. 2008). Those complementary indicators could be established within an M&E framework for recovery planning which may provide more comprehensive information on conservation and management efforts. In this way, agencies and conservation organisations would have more elements of judgment to assess the outcomes and effectiveness of recovery plans. Examples of the application of biological and social indicators are provided in Chapter 8.

Why are recovery plans inadequate in establishing recovery criteria? As shown above, most recovery plans mainly follow the biological indicators commonly used in US recovery plans (Scott et al. 2006; U.S. FWS 2007), the IUCN Red List (Butchart et al. 2005; Rodrigues et al. 2006; Hoffman et al. 2008), other global biodiversity conservation targets (The Royal Society 2003; Mace & Baillie 2007), and, in Australia, in the State of Environment reports (Saunders et al. 1998). I have argued that this approach is problematic for Australian recovery planning because of the poor biological/ecological knowledge for most threatened species (Chapter 4). I also agree with the ANAO (2007), which considers that it is critically important for administrative and management purposes that the list of threatened species is as up to date as possible. However, managers have to deal with resource constraints and technical challenges, especially where data does not yet exist on many threatened species, and the little data available is not consistent across agencies (Chapter 4). These challenges are major considerations and need to be taken into account in order to improve recovery planning.

Addressing scientific information gaps Scientific information is crucial for good management. Scientific information is necessary in different stages of the recovery planning process, including the preparation and adoption of recovery plans, setting of recovery objectives and performance criteria, identification of threatening processes, identification of critical habitat, formulation of recovery actions, and setting of monitoring activities and evaluation (Rohlf 1991; Carroll et al. 1996; Pulliam & Babbitt 1997; Smallwood et al. 1999; Boersma et al. 2001). However, due to the scarcity of scientific knowledge about many of the listed threatened species, management decisions are often made on the basis of poor or incomplete information (Tear et al. 1995). Recovery plans are management tools that fit in this type of situation because they provide guidance on the basis of the best available and most up- to-date scientific information and good thinking. However, identification of inadequacies of

104

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans information is also needed, highlighting where evidence needs to be acquired through appropriate research and monitoring practices (Campbell et al. 2002; Pullin & Knight 2003). Identification of research gaps is also important for improving recovery planning, since the flow of information between scientists and managers need to be reciprocal. Managers need to incorporate scientific information for management, and managers need to inform scientists about the information gaps to improve management. To address this problem, better mechanisms of communication and participation are needed to bring scientists and practitioners closer and to increase the flow of information in both directions (Pullin & Knight 2003).

I observed that gaps in some scientific topics were better addressed than others, but overall there was a high consistency of research prescriptions (<80% of plans). This degree of consistency is similar to the one observed in the US recovery plans (Brigham et al. 2002). The topics better addressed with formulation on research actions were Population biology, Habitat, General ecology, Threats, and Life history. Differences in consistency across topics may reflect the urgency of knowledge in particular areas. Some topics may be considered more relevant than others in informing management. As stated above, population parameters are often used as indicators of recovery and established in most of monitoring activities (Campbell et al. 2002); this may be the reason for the strong attention to the topic Population biology. Threats, a critical topic within plans, received less attention, occupying third place. Yet this topic was adequately addressed in 80% of recovery plans. Recovery plans for single-species had better consistency than multi-species plans across most topics of scientific information.

Research had the highest percentage of tasks prescribed within plans (Chapter 4). Clearly, agencies are concerned with the need for scientific information in relation to recovering threatened species. More research effort needs to be directed to important areas such as the identification of critical habitats.

Response to threatening processes The number of prescribed actions and the consistent response to major threats were used as indicators of a coherent response. Overall the response of recovery plans to address the cited threats was moderate, with some differences across type of threats. Six of the ten major threats were addressed by 60% of plans. A similar degree of consistency was observed in US recovery plans (Brigham et al. 2002). Unfortunately in Australian, all types of threats within recovery plans had no response at all in at least some of the plans. This is a serious deficiency that needs improvement. Species facing site-specific and focal-source threats such as Fire related to management have a better chance to be successfully managed through the introduction of improved management

105

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans practices. In contrast, species facing complex and broad-scale threats related to social and economical development such as mining or coastal development will require greater efforts and new strategies, involving bigger challenges for management (Lawler et al. 2002). In a similar study it was observed that species that improved their conservation status had threats that were easier to address (e.g. direct source of mortality), while those species facing development projects tended to be declining (Abbitt & Scott 2001). Therefore, complexity, severity and range of threat could be factors influencing the degree of threat abatement.

Another critical point is that all species targeted by recovery plans face multiple threats, with an average of six threats cited in each plan. Some groups of threats may have cumulative impacts a across several bioregions, making it more difficult and expensive to manage them (Sattler & Creighton 2002). Analysis of overlapping patterns in recovery plans for similar species, ecologically similar areas, or species with similar threatening processes, could assist managers to streamline and improve the management of threats (Foin et al. 1998; Burgman et al. 2006). Preparation of Threat abatement plans is a step in the right direction. There are now ten Threat abatement plans in place for those threatening processes identified as the most critical across Australia. Those critical threats include introduced predators (cats, red fox), introduced competitors (rabbits, goats, feral pigs), incidental by-catch of marine birds, dieback, and land clearing (DEH 2007), which coincide with several of the major threats identified in this study.

Individual responses showed that 78.4% of plans had a ‘well formulated’ response, although some plans had minor deficiencies. Concerns were raised in the categories ´poor response´ and ´no response´, which represented 21.6% of all documents. Some plan authors mentioned that knowledge about threatening processes was limited and for this reason they only identified the threats as ‘potential’. Perhaps for this reason abatement actions were not prescribed in some documents. Poor understanding of threats can be reflected by poor management response (Lawler et al. 2002). But this seemed not to be the case for all plans with no response. There were plans with well recognised and documented threats, and still the authors failed to formulate threat abatement actions. Authors and reviewers of the planning process need to evaluate more carefully the consistency between the identified threats and the adequate response before adopting the plan.

It was only possible to evaluate the appropriateness of a plan’s prescription; the impact and effectiveness of such formulated actions will only be measurable through the monitoring of threat management. Here, Threat abatement plans are a critical component of conservation management, but they can be prepared only after the threats have been determined and their absolute and relative

106

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans impacts evaluated as fully as possible (New 2006). Once threats have been identified, monitoring and evaluation activities will truly assess the effectiveness of the effort made.

Consistency of performance criteria Poor consistency of performance criteria may be related to the lack of a framework for conducting M&E. The link between objectives, performance criteria and design of monitoring activities was not clear for nearly the half of the examined recovery plans. These results show a serious deficiency. Other reviews of recovery planning have already pointed out this problem in Australia and the US (Brigham et al. 2002; Cork et al. 2006; ANAO 2007). Brigham et al. (2002) found a similar degree of consistency in the US recovery plans (~50%) which reflected a deficiency in establishing recovery criteria and monitoring tasks. This is critical given that most recovery plans have been inadequate in establishing recovery criteria. This may reduce the ability of managers to make decisions involving change in management direction or priorities, or reinforcing efforts on successfully actions. It may also reduce the ability to defend species or ecological communities against delisting decisions that may be biologically unsound (Doremus & Pagel 2001; Brigham et al. 2002). Unfortunately, the results showed no improvements in the consistency of objectives and performance criteria under the new legislation. Single-species recovery plans did show slightly higher levels of consistency than multi-species plans. I emphasise the critical importance of establishing appropriate objectives, performance criteria and monitoring programs that strengthen the reliability of recovery plans whatever the approach. Careful definition and consistency between those elements are essential to support effective management. Without a clear link between objectives and performance criteria there is no way to assess recovery progress; consequently, responsible agencies may be unable to assess the success of recovery efforts (Gerber & Hatch 2002).

A second deficiency observed was that most established performance criteria are qualitative. These performance criteria are limited because a lack of benchmarks against changes may be detected and measured. Assessment of performance criteria could not permit following up changes of species’ conservation status or assessing improvements in threat abatement. Both qualitative and quantitative criteria should be combined in a plan (Chapter 8). Unfortunately, instructions for establishing criteria are not mentioned in the Commonwealth guidelines; this is an area for improvement.

In summary, the analysis revealed that recovery plans are internally consistent in some areas, such as compliance with legislative requirements; prescription of research actions to address gaps of scientific information; and the response to threatening processes. However, some improvements are necessary, especially in addressing the threatening processes caused by infrastructure development

107

Chapter 5 Appropriateness of recovery plans and exploitation projects. In contrast, compliance and internal consistency were poor when it came to the design of an M&E framework and definition of recovery criteria. The analysis also showed the advantages of single-species recovery plans over multi-species plans. It has been said that single- or multi-species approaches are not exclusive but complementary (Flather et al. 1998; Meffe et al. 2002). Theoretical and practical advantages of both approaches have already been stated according to the experience of recovery planning in the US (e.g. Jewell 2000; Boyer 2001; Lundquist et al. 2002; Hornaday & Bloom 2006). Therefore, the value of the single-species approach should be carefully revised by agencies before moving away from this scheme, as discussed in Chapter 4. In future, more research effort should be directed toward examining the several facets of the planning process that remain unaddressed such as the effective incorporation of science into recovery planning and the decision-making processes.

5.5 Chapter summary

This chapter presented findings related to a quantitative evaluation of recovery plans. The chapter started with a brief overview and the research question no. 2. Primary research methods employed in this chapter were described. Sections of results presented the findings of the review and analysis of recovery plans in regard to four main topics: compliance with legislative requirements; response to scientific information gaps; response to threats; and consistency of performance criteria. The discussion highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of recovery plans and put them in the context of previous research. This last section summarised the content of the chapter.

108

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

CHAPTER 6 – FACTORS INFLUENCING IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOVERY PLANS

6.1 Chapter overview 6.2 Research methods 6.3 Results 6.3.1 Interviews 6.3.2 Expert workshops 6.3.3 Quantitative analysis of recovery plans 6.4 Discussion 6.5 Chapter summary

6.1 Chapter overview

After reviewing the operation of the CESP and recovery planning in Chapter 4, it was observed that several biological and social issues surround the effective implementation of recovery plans at the state level. Analysis of the appropriateness of plans as management instruments also revealed some deficiencies related to the managerial aspects of planning (Chapter 5). It is therefore relevant to examine the factors most likely to influence effective implementation of recovery plans. Since the national recovery planning scheme relies heavily on the operation of recovery plans by the states and territories, this chapter is focused on implementation at state level in Queensland and New South Wales. Background information about the performance of the government structures and policy from Queensland and New South Wales was outlined in Chapter 4. This chapter details the administrative and managerial links between the Commonwealth and two state governments in matters of recovery planning.

In this chapter I addressed the third research question:

What management factors have most influence on implementation of recovery plans at the state level?

109

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

The research methods employed in this chapter (interviews, expert workshops and quantitative analysis of documentation) are described in Section 6.2. Section 6.3 presents the results of this investigation on the major institutional and organisational factors that influence the implementation of recovery plans, followed by a discussion (Section 6.4) and a chapter summary (Section 6.5).

6.2 Research methods

The research question was addressed through application of three methods: Interviews, Expert workshops, and Quantitative analysis of recovery plans. Triangulation of data from these three methods was employed to validate data, examine relationships across different types of data, validate data itself, and detect similarities or differences in themes (Babbie 2005; Neuman 2006). Definition of methods is provided as follows.

Interviews Face-to-face interviews (individual and focus group) were conducted with managers, academics and representatives from Natural Resource Management (NRM) groups and conservation organisations to investigate the main issues and factors involved in recovery planning (Chapter 4). Interviews followed a pre-designed question schedule (Appendix I). Data from interviews was conceptualised, classified and integrated into major common themes without imposing any a priori categorisation that may have limited the enquiry (Fontana & Frey 2000). This allowed for revision of the interview data to identify natural associations between themes of responses (Patton 1990). I conducted a process of coding and categorising the responses using a qualitative content analysis framework (Wilkinson 2004; Newman 2006). Topic headings were assigned to each group of similar responses within a common theme. Where individual statements were incorporated in the thesis to emphasise an argument, interviewees were identified by a code to maintain confidentiality (e.g. Respondent no. 1: R1).

There were a limited number of interviewees, as managers and other people directly involved in recovery planning were not easily accessible for interview (see Table 4.1 in Chapter 4). Rather than conducting a more extensive survey, I focused the study on a small group of key informants who were willing to participate successively in personal, telephone and email interviews. This extended interview method provided information that was richer in detail, and enabled me to build up a more coherent picture of the complex processes involved (Neuman 2006). Informants reflected two main perspectives: managers who provided information from ‘inside’ the management system, and scientists and representatives of NRM groups and NGOs who expressed an ‘external’ view of the management system.

110

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Expert workshops Two separate expert workshops were conducted to examine the major institutional and organisational factors that influence implementation of threatened species recovery plans. Within the perspective of systems analysis methodologies, institutional and organisational factors were not perceived as external elements to the management system, rather as essential components to effective management (Ison et al. 1997; Jackson 2000). The context of institution was constructed around the notion of the established norms that govern a social system (Kaplan 1960); in this case, the ‘rules’ or policies for threatened species management. Complementarily, the organisational context was considered as the consciously coordinated social unit and its operative structures developed to deliver the institutional programs (Robbins & Judge 2007). Those two contexts were considered when appraising the influence of management factors on the conservation strategies developed by agencies and other academic and conservation organisations.

I clarify that the workshops provided data that was incorporated into two chapters, the present Chapter and Chapter 7. In this section relating to methods, only the phases and procedure of the workshops that provided information for Chapter 6 are explained. Subsequent phases and procedures of the workshops leading to the development of a Bayesian belief network are presented in Chapter 7. The two panels of stakeholders/experts, each consisting of ten people, were formed from representatives of state agencies, NRM groups, universities, and conservation organisations, with the aim of obtaining different views and perspectives about the implementation of recovery plans at state level. Given that federal managers reported to have scarce information about implementation of recovery plans and that 88.6% of recovery plans are being implemented at state/territory level, I focused the data collection on state-level representatives. Workshop participants were selected on the basis of their involvement in various roles of recovery planning (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1: Stakeholders/experts from Queensland and New South Wales involved in workshops for assessing the factors influencing implementation of national recovery plans Stakeholder affiliation Queensland New South Wales Government agencies 3 5 NRM groups 2 2 Universities 2 2 Conservation organisations 3 1 10 10

Workshops were conducted in Brisbane, Queensland, and Sydney, New South Wales. I aimed to analyse two states because the existence of individual Commonwealth-state agreements, state-based

111

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation legislation and local conservation strategies may differ in the context of recovery planning and the likely factors influencing implementation. The selected states have made an important contribution to the national recovery planning efforts (Chapter 4).

In the first phase of each workshop, experts were separated into three working groups. Each working group was comprised of a mix of managers, scientists and representatives of conservation organisations and NRM groups. The aim was to prevent dominant personalities or authorities from biasing the judgments of the entire group, and to capture opinions from the range of stakeholders. I acted as facilitator and guided discussions in each group to clarify questions. In a ‘brain storming’ session every working group discussed all the ideas and opinions generated by that group, and then they were debated openly and recorded on paper. In the second phase of the workshop, all ideas of the likely influencing factors were listed and arranged in groups of common themes called Issues. All expert opinions were grouped into ten major issues. In a third phase of the workshop the ten major issues were revised and scored by voting of all experts to assess the relative influence on recovery plan implementation. Thus, the final assessment prioritised the major issues from first to tenth, and only the top five ranked issues were considered for deeper analysis. The quantity of ten major issues was arbitrarily chosen as a limit to facilitate the process of elicitation and summary of information gained from the various opinions. The further scoring and assessment process to identify only the five top issues was carried out as a way to reduce the number of components of the management system that would be explored in a Bayesian network in Chapter 7.

Quantitative analysis of recovery plans The database of recovery plans (Chapter 5) provided data useful for analysing aspects related to the extent of participation of states/territories in the national scheme of recovery planning, the coverage of scientific information into recovery plans, and the cost estimates for implementing recovery plans. Quantitative information from the database was used to support the assessment of the factors identified during the interviews and expert workshops, and to validate the descriptions that emerged from qualitative analysis. For example, interviews and workshops identified that management on private lands was a major issue. Quantitative information from the database on land tenure was used to validate the qualitative information and provide more points of analysis in the discussion. Criteria for assessment of coverage of scientific information in recovery plans are included in Appendix V.

6.3 Results

The recovery planning process is inherently complex due the ecological and social factors involved in management. Common problems occur across different recovery plans and agency-based

112

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation management. As observed in Chapter 4, the legislative background, administration and operation of the CESP have undergone substantial alteration during the past fifteen years. As a consequence, many factors may have affected implementation and success of recovery plans. Results are presented in three subsections: Interviews, Expert workshops, and Quantitative analysis of recovery plans.

6.3.1 Interviews

Overall it was agreed that implementation of recovery plans was the most challenging part of the recovery process, but it was also the most critical for achieving successful program delivery. Interviewees commented that the extent of implementation of a particular recovery plan or management action varied greatly depending on the complexity of the surrounding issues. Although the opinions were not based on established measures, interviewees estimated that some recovery plans may have implemented up to a 70% of their prescribed recovery actions while others might have achieved a very low degree of implementation (~20%). There was no estimate of the extent of implementation of the overall recovery planning scheme. The interviewees identified a series of likely influential issues or factors relevant to recovery plans implementation. They were grouped in six themes (Table 6.2):

Table 6.2: Major themes of issues influencing implementation of recovery plans as identified by experts/stakeholders from Queensland and New South Wales Frequency of citation Theme among interviewees Coordination across Commonwealth and states/territories 82.9% Community engagement and management of private lands 77.1% Inconsistency of strategies and programs across jurisdictions 71.4% Incorporation of science into recovery planning 71.4% Inadequate funding for recovery plans implementation 65.7% Prioritising schemes for threatened species conservation 51.4%

Major themes are explained as follows:

Coordination across Commonwealth and states/territories Overall, workshop participants rated Coordination across Commonwealth and states/territories as the most important factors influencing implementation of recovery plans. Because the Commonwealth government does not have administrative competence to implement recovery plans within states, negotiation of agreements with the state and territory agencies to deliver the CESP on-ground is needed. After bilateral agreements have been approved, state and territory governments acquired responsibility to implement recovery plans. Coordination between Commonwealth and state and

113

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation territory agencies is necessary to establish strategies, define priorities and allocate funding. However, this bureaucratic arrangement makes implementation of recovery plans variable. Managers shared the view that implementation of recovery plans on Commonwealth land would be easier for the DEWHA because in these areas it could act on its own competence. However, implementation of plans on state and territory jurisdictions would always require more work just to carry out the administrative arrangements. Interviewees also expressed the view that the extent of implementation of a plan depended on factors related not only to administrative matters but also the goodwill of the involved staff. For example, one state manager said: ‘The extent of coordination depends on the good and close relationship with the Commonwealth government’ (R3).

Cooperation of the three levels of government and a network of organisations is necessary. Certain national recovery plans for a single species need to be implemented across several states (e.g. Flying Fox), or some ecological communities with wide distribution (e.g. White box-yellow box- Grassy woodland) that may also occupy several states. The planning process requires investing time in arranging meetings to coordinate with all state representatives, establishing responsibilities, exchanging information and setting schedules of implementation with all involved parties. ‘The planning and administrative processes are more time-consuming’ (R13). The same issues are related to the planning regional approaches. Given that some threatened species are widely distributed implementation needs to take place across several regions, dealing with multi- stakeholders, public and private lands. A NRM manager commented: ‘Regional plans, the new approach being tested for recovery planning, are challenging for management because they are too complex in terms of the issues to be addressed; this complexity affects the setting of clear objectives and priorities at regional scales ’(R16).

Another manager said: ‘The regional planning approach can be an advantage for addressing common threatening processes and common problems across a wide region. However, it can be also challenging due to the jurisdictional barriers and the need for multi-agency coordination’ (R9).

Concerns were also raised about weak coordination within state agencies. Sometimes bureaucracy and compartmentalised administration make effective communication and coordination of recovery strategies difficult. For example, there exist recovery plans of terrestrial species made by one state agency, and other recovery plans of aquatic species made by the fisheries agency. Preparation of recovery plans between those two state agencies is not always a coordinated effort, involving

114

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation sharing of information or setting common priorities. A manager from a conservation agency revealed: ‘Communication with the fisheries department is poor; we do not coordinate preparation of recovery plans together’ (R23).

Along with coordination, communication between agencies was recognised as one the issues directly linked to implementation of recovery planning. As explained in Chapter 4, information exchange between the Commonwealth and state and territory agencies about recovery planning implementation has deficiencies. A state manager expressed: ‘Communication between the Commonwealth and the states is not effective’ (R22).

The search for evidence found no records of monitoring and implementation of state-based recovery plans in the DEWHA: ‘Information on species conservation status does not receive regular feedback from implementation of plans, and it is not updated’ (R17).

Communication across states and within state agencies is important; but interviewees recognised that effective communication varies. Across states/territories some agencies may have very good coordination/communication on regional planning. In other cases: ‘Communication between agencies is fragmented’ (R2).

Overall there was a common understanding among interviewees that good communication involved the exchange of information about threatened species and recovery plans. But interviewees indicated that some states/territories preferred to work independently on their own approaches, having little communication with other states. Effective communication between members of recovery teams could be impeded by the wide geographic range of the species, so the role of a good recovery team leader was also highlighted: ‘A good recovery team communicator/coordinator is very important’ (R20).

Community engagement and management of private lands This issue was perceived as the second most important. Interviewees indicated that implementation of recovery plans on protected areas was relatively easier than on private lands because, in many cases, they were managed by the same agency. Implementation on private lands is more complex; it relies on negotiation and establishment of voluntary conservation agreements to undertake conservation activities. Community engagement is also necessary because the institutional capacity of the state agencies and councils is limited. Capacity building may support implementation through participation of the local communities. However, the majority of interviewees claimed that

115

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation community involvement in implementing recovery plans could be difficult. Implementation on private lands is very challenging, if not impossible in some areas, because not all the landholders are willing to accept the government conservation measures. In this respect, interviewees expressed some concerns: ‘Farmers don’t like to have threatened species or ecological communities on their properties because they think the government will invade their properties (infringing property rights)’ (R14).

‘Private land is a challenge: conservation depends on the willingness of the people to

cooperate’ (R16).

Managers reported that often landholders deny the existence or avoid reporting the occurrence of threatened species on their properties. But surveys for threatened species cannot be undertaken without consent of the landowner. This has affected the identification and nomination of new species under threat. As a result: ‘Ecological communities have been mostly nominated when they occur on public land. Public avoid nominating communities on private lands due to the restriction for surveying those areas’ (R13).

‘Knowledge of threatened species is limited due to the restriction for surveys and research. Access of managers and conservationists to private lands is difficult’ (R15).

Although Commonwealth and state and territory legislation protects threatened species no matter whether they occur on public or private lands, landholders cannot be forced to participate in conservation activities. Participation and cooperation in recovery activities requires the positive attitude of people. Interviewees added that community participation is more favourable in urban areas than in rural ones: ‘In rural areas people are less aware of threatened species conservation; support is poor’ (R4).

‘The general public is not aware of threatened species, it is just aware of big issues related to their interests such as land clearing’ (R7).

Some managers claimed that the incentives and educational programs were assisting in gaining acceptance of biodiversity conservation efforts which could benefit the implementation of recovery actions on private lands. Overall there was a perception that community awareness and involvement in biodiversity conservation had improved during the past decade. People were more aware of

116

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation species with wide distribution. Media support for some iconic species had impacted on community awareness. Iconic or charismatic species had been used to raise awareness and attract political and community support. ‘Landholders have recently increased participation and willingness to cooperate with conservation initiatives on threatened species, perhaps due the environmental campaigns’ (R3).

Inconsistency of strategies and programs across jurisdictions This issue was perceived as the third most important, along with Incorporation of science into recovery planning. As explained in Chapter 2, differences of legislation across Commonwealth and states/territories have created disparate conservation programs, with different approaches and objectives. Threatened species lists have been used by governments to establish conservation and management priorities; however, there are several inconsistencies between the Commonwealth and state and territory lists that influence the preparation and implementation of recovery plans. Interviewees said listing was inconsistent across Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictions in relation to: • classification system, categories of endangerment, and criteria for listing • criteria for assessing conservation status • species nomination and listing processes • priority rank systems for conservation action • reporting on changes of conservation status, and review and updating of information.

These inconsistencies make it difficult to define and prioritise the conservation of species at a national level. This has also created obstacles for the Commonwealth government to consider the entire range of species when allocating funds on recovery plans. As a result threatened species may be allocated a different conservation status across states/territories and hence be assigned different priorities and management responses.

Another issue raised during the interviews was the use of different approaches for threatened species management. Single-species recovery plans have been the most common approach used in governmental programs so far. Some states still rely predominantly on single-species recovery plans (e.g. Western Australia), while other states have started focusing their management efforts on regions, ecosystems and habitats (e.g. Queensland). Although many ecologists and conservationists are calling for adoption of ecosystem-based conservation, this approach seems to be difficult to

117

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation apply in practice. Ninety per cent of interviewees agreed that recovery plans made for multi-species were more complicated to implement: ‘Recovery plans on ecological communities are more complicated to implement because they are conceptually more complex’ (R13).

‘The single-species approach is not the most effective way, but it is easier to implement. Plans made for ecological communities are more costly, and require more time for planning and assessment’ (R16).

Overall, interviewees emphasised that it was difficult to delimit the spatial distribution of ecological communities. Mapping distributions of ecological communities is required for management but this information is unavailable in many states. Some interviewees also added that the Commonwealth government has not provided guidelines for nominating ecological communities: ‘The definition of ecological community provided by the Commonwealth government is fuzzy. How can managers know where an ecological community is in order to implement management actions?’ (R13).

Interviewees indicated that the emphasis on using recovery planning varies across states and territories. Queensland has had less use of recovery planning than New South Wales. Other states prefer other conservation instruments such as the establishment of protected areas and agreements for protecting habitats on private lands. Managers pointed out that agencies are moving to prepare recovery plans only as an option where other conservation instruments could not be undertaken.

Incorporation of science into recovery planning The comments about this issue were directed around two main points: the lack of technical knowledge of many threatened species, and the deficiencies of staff training for applying science into decision-making and management. Firstly, it was recognised by all interviewees that there are few threatened species about which there is good technical information to assist in guiding management. In this matter it was generally accepted that agencies need to contact relevant scientists to obtain the species’ information. However, among more than a thousand of species, the knowledge is variable: ‘Translation of scientific information into recovery plans is well advanced for some species but it can also be poor for others’ (R7).

‘For some species only records of occurrence exist, ignoring most of their biology and ecology. Comprehensive data on population estimates and trends is even scarcer’ (R16).

118

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

‘Mapping information of ecosystems is good and well advanced in some states and unavailable in others. Differences of mapping techniques and data sets make it difficult for managers to identify ecological communities in the field when they occur across several states’ (R13).

Difficulties in accessing scientific information were also highlighted by respondents. As shown in Chapter 4, databases on threatened species information are limited in their content of biological and ecological information, and are not standardised across the Commonwealth and states/territories (differences of format and quality).

The second point discussed among some interviewees was the lack of adequate training of managers for incorporating scientific knowledge into management. This opinion was shared among four of the interviewed scientists. Comments included: ‘Lack of managers’ training is a limitation. Some managers lack the skills necessary to deal with the many issues of threatened species recovery. They need to update the technical information for decision-making. Managers may also need to participate more in conferences’ (R33).

‘Incorporation of new research information into recovery planning is poor. The recovery planning strategy lacks a research agenda. Some recovery plans provide poor guidance

for decision-making. Uncertainty is present in many decisions’ (R23).

There were claims that the scientific advice was not always considered in decision-making: ‘Popular or anecdotal knowledge and values often overtake scientific knowledge on making decisions’ (R1).

It was recognized that for the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment to make decisions, other issues (socioeconomic) besides the scientific information are to be considered. After the last reforms, the Minister has now obtained more discretionary powers on decisions about whether or not to make a recovery plan. This may leave the way open to ignore scientific advice and make decisions based on other interests.

Inadequate funding for recovery plans’ implementation Inadequate funding was assessed as the fourth most important issue. Although all interviewees mentioned that adequate funding was important for implementing recovery plans, there was an overall perception that other issues took precedence. After signing bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth, state and territory agencies assume responsibility for delivering the CESP at state

119

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation level. At the same time, state and territory agencies also expect to receive Commonwealth funding to implement recovery plans on-ground. Although state and territory agencies may allocate funding to their own recovery plans, implementation of plans adopted under the EPBCA depends on the receipt of Commonwealth funds. In this respect, an interviewee said: ‘Implementation cannot be assured if Commonwealth funds are not available’ (R5).

Managers commented that besides the main financial package through the Commonwealth government, other minor financial resources may be allocated to recovery planning from private groups and non-government organisations. ‘Funding is not assigned to particular recovery plans. Funds are assigned for major programs for biodiversity conservation through the Nature Heritage Trust or regional management projects. Yet, resources are limited. There is no official estimate of the money invested on every recovery plan. This would be a difficult task since there are many organisations involved in providing funds and other resources’ (R20).

Transference of funding from the Commonwealth to the state and territory and local governments was also pointed out as challenging. State governments need to establish formal agreements with the Commonwealth and then with local councils to transfer resources into local actions. Some managers claimed that it is hard to negotiate implementation of recovery plans on a plan-by-plan basis, and that local councils cannot be forced to implement plans. ‘There are several mechanisms for assigning Commonwealth funding to state and local governments, and conservation groups (e.g. EnviroFund), but bureaucracy and administrative arrangements delay prompt conservation action. These barriers restrict the allocation of adequate funding for recovery planning. At the end, there is a large list of recovery actions waiting for implementation’ (R8).

Prioritising schemes for threatened species conservation Often agencies use threatened species lists as the most common mechanism to prioritise conservation action. Before the amendments in the Commonwealth and NSW legislations last year, all listed threatened species were required to have a recovery plan. On this point, an interviewee commented: ‘Governments still use listings for assigning priorities because they are functional and easy to access and implement at a local level. However, this approach is inadequate because threatened species are at a very risky status when they become listed. Conservation programs based on listing follow a reactive rather than a proactive response’ (R7).

120

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Recovery plans are now made at the discretion of the Commonwealth, state or territory agencies. Managers indicated that Commonwealth, state and territory agencies were following different schemes for prioritising conservation when making decisions on whether or not to prepare a recovery plan. For example, at the Commonwealth level, the TSSC may provide advice to the Commonwealth minister in making recovery plans on the basis of criteria developed by the TSSC itself (see Chapter 4). Those criteria were not part of a standardised priority system that had been applied to recovery planning at national level. Every state and territory has followed different frameworks for prioritising conservation and management efforts. Comments from managers included: ‘Inconsistency of listings across jurisdictions influences that priority for making recovery plans also differ’ (R11).

‘A prioritising framework at national level is lacking; implementation follows individual state priorities’ (R12).

Interviewees also claimed that some decisions for conservation and management were influenced by societal values rather than primarily scientific information: ‘Often assignment of resources and implementation of conservation actions follows political decisions. Charismatic species and species involved in controversial conflicts demand more attention of politicians and managers. There is more political interest to address those species’ (R31).

The majority of interviewees agreed that well known, iconic and widespread species received more attention from agencies and conservation groups.

6.3.2 Expert workshops

I examined the likely factors influencing implementation of recovery plans via two stakeholders’ workshops in two different states. This was done with the aim of examining the context of recovery planning at state level.

The major factors/challenges influencing implementation of recovery plans identified by workshop participants are presented in Table 6.3 (Queensland workshop) and Table 6.4 (New South Wales workshop). Most of the factors are equivalent to those identified by the interviewees in the previous section, but some other new factors were also suggested. Although not formally evaluated, it was observed during the workshops that opinions and views varied slightly depending on the background of workshop participants. For example, managers were more concerned about the

121

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation limited funding and other resources necessary to implement plans; scientists thought that science was not being adequately incorporated into recovery planning and was often ignored; and members of non-government organisations were more concerned about the role of community groups and the need of more public involvement.

Table 6.3: Identification of factors influencing implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from Queensland Outcomes of the workshop in Brisbane Work table 1 Work table 2 Work table 3 ● Limited funding for species recovery ● Poor/limited incentives for private land ● Limited knowledge about what to do ● Political decisions moving funding to management and how species will respond iconic species not on priority species ● Species-specific strategies don’t ● Poor links between science and ● There is not requirement to fund encompasses whole ecosystems management priority actions ● Species may not be listed ● Poor information/knowledge sharing in ● Poor coordination and communication ● Some strategies are too localised relation to recovery between agencies ● Making the species identifiable to the ● Limited knowledge of cost of actions ● Different strategies and data collection general public ● Status of data deficient for species across jurisdictions ● Ownership of species/projects ● Often management priorities are ● Recovery plans can be written and ● Different levels of effort for species ‘indirect’; e.g. learning, awareness approved by state but are held up by ● Lack of experts/technical support ● Poor coordination between the DEWHA ● Different level of knowledge/expertise organisations ● Different ideas for conservation within in different organisms ● Determining/involving appropriate agencies and little collaboration and ● Poor knowledge of species and systems stakeholders in implementation communication ● Fragmentation of populations ● Misalignment of priorities between ● Recovery teams are not the ● Poor management of protected habitat jurisdictions responsibility of one agency; they rely ● Meaningless plans, not linked ● Lack of meaningful incentives for off- on passionate people or an iconic ● Geographic distribution of resources reserve conservation species ● Long timeframes for plans development ● Limited prioritisation framework ● Lack of strategy in local government ● Loss of community momentum among species planning ● Limited community ● Prioritising species for recovery plan ● Lack of regulation for recovery plans; awareness/involvement in recovery formation recovery plans are not statutory plan process ● Poor processes to balance documents ● Acknowledgement of research social/science/politics ● Lack of trust and appreciation of ● Limitations of funding guidelines ● Prioritisation framework: Politics and scientific knowledge in management ● Long-term funding community perspectives decisions ● Silos (limited communication) ● Lack of resources for effectively deliver ● Policy do not address the key ● Lack of integration, research and actions threatening processes communication in planning ● Competitiveness of funding/resource ● Conflicting policy agenda hijack the ● Insufficient communication between allocation processes process stakeholders ● Competition for resources for different ● Weak policy at state level ● Poor continuity species/communities and states ● Limited knowledge ● Time taken to develop & implement ● Incorrect diagnosis of main threats and plan solutions ● Rigidity in recovery plan framework, ● None or little critical habitat mapping not allowing for effective adaptive ● Focus still on single rather than multi- management species ● ‘Red tape’ impact upon urgent ● Poor marketing situations ● Lack of public support

122

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Table 6.4: Identification of factors influencing implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from New South Wales Outcomes of the workshop in Sydney Worktable 1 Worktable 2 Worktable 3 ● Development projects overrides ● Developers interests are put before ● Lack of resources recovery efforts threatened species ● Scale of problem – targeting ● No strategic framework in ● Lack of political will resources government ● Short-term thinking by government ● Lack of monitoring, evaluation, ● Ability to side-step legislation ● Lack of commitment and willingness by reporting ● Poor private-land management public authorities ● Emphasis on planning, lack of action ● Lack of real commitment by ● Government departments need re- ● Lack of scientific knowledge government organisation ● Lack of review of effectiveness ● Recovery plans written but not ● Lack of a whole of government ● Poor adaptive management implemented approach to management ● Poor stakeholder’s awareness ● Lack of political will ● Lack of truly coordination of recovery ● Lack of communication across ● No clear priorities by government efforts organisations ● Government staff changes lead to ● Lack of planning, continuity, expertise, ● Poor community education changes in focus funding ● Difficult legislative process ● Cynicism of growing list of threatened ● Disconnect between regional strategies, ● Complex legislative frameworks, species conservation plans, biodiversity multiple laws ● Different attitudes of strategies ● Poor compliance and enforcement rural/urban/coastal development ● Recovery plans in NSW have not teeth (offences, defences) ● False sense of public that the problem in regard to private land; it require ● Complexity is being addressed approval of CEOs/Ministers and action biocertification/biobanking ● ‘God’ given right to develop private get watered down prior to such ● Lack of compulsion in recovery lands agreements planning ● Lack of strategic integration and ● Complexity in protective legislation; ● Political will at all levels commitment compliance ● Meaningful input at strategic planning ● Socio-economic considerations ● Marine and terrestrial species not level override biodiversity conservation treated equally ● Competing demands to natural ● Too strong use of iconic species ● Poor public awareness/ignorance resources ● Inadequate enforcement and ● Money drives public compliance ● Community ignore how to get involved ● Lack of funding ● Lack of understanding about ● Split government departments, ecosystems multiple organisations ● Lack of biological knowledge on some ● Planning separate to biodiversity species; risk of lack of effort in areas conservation which really need it ● Government process reliant on ● Lack of local government training personal networks not strategy ● Not enough allocated resources to recovery; lack of funds for implementation ● Failure to address cumulative impacts in planning approval process ● No adaptive management built in ● Attention on species rather than threatening processes

All the factors and challenges were classified in common themes and ranked by vote among the workshop participants. Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 show the assessment of the most important issues in each state.

123

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Table 6.5: Assessment of the most influential issues on implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from Queensland Major issues Examples of factors/challenges Votes • Poor coordination/communication among Involving appropriate stakeholders; lack of agreement 20 agencies among jurisdictions; silo mentality; fragmentation. • Incorporation of science into management Limited research & knowledge, weak links between 19 scientists-managers, lack of technical support; different levels of understanding and information across organisations; poor adaptive management, lack of monitoring and evaluation, poor feedback into policy. • Inadequate funding and resource allocation Inefficient systems of allocation and delivery of 19 resources; charismatic species receives more funding; collaboration versus competition among agencies. • Lack of community engagement on Loss of community interest in long-term processes; 10 recovery plans involving appropriate stakeholders in implementation. • Policy Lack of regulatory teeth; policy that doesn’t match the 9 problem; no mechanism for linking policy objectives. • Lack of systematic, robust and transparent Political decisions moving funding to iconic species not 8 prioritisation framework priority species; misalignment of priorities between jurisdictions. • Inappropriate management scales Time-framework and geographic scales; lack of long- 8 term security of arrangements and programs; single species versus ecosystems. • Inflexibility of management systems Inappropriate timeframes in recovery plans established 5 by bureaucracy. • Poor management of habitats on private and Poor/limited incentives for private land management. 2 public lands • Lack of ownership in recovery Lack of public support. 0

Table 6.6: Assessment of the most influential issues on implementation of recovery plans by stakeholders/experts from New South Wales Major issues Examples of factors/challenges Votes • Community values and knowledge Poor public awareness/ignorance; money drives public; 16 short term interests; community ignore how to get involved; poor stakeholder’s awareness. • Legislation and policy Ability to side-step legislation; recovery plans in NSW 10 have not teeth in regard to private land; inadequate enforcement and compliance; emphasis on planning, lack of action; complex legislative frameworks, multiple laws. • Scientific knowledge Lack of understanding about ecosystems; lack of 9 biological knowledge on some species; risk of lack of effort in areas which really need it; poor adaptive management. • Resource allocation Lack of funding; insufficient allocated resources to 8 recovery; lack of funds for implementation. • Political will Socio-economic considerations override biodiversity, 7 lack of commitment by public authorities conservation; political will necessary at all levels. • Government organisation framework Lack of a whole of government approach to 4 management; lack of truly coordination of recovery efforts; disconnect between regional strategies, conservation plans, and biodiversity strategies.

124

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Finally, I compared the top five ranked factors and challenges from the two workshops to examine similarities and differences between Queensland and New South Wales. Results are presented in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7: Comparison of major issues influencing implementation of recovery plans as assessed by stakeholders/experts from Queensland and New South Wales Queensland New South Wales 1. Poor coordination/communication among agencies 1. Community values and knowledge 2. Incorporation of science into management 2. Legislation and policy 3. Inadequate funding and resource allocation 3. Scientific knowledge 4. Lack of community engagement in recovery plans 4. Resource allocation 5. Policy 5. Political will

The types of factors and challenges identified are diverse, ranging from factors related to the internal administration of the program (funding and resource allocation) to factors external to the administration (community engagement). Four of the five major issues nominated by workshops from Queensland and New South Wales were similar. Only two issues differed: Poor coordination/communication among agencies in Queensland and Political will in New South Wales. The major issues identified in the workshops also showed similarities with the factors identified during the interviews, even though the participants were different (Section 6.4.1).

6.3.3 Quantitative analysis of recovery plans I extracted quantitative information from the database of recovery plans (Chapter 5) to support the assessment of the issues identified during the workshops and interviews. This analysis allowed examination of complementary information on the number of recovery plans made by the states and territories, the degree of incorporation of scientific topics in recovery plans, the extent of plans that need management on private lands, and the estimated costs of implementing recovery plans.

Number of plans made by the Commonwealth, States and Territories The national strategy of recovery planning greatly relies on implementing recovery plans in areas of state and territory jurisdiction. Issues related to the lack of coordination between Commonwealth and state and territory agencies were pointed out by interviewees and workshop participants, and the quantitative data showed that the overwhelming majority of recovery plans need implementation on state and territory jurisdictions (Figure 6.1). This demonstrates the necessity for establishing agreements of cooperation between Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and streamlining the administrative procedures for planning and allocating resources. Besides the bilateral

125

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation agreements, coordination of efforts and sharing of personnel and resources are also essential for achieving effective implementation of recovery plans across different states.

11%

Species occurring on Commonwealth jurisdiction Species occurring on state and territory jurisdiction

89%

Incorporation of scientific knowledge Incorporation of scientific information is another major issue raised in recovery planning. Analysis of the coverage of scientific information within recovery plans revealed that the extent of information varied according to different scientific topics (Figure 6.2). Information on Threats and Habitat was more comprehensive than other topics. Within these two topics, plans described the spatial distribution of the species, the habitats, and the threats affecting the species. However, coverage of the topics Genetics and Behaviour/Dispersal was poor or not mentioned at all. Coverage of the topics Life history, Population biology, and General ecology was mostly ranked between the ‘poor’ and ‘limited’ categories. These results show that most of the target species are well known in aspects related to their geographical distribution or number of populations; however, knowledge of population parameters such as population estimates or population trends was very poor, and in many cases, unavailable. This analysis indicates that recovery plans, in general, are prepared with limited technical information. Deficiencies in knowledge may not be due to the lack of research on threatened species, or it may be a result of the enormous number of listed species for which obtaining comprehensive knowledge is a challenging task. The urgency of addressing biodiversity loss obliges agencies and conservation organisations to prepare management responses within a limited knowledge base.

126

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Threats

n Habitat

Life history Comprehensive Limited Pop. biology Poor Gener. ecology Not mentioned Behavior/dispersal Topics of informatio Genetics

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of plans

Figure 6.2: Coverage of topics of scientific information, as included in recovery plans (N=236 plans)

Management on private land Community engagement was identified by interviewees and workshop participants as one of the major issues for threatened species conservation (Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2). The quantitative analysis of recovery plans revealed that nearly 60% of plans need to be implemented on private lands (Figure 6.3). These two points are intimately linked, since it is known that management on private lands requires negotiation and incentives in order to achieve community engagement in conservation efforts. However, the analysis of prescribed recovery actions within plans (Chapter 5) showed that Community involvement was the type of action with the lowest attention (prescribed in only 4.8% of plans). Education, awareness and training, another type of action that may encourage more community participation, was also poorly prescribed (7% of plans). This shows a clear mismatch between the need for community engagement and educational programs to foster threatened species conservation and the extent of prescription of community- and education-related recovery tasks.

Terrestrial species on public lands 26% Terrestrial species on private lands Terrestrial species with no 59% specified tenure 3% Marine species 12%

Figure 6.3: Occurrence of target threatened species on public and private lands as cited within recovery plans (N=236 plans)

127

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Costs of recovery plans implementation Insufficient funding was also raised as a major factor influencing implementation of recovery plans (Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2). In order to gain an estimate of the costs of implementing individual recovery plans, costs were extracted from budgets included in the recovery plans themselves. Analysis of plans that included budget details (N=226; 95% of total) revealed that more than 70% of those plans required between $100,000 and $200,000 each for implementation (Figure 6.4). With thirty eight plans (16%) requiring more than a million dollar each, it is unlikely that state and territory agencies will receive adequate funding from the Commonwealth or other sources. This is one of the main reasons why assessing priorities at a national scale is important. The recovery planning scheme requires a prioritising system for allocating the available (but insufficient) resources and maximising conservation efforts.

0 - 100,000 26.5

100,000 - 200,000 34.1

200,000 - 300,000 10.2

300,000 - 500,000 5.3

500,000 - 1 million 7.1

Over 1 million - 2 million 10.6 AUS (2006) dollar Over 2 million - 5 million 5.3

Over 5 million - 7,5 million 0.9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Percentage of plans

Figure 6.4: Costs for implementing individual recovery plans and percentage in each category of budget as defined within recovery plans (N=226 plans)

6.4 Discussion

It is evident from the issues identified through interviews and workshops that most of the factors influencing the success of the recovery planning scheme go beyond the biological aspects alone. Most of issues mentioned related to agencies’ administrative matters such as coordination and communication. There were also issues external to the agencies, such as community engagement. Overall it was recognised that the recovery process is very complex, and it is influenced by many factors that, directly or indirectly, influence the success of recovery strategies. These factors are not

128

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation unique for threatened species management in Australia. Other studies have examined the biological and social aspects of recovery in other countries, and have also acknowledged this complexity (e.g., Crosthwaite 1995a; Male 1996; Papps 1996; Czech et al. 1998). Table 6.8 summarises the institutional and organisational factors thought to influence the success of threatened species programs.

Table 6.8: Summary of institutional and organisational factors influencing the success of threatened species programs Factors Source • Legislation (e.g. inconsistency; unclear objectives; Rohlf 1991; Clark & Cragun 1994; Yen & New 1995 lack of teeth) • Weak recovery planning Brigham et al. 2002; Lundquist et al. 2002 • Policy and decision-making processes Clark 1996; Clark & Brunner 2002 • Implementation, evaluation Clark et al. 1994; Male 1994; Lundquist et al. 2002; Wallace 2003; Taylor et al. 2005 • Organisational structure and performance Clark et al. 1994; Miller et al. 1994; Backhouse & Clark 1995 • Coordination Male 1994; Hatch et al. 2002 • Leadership, communication, cooperation Clark et al. 1994; Woinarski & Fisher 1999; Wallace et al. 2002; Wallace 2003 • Weak technical information and expertise; Clark et al. 1994; Clark 1996; Johnson 1999; Wallace et professional skills al. 2002 • Political and socioeconomic pressure, and uncertainty Rohlf 1991; O'Connell 1992; Miller et al. 1994; Czech et al. 1998; Wilson 2001b; UCS 2004 • Societal values and attitudes Clark 1996; Metrick & Weitzman 1996; Czech & Krausman 1999; Wallace 2003; Male & Bean 2005 • Organisation behaviour (e.g. short-term rationality, Clark et al. 1989; Clark & Cragun 1994; Yaffee 1997 competition) • Funding and financial constraints Clark 1996; Restani & Marzluff 2001; Miller et al. 2002; Brebach 2004; Kerkvliet & Langpap 2007 • Use of scientific information in the policy process Rohlf 1991; Pouyat 1999; Boersma et al. 2001

Crouse et al. (2002) points out that recovery planning takes place within a context of specific statutory obligations, administrative and resource constraints, political pressure, profound biological variability and uncertainty, and human fallibility. Generally, the complexity of the management of threatened species is not well understood by the people involved. Incorporation of social research into management of threatened species is forcing recognition of the many social aspects affecting management (e.g., Kohm 1991; Clark 1994; Czech & Krausman 2001; Goble et al. 2006). Recognition of the many factors involved in management of threatened species is a first step towards improving management. Although research on the social issues of Australian recovery planning is relatively scarce, there are important publications on Natural Resources Management (NRM) that provided valuable information as reference. The issues identified in the Australian recovery planning scheme are discussed below within that more general context.

129

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Coordination across Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictions My data revealed inconsistencies related to differences in legislation, policy instruments, major strategic approaches, and conservation schemes for on-ground conservation. These inconsistencies and conflicts of inter-organisational coordination have been identified by other researchers as major impediments to the effective implementation of recovery planning (Clark & Cragun 2002; Wallace et al. 2002; Munro & Moore 2005; Farrier et al. 2007). Those issues are critical given that nearly 90% of recovery plans require implementation by the states and territories. The system of governance imposes great challenges for threatened species management. Although all states have shown willingness to cooperate in the Commonwealth strategy for conserving threatened species, the federal system of government inevitably imposes jurisdictional barriers that lead to poor coordination (New 2006). Regional NRM programs, the alternative approach for working with the states and territories, are challenging. They tend to be broader in objectives, require coordination of a greater number of agencies of all levels of government, depend on the capacity of governments to foster communication and collaboration, need coordination of multi-organisation groups, and work on issues beyond the internal control of institutions (Miller et al. 1994; Yaffee 1996; Beynon 2000; Macintosh & Wilkinson 2005). Although regional planning has not been specifically focused on threatened species recovery, it does include some strategic components of the CESP such as recovery planning. However, there are still some issues to solve. Interviews revealed that the interest in threatened species conservation varied among regional organisations such as local councils. The extent of participation depends on several aspects such as the knowledge base, the existence of recovery plans, state and territory programs, Commonwealth funding, and the ‘iconic’ status of the species in the region. These aspects have already been pointed out (Griffin & URS- Australia 2006).

Different state and territory administrative structures and procedures are impeding streamlined performance. Reviews have suggested that better mechanisms of coordination are necessary to enhance the management efforts in areas such as accreditation, establishment of responsibilities, funding approvals, reporting and review (Jennings & Moore 2000; ITS Global 2006). In order to improve management, the Commonwealth needs to combine both approaches (regional and recovery planning) to ensure effective implementation of the CESP. Recovery plans are more target-oriented and require involvement of smaller groups of people than do regional plans. Research has found that less division of labour and responsibilities among agencies leads to better implementation of recovery programs (Clark & Harvey 2002b; Hatch et al. 2002). Recovery teams have been acknowledged as the most effective mechanism to coordinate the implementation of actions on-the-ground; they are more efficient in identifying relevant stakeholders, constructing

130

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation organisation networks, and promoting communication and collaboration (Clark et al. 1989; Westrum 1994; Clark et al. 1995a).

Management of species occurring on private land Management on private land is critical; my analysis has shown that nearly sixty per cent of recovery plans needs to be implemented on private lands. Land tenure has also been identified as a limiting factor for the effective implementation of recovery plans in the US (Schemske et al. 1994; Bean & Wilcove 1997; Hatch et al. 2002). It is an issue in Australia because more than two-thirds of the landmass is managed by private landholders (Commonwealth of Australia 1998). Private lands impose barriers for effective implementation of recovery plans because managers must seek authorisation of landholders to undertake on-ground recovery actions. The level of acceptance may depend on the type of activities to be implemented. For example, landholders may readily accept the access of managers or researchers to conduct research and monitoring activities. But the willingness to accept changes of agricultural practices or restricting grazing in their properties may not be the same. Thus, it has been observed that implementation of recovery plans is better on public lands because the access and delivery of actions are not restricted (Hatch et al. 2002). Non- restricted access to lands to conduct surveys and monitoring also leads to better knowledge of species on public lands (Bennett 1995).

The level of awareness of threatened species issues among private landholders may also influence their participation in recovery planning. Generally people recognise iconic species such as the koala, but they are less aware of non-vascular plants, invertebrates and marine species (Hutchings 2003; Hutchings 2004; Murphy & Nally 2004). Reviews of regional programs revealed that the wider community in general does not fully understand the implications of biodiversity conservation and the benefits of being involved (Griffin & URS-Australia 2006). For the majority of landholders, other issues such as weeds, water management and salinity are more important than the conservation of threatened species (DEH 2001; Millar 2001). There is also a perception among many landholders that biodiversity conservation and land exploitation are incompatible (Raven 1995), which make it difficult for agencies to negotiate conservation programs.

These are some of the aspects that are impeding effective implementation of recovery plans on private lands. Better channels of interaction between government and private landholders are needed in the way of improved communication and education, and support through technical advice (McIntyre 1995; Millar 2001; Munro & Moore 2005). Landholders expect to be more involved in the decision-making process about the management of their lands through better mechanisms of

131

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation consultation and negotiation (Raven 1995; Miller & McGee 2001). This may reduce the resistance of some landholders who see conservation as a threat to their land rights.

Community engagement Despite the enormous efforts conducted across the nation to implement national recovery plans, interviewees perceived that public awareness of threatened species issues is poor. High-profile species appearing in the media influence people’s opinion, but less charismatic species are totally unknown to the majority of people. This may be related to the limited prescription of activities for raising community awareness and engaging the community as observed in my analysis of recovery actions (Chapter 4). Ignorance of the threats to biodiversity may also influence the extent of the community’s support. Communication between agencies and the community needs improvement. Some authors have stated that prevailing top-down approaches for governance still limit the participation of all relevant stakeholders in management decisions (Stephens 2001; Miller & Jones 2005). Community members are often ignorant of how they could be involved in recovery plans. People could be involved in conservation activities such as monitoring, restoration of native vegetation, control of pests, reintroduction projects, raising species profiles, and influencing government policy through debate (Bennett 1995)

To foster appreciation for nature and public involvement in the conservation of threatened species the government and NGOs are working at community level (Baker & Baker-Gabb 1996; Griffin & URS-Australia 2006). Important educational programs are now in place to engage communities, landholders and the general public in the restoration of habitats and threatened species (e.g., Murphy & Nally 2004; BLA 2005). Community engagement is critical to increase the extent of recovery planning implementation.

Inconsistency of strategies and programs across jurisdictions No research papers on this topic were found; only government reports were available (e.g., Beeton et al. 2006; DEWR 2007a). Those reports mentioned the efforts that the Commonwealth Government, together with state and territory agencies, are making to align strategies for threatened species conservation. However, the information about regional planning gives a perspective that such efforts will face many challenges and may only produce outcomes in the very long term (Griffin & URS-Australia 2006; ANAO 2008). Inconsistent strategies are influencing, directly and indirectly, other issues such as determination of national priorities, allocation of funding and conservation efforts, and exchange of information (ANAO 2007).

132

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

Incorporation of science into recovery planning Several papers have addressed the need for scientific knowledge to be used in the management and conservation of threatened species, demonstrating that this knowledge is necessary through many phases of the recovery planning process. For example, science is necessary for assessing the status of species and habitats, identifying the threats affecting their survival, and for formulating the recovery actions that will address the threats (e.g., NRC 1995; Carroll et al. 1996; Pulliam & Babbitt 1997). Scientific knowledge is also important for implementing plans, in assessing the best strategies for managing the species and reducing threats, and for identifying what actions are most likely to achieve the desired outcomes (Thibodeau 1983; Carroll et al. 1996; Mace et al. 2001). Science can be incorporated into a monitoring framework to follow up the impact of recovery actions and detect changes in the species or habitat’s condition. Scientific evidence may also assist in determining whether the recovery plans has been successful (e.g., Pulliam & Babbitt 1997; Sutherland et al. 2004). Unfortunately, the extent of knowledge is incomplete for most threatened species. According to my interviews and quantitative analysis of recovery plans, scientific knowledge about threatened species is variable. Those differences have also been identified in other studies; major vertebrates and vascular plants are generally well advanced in knowledge (Tear et al. 1995), while other groups such as invertebrates or non-vascular plants are less studied (Yen & New 1995; Hutchings 2004). My analysis showed how the level of knowledge also varies regarding scientific topics. Generally information of distribution, habitats and threats was well addressed in recovery plans. But knowledge of population ecology, genetics or behaviour was relatively poor. Knowledge of ecological communities is scarcer; interviewees indicated that the identification of ecological communities on the ground was very challenging. Lack of scientific information has been recognised as an impediment for developing the strategies and conservation plans at regional level, and setting regional priorities (ANAO 2007).

There are two issues regarding the incorporation of science. The first is that there is still a long way to go towards gaining a complete knowledge for many threatened species. This seems to be an almost impossible task considering the large number of listed species. Thus, scientific information may not be available when required. Managers need to make decisions all the time, often in a short timeframe, which may not be matched by the slower pace of science (Smallwood et al. 1999; Berman 2008). The second issue is related to the choice of not using science. Sometimes science is ignored due the urgency to solve management matters. Several papers have demonstrated that managers make decisions influenced by their experience, values, popular knowledge or politics (Sidle 1998; Wallace 2003; Male & Bean 2005). Misunderstandings between managers and scientists created by the use of technical language or management time-scales have also been

133

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation acknowledged (Walters 1998; Pouyat 1999). Uncertainty is present even in cases where the expertise is available (NRC 1995; Trauger 1999; PCE 2003).

How can the incorporation of science be improved? Academics are concerned about the poor communication between managers and scientists. Incorporation of adaptive management in recovery planning may assist to close the gap (Smallwood et al. 1999; Clark 2002; Shea et al. 2002). Managers and scientists need closer communication so that knowledge gaps can be identified (Jarman & Brock 1996; McCleery et al. 2007). With a better understanding of information gaps, scientists could design and conduct targeted studies (Gerber & Schultz 2001; Jacobson et al. 2005; Brosnan & Groom 2006). Without this link, research efforts can be tangential to the knowledge needs and provide little benefit to management (Berman 2008).

Funding for recovery plans and prioritising schemes for conservation Funding is very influential in recovery plans’ implementation and species recovery (Wilcove & Chen 1998; Restani & Marzluff 2001; Garnet et al. 2003; Taylor et al. 2005). Given the limiting budgets within agencies, schemes for prioritising conservation are critical (Master 1991; Williams et al. 2002; Brooks et al. 2006; Marsh et al. 2007). The ANAO (2007) recognised this issue and has encouraged establishment of a priority order for all recovery plans currently being prepared, and development of a strategy to expedite the completion and subsequent implementation of recovery plans. Several approaches have been developed for assessing conservation priorities. Regions of environmental significance have been identified in Australia (Sattler & Creighton 2002). At a more on-ground level, species and ecological communities are also being assessed to assign conservation attention at the state level (See the PAS and Back on Track in Chapter 4). Listing has also been used often as a tool for assessing priorities and allocating conservation efforts, although some researchers do not recommend this approach (Possingham et al. 2002; Hoffman et al. 2008). Given that recovery plans will not be prepared for all species, the DEWHA is currently using a range of criteria in deciding on preparation of recovery plans (ANAO 2007): • whether the species is on Commonwealth land • the conservation status of the species • whether there is an identified pressing need (for example if a species is being referred for decisions on development) • the ability to fund the review and plan out of current year’s funding • the ability of a state, territory agency or potential contracted party being available and having sufficient expertise

134

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

• the ability for the department to manage and process additional contracts within budgetary timelines.

Lack of standardised mechanisms across the nation for prioritizing recovery planning is affecting the effective performance of the scheme. Inconsistencies between major programs also lead to differences in data and information sets. Interviewees indicated that every jurisdiction uses its own threatened species lists and different methodologies for setting conservation priorities. Mismatches between conservation needs and allocation of resources are common due the lack of priority assessment procedures (Restani & Marzluff 2001; Halpern et al. 2006). To address this, established criteria and more transparent processes are necessary to reduce the consideration of societal values and controversial and political issues in decisions (Rohlf 1991; Easter-Pilcher 1996; Czech & Krausman 1999; Wilson 2001b; Male & Bean 2005; Tisdell et al. 2006). A national ranking system of threatened species and ecological communities would provide the basis for better decision- making on action and allocating funding.

6.5 Chapter summary Interviews, expert workshops and quantitative analysis of recovery plans were used to identify factors influencing the implementation of recovery plans. The most important factors are: Coordination across Commonwealth and state/territory jurisdictions; Management of species occurring on private land; Community engagement; Inconsistency of strategies and programs across jurisdictions; Incorporation of science into recovery planning; and Funding for recovery plans and prioritising schemes for conservation. In the discussion, similar results were found in the literature regarding the existence of scientific, institutional and organisational factors influencing management of threatened species. Similar governance and administrative issues affecting other aspects of natural resource management across Australia and other nations were also found and discussed. The chapter concluded with this summary.

135

Chapter 6 Factors influencing implementation

136

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

CHAPTER 7 – ASSESSING MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOVERY PLANS

7.1 Chapter overview 7.2 Research methods 7.3 Results 7.3.1 The management system model 7.3.2 Model evaluation 7.3.3 Optimal conservation and management strategy 7.4 Discussion 7.5 Chapter summary

7.1 Chapter overview

The previous chapter presented a background on the most likely institutional and organizational factors influencing implementation of recovery plans. Recognition of those factors was a first step towards understanding the recovery management system – the set of interlinked components that influence implementation of recovery plans. However, questions remain as to how those institutional and organizational factors are linked within the management system, and how they may influence implementation of recovery plans. This chapter addresses those questions through both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the influence of institutional and organizational factors on the management system. Systems analysis and modelling using Bayesian Belief Networks offered a framework where the institutional and organizational issues could be considered together for examining their relative influence on management outcomes, and assessing more optimal conservation and management strategies. This process was carried out by constructing a theoretical model based on the major issues identified in Chapter 6, with the aim of gaining an understanding of the behaviour of the management system. Modelling assisted with consideration of different management scenarios in order to predict approaches that could lead to better conservation outcomes for threatened species recovery.

137

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

The research methods used to undertake this component of the research are described in Section 7.2, and the results and major findings are presented in Section 7.3. The results are discussed in

Section 7.4 followed by a summary of the chapter in Section 7.5.

This chapter addresses research question no. 4:

What modifications could be made in the management system to improve implementation of recovery plans?

7.2 Research methods

The research question was addressed through the use of three major methods: Expert workshops, Systems analysis and Systems modelling. These methods were employed in five sequential steps which are shown in Figure 7.1. Explanation of the methods follows:

I Developing a conceptual framework

II Identifying model variables

III Populating the model

IV Evaluating the model

V Using the model in decision-making

Figure 7.1: Steps followed for developing a conceptual model of threatened species management

I. Developing a conceptual framework Systems analysis was selected as an appropriate approach to assess conservation and management strategies, as it aims to help decision-makers resolve problems arising in complex socio-technical systems (Jackson 2000). In systems thinking theory, a management system is a set of interlinked components that are related by their common association with an entity that is to be changed

138

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation through human intervention (Maani & Cavana 2007). This approach was appropriate given that the management of threatened species represents a human-influenced system. The conceptual framework was constructed around a management system model where issues identified as influencing implementation of recovery planning were visualized as model components, and linked by cause-effect relationships to a management system output (effective implementation of recovery planning). The aim of the model was to assess a series of management strategies for improving implementation of recovery planning. Components of the model were defined in three categories: 1) issues or barriers related to implementation of threatened species recovery planning; 2) strategies/actions necessary to address the issues; and 3) requirements that agencies may need to carry out the strategies.

Given the scarcity of reliable information about the social aspects that surround threatened species management, the model was developed in a constructive interactive approach that leaves space for actors’ participation and subjectivity (Bana e Costa et al. 2000). This is especially useful in circumstances where there is no purely objective procedure for investigating the social aspects of management. Consequently, model building required the direct involvement of stakeholders in a ‘soft’ strategic thinking process where managers and experts have to articulate issues, concepts and consequences that are often based on influences such as tradition, intuition, values, beliefs and experience (Bana e Costa et al. 2000). This conceptualisation of the model followed the soft systems methodology where a number of conceptual models are constructed to be compared to the real world, rather that just one as in hard methodologies (Smyth & Checkland 1976; Checkland & Scholes 1990). Thus soft systems are seen as mental constructs from different descriptions of reality that are turned into conceptual models. Soft models are designed to provide for participation and learning, rather than simply for predictions as is the case with hard models (Jackson 2000). In Table 7.1 the differences between the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ approaches for modelling are summarised (after Maani and Cavana 2007).

Table 7.1: Comparison between hard and soft approaches for modelling (after Maani & Cavana 2007) Characteristics Hard models Soft models Model definition A representation of the real world A way of generating debate and insight about the real world Problem definition Clear and single dimensional Ambiguous and multi-dimensional Philosophical paradigm Positivist Interpretivist Systemicity perspective Lies in the world Lies in the process of enquiry into the world People and organisation Not normally taken into account Are integral parts of the model/system Data Quantitative Qualitative Validity Repeatable, comparable with the real Defensibly coherent, logically consistent, world plausible Goal Solution and optimisation Insight and learning Outcome Product or recommendation Progress through group learning

139

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

This work assessed the management factors that influence recovery, an approach that had not been used before in research. Although other approaches have been used including quantitative data such as monetary values or ecological parameters, I did not consider it appropriate as criteria for establishing the priorities of management in my thesis. I was more interested in assessing the factors that are difficult to measure in quantitative terms and that often have not been perceived by researchers because the lack of ‘hard data’.

The model-building process followed the arrangement of components as a cognitive causal map (Figure 7.2.). Causal maps are directed graphs that represent the cause-effect relationships embedded in experts’ thinking (Nadkarni & Shenoy 2004). The node at the bottom of the model was formed by the ultimate output of the management system. Then the Issues were arranged in a first layer, the Strategies/actions at the second layer, and the Requirements at the third layer.

Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement 1 2 3 4 5

Strategy/action Strategy/action Strategy/action Strategy/action I II III IV

Issue Issue A B

Outcome node: Effective implementation of plans

Figure 7.2: Components and their linkages to the management system arranged in a causal map

Links between components of the model denoted cause-effect relationships. This means that the Requirements had influence on the achievement of strategies/actions, strategies/actions influenced the issues, and the issues influenced the effectiveness of implementation. Cross-links were established where a requirement could be relevant and influential for more than one strategy. Having the conceptual framework of the management system, the next step was to elicit the model components or variables.

II. Identifying model variables Chapter 6 explained that two workshops with experts in the field provided information that would be used for this chapter. The first phases of the workshops led to the elicitation of the issues affecting recovery planning implementation. I will now describe the consecutive phases of the workshops that identified the remaining model components. Information gathering from workshop

140

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation participants followed an unstructured elicitation technique, which allows inductive exploration of unfamiliar domains (Nadkarni & Shenoy 2004). This technique provides a means to capture the general knowledge of experts concerning the domain being evaluated. Thus, components identified as part of theoretical models may reflect internal elements encountered within the environmental agencies and surrounding elements that ‘cross the line’ of institutional boundaries (Maani & Cavana 2007). This may assist in recognizing a broader perspective of the social aspects involved in threatened species management. Experts were requested to conduct the assessment considering not only a particular recovery plan but also taking into account the whole scheme of recovery planning. This would require estimating an averaged opinion between the many successful and failed cases of implemented recovery plans. After identifying the major issues in each workshop, experts were requested to formulate a series of four or five strategies for addressing each of the issues. The question asked of the experts was: What strategies can be undertaken to address this particular issue? The responses were called strategies/actions. The last phase of the workshop came from the identification of the requirements necessary to carry out the formulated strategies/actions (e.g., incentives, training for personnel or discussion fora for managers). The question asked of the experts was: What requirements are necessary to carry out the formulated strategies/actions? Here, workshop participants formulated three or four requirements for each strategy/action. Components of the management system were deliberately constrained to a small number in order to simplify the ‘universe’ of the system and make it manageable for constructing the conceptual model. At the end of the workshops, three types of components were elicited (issues, strategies/actions, and requirements) and incorporated later into the Bayesian belief network. Definitions of the elicited issues, strategies and requirements are included in Appendix VI.

Applying Bayesian Networks Once the conceptual model of the management system was finalized, it was incorporated into a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). BBNs are computerised graphical models that encode probabilistic relationships among variables of interest and support decision-making under uncertain conditions (Cain et al. 2001; Jensen & Nielsen 2007). BBNs can integrate the uncertainty in knowledge associated with expert models by using cause-effect relationships represented as conditional probabilities (Jensen & Nielsen 2007). BBNs require experts to specify their subjective belief in a probability distribution, prior to the analysis of the model. A more detailed explanation of the process for building BBNs is provided in Cain (2001) and Jensen & Nielsen (2007).

BBNs were chosen as an approach because they fitted well with my research needs and qualitative data. The modelling framework allows modelling complex systems and processes that are poorly

141

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation understood. In my study the BBNs facilitated the examination of how the management system is structured and its dynamics. BBNs offer particular advantages, such as a) accommodating expert data about information that did not exist before; b) accommodating multiple stakeholders’ opinions about the relationship between variables; (c) facilitating the integration of qualitative and quantitative variables; (d) they can be used to gain understanding about a problem domain and predicting the consequences of interventions; and (e) facilitating sensitivity and scenario analyses (Cain 2001; Nadkarni & Shenoy 2004; Pollino et al. 2007). Besides, BBNs use a format that allows an easy design of graphic representation of causal models. This is particularly important because perceptions can be translated into explicit pictures that facilitate understanding (Maani & Cavana 2007). The computer platform for the BBN was NeticaTM (Norsys 2007).

In a BBN model components are called nodes. Figure 7.3 illustrates an example of the types of nodes and links present in a Bayesian network – Parent nodes and Child nodes. Parent nodes are those components that influence a Child node. This influence is expressed in the model by the uni- directional arrow that connects Parent and Child nodes. In the example shown below, nodes B and C are Parent nodes to the node A. In my BBN model, Requirements were the parents to the Strategies/actions, and Strategies/actions were the parents to the Issues, and so on.

Node B Node C Improved 100% 33.3 Improved 100% 33.3 Improved 50% 33.3 Improved 50% 33.3 Current 33.3 Current 33.3 Parent node Parent node

Node A Good 50.0 Poor 50.0 Child node

Figure 7.3: Example of components (parent and child nodes) and causal links of a Bayesian Belief Network

At this point a preliminary BBN was developed. It was then emailed to workshop participants to refine key components and their links and make sense of model arrangements (Smith et al. 2007). After receiving feedback, the model was corrected by modifying the number of components, nomenclature, and the arrangement and linkages within the model. This process was repeated several times until the model was considered to reflect the experts’ conceptualisation, had a logical structure and, at the same time, had the most simplified representation of the management system (Maani & Cavana 2007; Pollino et al. 2007). Originally two models were constructed, one from each region (Queensland and New South Wales). After revising both models, similarities and

142

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation differences in the topics of components were assessed and the two models were combined into a single conceptualisation to facilitate the process of data elicitation and modelling of scenarios.

III. Populating the model The next phase was the elicitation of probabilities for the BBN. Here expert opinions represented the probabilities of achieving effective recovery plan implementation given the arrangement of model variables. For the elicitation of probabilities, a smaller group of experts from the workshops (Chapter 6) were invited to provide their opinions about the relative importance of model components and their likely relative influence on implementation of recovery plans. Eight experts – four from each region (New South Wales and Queensland) – provided their assessments (Table 7.2).

Table 7.2: Affiliation of experts/stakeholders from Queensland and New South Wales involved in elicitation of probabilities for the Bayesian model Stakeholder affiliation Queensland New South Wales Government agencies 1 1 NRM groups 1 1 Universities 1 1 Conservation organizations 1 1 4 4

This group was smaller due to difficulties encountered in arranging a second round of workshops in Brisbane and Sydney. Yet, it was sought to obtain an equal representation of all different affiliations. Elicitation of probabilities was collected through individual face-to-face interviews. Consensus of opinions was not required; differences between expert opinions were resolved by equally weighting each expert’s probability estimate using the geometric mean of all estimates as the final value (Bosworth et al. 1999). Thus, the BBN accommodated multiple opinions that were treated equally (Cain 2001). Probability values were integrated into Conditional Probability Tables (CPT), a data tool of Netica that stores data as probabilities. A CPT accompanies each of the nodes. The probability values in the CPT of a Child node reflect the influence of the linked Parent nodes. In my model, only probabilities of the CPTs of Child nodes needed to be elicited. Probabilities of the CPT of nodes without parents, such as the requirements, did not need elicited values as they were considered uniform (Cain 2000). Considering that the BBN model had three layers of nodes (issues, strategies/actions and requirements) plus the output node (implementation), the procedure for elicitation of probabilities was only applied to the CPTs of issues and the output node. This restriction was imposed by the limited available time for interviews and the impossibility of interviewing experts in a second meeting. Thus, only probabilities for the central layers of the

143

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation model were populated. With two layers of nodes populated in the model, I was able to assess the influence of the strategies/actions on the issues, and the influence of issues on the output node. For the outer layer (requirements nodes), the interviewees conducted a ranking assessment to define the most influential requirements for achieving the strategies.

A feature of the BBN employed in this study was the assessment of several management scenarios (Cain 2001). This was done by setting different conditions for the child nodes and measuring the changes in the outputs. Three potential scenarios or states were established for the strategies/actions nodes: Current condition, Improved condition by 50%, and Improved condition by 100%. The Current condition was established acknowledging that governmental and non-governmental threatened species programs have in place some of the strategies contained in the Bayesian model (Figure 7.2). Thus, experts were asked to provide the probabilities of having an effective implementation of recovery planning given the current situation of management. Complementarily, two other potential conditions or states were set in the nodes for assessing change: An Improved condition by 50% and an Improved condition by 100%. With this experts could foresee probabilities of having two improved scenarios of management and assess the likely impact on the effectiveness of recovery planning implementation. Therefore, the BBN model could analyse a current situation of the management system, and predict the outputs of two different improved scenarios. The assessment of management scenarios and the effect of changes on nodes’ conditions were measured by the output node (implementation). Because all parent nodes converged into the output node, this acted as the indicator of the accumulative influence from all model components. The output node may express numerical values between zero and one hundred that represented changes of the probabilities. These changes indicated how implementation’s effectiveness varied given the conditions of linked influential factors. Zero was equal to nil chance of effective implementation and one hundred equated to an almost certain chance of effective implementation. Thus, depending on the changes of the parent’s node conditions, different outputs were expressed. To illustrate this procedure, an example provided in Figure 7.4 shows two scenarios. A low output is represented in Scenario A, where the probability of achieving an effective implementation was 53.5% given the strategies (Targeted research and monitoring and Adaptive approach) at the current condition. Contrarily, in Scenario B, the output reached a probability of 61% where the strategies were at an improved condition by 100%. These comparative results showed that the improved management interventions in Scenario B lead to better outputs.

144

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

Scenario A

Targeted research & monit Improved 100% 0 Improved 50% 0 Current 100 Scientific input Implementation Good 45.0 Effective 53.5 Poor 55.0 Ineffective 46.5 Adaptive approach Improved 100% 0 Improved 50% 0 Current 100

Scenario B

Targeted research & monit Improved 100% 100 Improved 50% 0 Current 0 Scientific input Implementation Good 70.0 Effective 61.0 Poor 30.0 Ineffective 39.0 Adaptive approach Improved 100% 100 Improved 50% 0 Current 0

The BBN not only assisted with the examination of the change’s effects in the system but also an understanding of why these changes were taking place. For this a sensitivity analysis was carried out. This is explained below.

IV. Evaluating the model Sensitivity analysis assisted in identification of the relative influence or impact of components of the model on the outputs (Turban et al. 2005). Two forms of sensitivity tests were used. One was a measure of sensitivity called Mutual information (Marcot et al. 2006). The other form was a manual method that measures the change in the probability of an output due to a change in one or more other parent nodes in a model (Cain 2001). Both forms of sensitivity analysis are explained as follows:

Method 1 – Mutual information Mutual information (MI) is a sensitivity test that can be performed by Netica in which the sensitivity of one node to another is calculated as the expected difference in information bits (H) between a query node Q with q states and a findings node F with f states, after Marcot et al. (2006):

P(q, f )log [P(q, f )] I = H(Q) − H (QF) = 2 ∑∑qf P(q)P( f ) 145

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

The query node (Q) is a node of interest in the model for which you want to test its sensitivity to the findings node (F). The findings node is generally a parent or grandparent node to the query node.

Method 2 – Manual sensitivity analysis using scenarios This method of sensitivity analysis assesses the probability changes of a node’s particular state under different scenarios. The advantage of this method over MI is that it can be used to assess the sensitivity of one node to simultaneous changes in one or more other nodes. Therefore it can be used to identify: a) the incremental change in the probability of an output caused by a change in another node in the model; and b) dramatic changes in the probability of an output, or synergies, caused by simultaneous changes of two or more nodes in the model.

Manual sensitivity analysis was conducted on the issues and then the strategies by systematically changing their states from Current condition to Improved condition by 50% and Improved condition by 100%. Results, given as changes in the probability of the output node, were examined to determine the impact on implementation. This exercise provided more obvious evidence about the likely actual changes of implementation after improving each of the formulated strategies than the method of MI. I used this procedure as a predictive mode of the BBN for the identification of the system components that had the greatest influence over the outputs (Cain 2001).

V. Using the model in decision-making Systems thinking and BBN modelling were chosen as appropriate approaches because they allowed an evaluation of the management system in detail, and infer knowledge about predicting the best course of action and outputs. Since the model was designed to identify and address the major issues influencing implementation of recovery plans, the BBN also assisted assessment of: a) key factors or issues influencing effective implementation of recovery planning; b) strategies that would be more adequate to address the issues; and c) requirements that would be more necessary to undertake the strategies. Thus, the BBN, through modelling, supported exploring different management scenarios and assessing potential outputs, and facilitated its potential application to the decision- making process (Cain 2001). The computer platform of NeticaTM allowed this approach by undertaking quantitative analysis of potential management scenarios. The BBN is able to show what impact each intervention will have on different components, and the cumulative effect on the outputs. The model does not give decisions, but presents information in a form that shows the effect of a choice. This may improve the understanding of the management system and guide decision- making about threatened species recovery.

146

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

7.3 Results

7.3.1 The management system model

The expert workshops revealed a great variety of perspectives about the components of the management system. However, disparity in perspectives was not an obstacle since those opinions were uniform through the processes of the workshops and modelling. It was also an aim to observe the individual conceptualization of the model and its components that each of the experts had on the management system. Thus, expert opinions constructed the theoretical framework of the management system, its components and relationships. BBN modelling also assisted in identifying the relative importance of the management system’s components; placed in my thesis context, how the institutional and organizational factors influence implementation of recovery planning. This was important because often these types of factors are not recognized as part of a management system. Experts’ discussions also helped to establish a starting point for understanding the planning processes and identify the key elements that drive threatened species recovery planning.

At the workshops four major issues were identified: Scientific input, Resource allocation, Community engagement, and Legislation and policy. Major issues were incorporated into the BBN model forming subsystems in which strategies/actions and requirements were associated, all around a central output node called implementation (Figure 7.2). The outer layer contained the requirements. The following two inner layers include the strategies and the issues. Some nodes of requirements were cross-linked among subsystems. For example, the requirement node Monitoring and Evaluation system is linked to the node Adaptive approach which belongs to the Scientific input subsystem; the node Monitoring and Evaluation system is also linked to the node Mandatory monitoring reports which belongs to the Legislation and policy subsystem. Definitions of model components are provided in Appendix VII.

147

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Resource kits Media campaigns Volunteers trainingVolunteers Environmental education Environmental Good Poor Teachers training Joint planning implementationJoint & Private land conserv agreements conserv land Private Market-based instruments negotiation & Publicconsultation Targeted community-sector programs Appropriate Inappropriate Appropriate insurance regime Appropriate insurance Adequate Inadequate In placeIn place in Not Available Unavailable Strong Poor Available Unavailable Good Poor Adequate Inadequate Appropriate Inappropriate curriculum into Incorporation Yes No Adequate Inadequate 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 Incentives School programs Awareness programs Awareness Project collaboration Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 100% Improved 50% Improved Current Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 50.0 50.0 Environmental levies Available Unavailable 50.6 49.4 33.3 33.3 33.3 50.0 50.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 Community engagementCommunity Strong Poor Opinions 50.0 50.0 Other financialOther sources Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current National Threat on forum Sp Qld_1 Qld_2 Qld_3 Qld_4 NSW_1 NSW_2 NSW_3 NSW_4 In placeIn Non existing 50.0 50.0 National strategic planningNational strategic Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current Cooperative partnerships Adequate Inadequate 33.3 33.3 33.3 Targeted plans of notification Effective Ineffective 50.0 50.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 42.6 57.4 42.9 57.1 50.0 50.0 49.1 50.9 Allocation mechanism Implementation Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current Legislation & Policy & Legislation Resources allocation Resources Good Poor Improved plan guidelines plan Improved Improved Current Effective Ineffective Desicion-support tools Desicion-support Adequate Inadequate Inter-State consistency Adequate Inadequate Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 33.3 33.3 33.3 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 33.3 33.3 33.3 Non-government revenueNon-government Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 47.8 52.2 Enforceability Increased public support public Increased Strong Poor Stakeholders collaborationStakeholders Strong Poor Scientific input Scientific Good Poor Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 33.3 33.3 33.3 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Fundraising 33.3 33.3 33.3 Good Poor Government revenue 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current Adaptive approach Mandatory reports monitoring Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current Integration science of Audit & amendement & Audit legislation of Effective Ineffective Targeted research & monit & research Targeted Improved 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 100% Improved 50% Improved Current 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Multidisciplinary approach Multidisciplinary Good Poor Incorporat public knowledgeIncorporat System Evaluat & Monitoring Scientists-managers dialogue Scientists-managers Good Poor placeIn existingNon Good Poor Knowledge identification gaps system manage. info. National Adequate Inadequate placeIn Non existing

Figure 7.5: Bayesian Belief Network of the management system for threatened species recovery. Nodes contain issues, strategies and requirements necessary for improving recovery plans’ implementation. Grey- coloured nodes are the proposed new components of the existing management programs of the Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales agencies

148

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

The final model structure contained forty nine nodes: one output node, four issues nodes, fifteen strategy nodes, twenty eight requirements nodes, and one experts’ opinions node. According to the experts, the model contained mostly existing components operating in the management system. This means that the model included issues, strategies and requirements that current programs of threatened species in the Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales are already addressing, considering or employing (85% of total nodes), and that experts considered as still valid for effective management (Figure 7.5).

All proposed fifteen strategies are currently operating within these agencies. Additions to the model were only at the layer of requirements. Twenty one requirements are being already considered by the agencies (75% of total proposed requirements). There were, however, seven new requirements (25%) that were identified by the experts as necessary to improve implementation of recovery plans. These additions to the management system were represented in the model as grey coloured nodes. In the next paragraphs I will describe each of the subsections that formed the model.

Figure 7.6 shows the subsystem constructed for the issue Scientific input. For this subsystem, experts proposed three strategies that may improve the scientific input into recovery planning: Adaptive approach, Targeted research and monitoring, and Integration of science. In the same way a series of requirements were identified: Monitoring and evaluation system, National management information system, Identification of knowledge-gaps, Scientist-manager dialogue, Incorporation of public knowledge, and Multidisciplinary approach. The first two requirements do not exist in the current management system; they were identified as important missing components that should be incorporated into the Commonwealth and state/territory strategies for improving management.

Monitoring & National Manage Knowledge-gaps Scientist-manager Incorporation of Multidisciplinary evaluat system Information System identification dialogue public knowledge approach

Adaptive approach Targeted research & monitoring Integration of science

Scientific input

Implementation

Figure 7.6: Components associated with the issue ´Scientific input´ (grey-coloured nodes are new proposed components of the existing management system)

149

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

The subsystem constructed for the issue Resource allocation (Figure 7.7) had four strategies that were proposed to improve the allocation of resources into implementation of recovery plans: Government revenue, Non-government revenue, Allocation mechanisms, and Other financial sources. The requirements identified to be necessary to put the strategies in place were: Fundraising, Increased public support, Decision-support tools, Cooperative partnerships, and Environmental levies. For this subsystem, all proposed components have existing mechanisms in place within the Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales programs.

Increasing public Decision-support Cooperative Environmental Fundraising support tools partnerships levies

Government revenue Non-government revenue Allocation mechanisms Other financial sources

Resources allocation

Implementation

Figure 7.7: Components associated with the issue ´Resource allocation´

The subsystem on the issue Community engagement included four strategies proposed to improve the engagement of communities into recovery planning (Figure 7.8). Strategies formulated were: Incentives, Awareness programs, Project collaboration, and School programs. Experts proposed a series of requirements or mechanisms to be met in order to carry out the strategies. Four new requirements were formulated as missing components of the management system: Appropriate insurance regime, Resource kits, Incorporation into curriculum, and Teachers training. The remaining requirements had existing mechanisms in place within the Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales management systems: Cooperative partnerships, Private land conservation agreements, Market-based instruments, Environmental education, Media campaigns, Targeted community-sector programs, Public consultation and negotiation, Joint planning and implementation, and Volunteers training.

150

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

Joint planning Volunteers Appropriate Market-based Media campaigns & implementation training insurance regime instruments Resource kits

Cooperative Private land Environmental Targeted community Public consultation Incorporation Teachers partnerships conserv. agreements education -sector programs & negotiation into curriculum training

Incentives Awareness programs Project collaboration School programs

Community engagement

Implementation

Figure 7.8: Components associated with the issue ´Community engagement´ (grey-coloured nodes are new identified components of the existing management system)

For the issue Legislation and policy, four strategies were proposed: National strategic planning, Inter-state consistency, Enforceability, and Mandatory monitoring reports (Figure 7.9). The requirements identified to address those issues were: National forum on threatened species, Targeted notification of recovery plans, Improved recovery plan guidelines, Audit and amendment of legislation, Stakeholders’ collaboration, and Monitoring and evaluation system. From these six requirements, only one was a proposed new addition to the current management system.

National forum on Targeted notificat of Improved recovery Audit & amendement Stakeholders Monitoring & threatened sp recovery plans plan guidelines of legislation collaboration evaluation system

National strategic planning Inter-State consistency Enforceability Mandatory monitoring reports

Legislation & policy

Implementation

Figure 7.9: Components associated with the issue ´Legislation and policy´ (grey-coloured nodes are new proposed components of the existing management system)

The integration of the four subsystems described above lead to the construction of the whole management system.

151

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

7.3.2 Model evaluation As a first step to examine the behaviour of the model, a sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine which issues had the greatest influence on the outputs. At the same time all the proposed strategies in each subsystem were evaluated to determine their relative influence on addressing the issues. Results are presented in order of importance within subsystems.

Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis assisted in identification of the key components of the model. It also allowed ranking them in order of importance as the most influential drivers on the effective implementation of recovery planning. The sensitivity analysis was done using the test of mutual information (MI).

Assessment of the influence of expert opinion To test the likely effect of the expert opinions on the outputs of the model, the opinions node was included in the sensitivity analysis together with the issues nodes. Results revealed that Opinions was the factor with the greatest influence in the model on the implementation node (Table 7.3). This means that opinions had a large variation in the probabilities elicited in the model, and for that reason outputs of the model were dependant upon the opinions of the different experts.

Table 7.3: Results of the sensitivity analysis on the factors ‘opinions’ and ‘major issues´ Factors Mutual Rank information Opinions 0.0677 1 Legislation & policy 0.0254 2 Resources allocation 0.02268 3 Community engagement 0.01798 4 Scientific input 0.0044 5

To examine this in more detail I conducted the sensitivity analysis separately on the probabilities given by each of the experts. This allowed ranking the four major issues according to each opinion (Table 7.4). It is possible to observe more clearly how the opinions of experts influenced the relative importance of major issues. It is worth remembering that the experts who participated in the workshops represented government agencies, NRM groups, scientists and conservation organizations, so opinions and priorities may reflect their different affiliations and perspectives.

152

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

Table 7.4: Most influential issues on implementation according to the eight opinions of experts from Queensland and New South Wales Major issues Legislation Resources Community Scientific & policy allocation engagement input Region Opinions MI* Rank MI Rank MI Rank MI Rank 1 0.0065 1 0.0065 1 0.006 2 0.0056 3 Qld. 2 0.0095 3 0.0893 1 0.0088 4 0.0096 2 3 0.0226 1 0.0223 2 0.0064 4 0.0112 3 4 0.0146 1 0.0067 3 0.0146 1 0.007 2 5 0.0223 1 0.019 2 0.0179 3 0.019 2 NSW 6 0.0074 2 0.0099 1 0.0012 3 0.0002 4 7 0.017 3 0.017 3 0.0189 1 0.0185 2 8 0.0026 2 0.0069 1 0.0018 3 0.0011 4 * Mutual information

Relative importance of major issues The next step was to rank the most significant implementation issues without testing the effect of the opinions node. For this analysis all the opinions were given equal weight in the probability table. Results did not vary from the ones shown in Table 7.3 regarding to the rank. The rank order expressed was: 1) Legislation and policy; 2) Resource allocation; 3) Community engagement; and 4) Scientific input.

The sensitivity analysis was also conducted for each of the subsystems of the model. Here, the aim was to assess the relative importance of the strategies on addressing major issues. For those analyses, only averaged probabilities were used. Results show the strategies ranked from most to least influential.

Relative importance of the recovery strategies and requirements

1) Legislation and policy subsystem From the formulated strategies National strategic planning was estimated to have the greatest influence on implementation (Figure 7.10a). It was followed in order of importance by Mandatory monitoring reports, Inter-state consistency, and Enforceability. Experts considered that the most necessary requirements to achieve or improve the recovery strategies were: Audit and amendment of legislation, Improving recovery plan guidelines and National forum on threatened species.

153

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

2) Resource allocation subsystem Government revenue was the strategy estimated to have the greatest influence on implementation (Figure 7.10b). It was followed in order of importance by Allocation mechanisms, Non-government revenue, and Other financial sources. Within this subsystem, experts considered Decision-support tools, Fundraising, Cooperative partnerships, and Increased public support as the most necessary requirements to improve recovery outcomes.

3) Community engagement subsystem From the formulated strategies, Incentives was estimated to have the greater influence on implementation (Figure 7.10c). It was followed in order of importance by Project collaboration, Awareness programs, and School programs. The requirements Private-land conservation agreements, Market-based instruments, and Appropriate insurance regime were considered as the most important to achieve better management outcomes.

4) Scientific input subsystem Within this subsystem, Adaptive approach was the proposed strategy estimated to have the greater influence on implementation (Figure 7.10d). It was followed in order of importance by Targeted research and monitoring and Integration of science. The requirements considered to be the most necessary within this subsystem were: National management information system, Scientists- managers dialogue, and Knowledge-gaps identification.

Legislation & policy MI Rank Resource allocation MI Rank National strategic planning 0.00692 1 Government revenue 0.00718 1 Mandat. monitoring reports 0.00319 2 Allocation mechanism 0.00501 2 Inter-state consistency 0.00305 3 Non-government revenue 0.00215 3 Enforceability 0.0022 4 Other financial sources 0.00124 4

(a) (b)

Community engagement MI Rank Scientific input MI Rank Incentives 0.00635 1 Adaptive approach 0.01127 1 Project collaboration 0.00207 2 Targeted research & monit. 0.00621 2 Awareness programs 0.00124 3 Integration of science 0.0055 3 School programs 0.00119 4 (d) (c)

Figure 7.10: Ranking of strategies within subsystems and their relative influence on implementation of recovery plans

154

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

The information provided above (Figure 7.10) show the strategies and requirements considered most important in each subsystem for achieving better implementation of recovery plans. The next step was to assess the relative influence of all fifteen strategies together. Table 7.5 shows a comparison of all formulated strategies and their rank after a sensitivity analysis. In order of importance, Government revenue, Allocation mechanism, Adaptive approach, National strategic planning and Incentives were the five most influential strategies of the system.

Table 7.5: Ranking of proposed recovery strategies by sensitivity analysis based on their relative influence on implementation of recovery plans Recovery strategies MI Rank Government revenue 0.00014 1 Allocation mechanism 0.00011 2 Adaptive approach 0.0001 3 National strategic planning 0.00008 4 Incentives 0.00006 5 Non-government revenue 0.00005 6 Mandatory monitoring reports 0.00005 6 Inter-state consistency 0.00004 7 Targeted research & monitoring 0.00004 7 Enforceability 0.00004 7 Integration of science 0.00003 8 Other financial sources 0.00003 8 Project collaboration 0.00002 9 Awareness programs 0.00001 10 School programs 0.00001 10

The sensitivity analysis was conducted using the mutual information test, which allowed assessment of the sensitivity of one node to another and an estimate of the relative importance. From there on I used the manual method of sensitivity analysis, where I could assess the change in probability of an outcome according to a change in one or more nodes simultaneously. This assisted in identifying the cumulative effects of single and multiple strategies on the effectiveness of recovery planning implementation.

The influence of each strategy was tested by making changes in their nodes, modifying the condition of each of the strategies from the Current condition state to Improved condition by 100%. Results of the analysis showed that strategies have a small individual impact (average 0.6% per strategy) on increasing the probability of implementation. However, the cumulative effect of various strategies together can improve substantially the probability of having effective

155

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation implementation. Figure 7.12 shows the cumulative effect of improving strategies on the probability of effective recovery planning implementation; the most influential strategies are closer to the Y- axis. Strategies are accommodated in order of their rank as expressed in Table 7.5.

49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35

Probability of recovery planning n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 2 5 1 11 1 13 14 1 tio implementation being effective (%) di n Recovery strategies t co rren Cu

Figure 7.11: Cumulative impact of strategies on the probability of an effective implementation of recovery planning. The curve starts at a probability of 37.4 where all strategies were at the current condition. Strategies are: 1) Government revenue; 2) Allocation mechanism; 3) Adaptive approach; 4) National strategic planning; 5) Incentives; 6) Non-government revenue; 7) Mandatory monitoring reports; 8) Inter- state consistency; 9) Targeted research & monitoring; 10) Enforceability; 11) Integration of science; 12) Other financial sources; 13) Project collaboration; 14) Awareness programs; and 15) School programs

Figure 7.11 shows that the maximum expected improvement in the probability of an effective recovery plan’s implementation is nearly 10% above the current situation (based on the average opinion of experts). Half of this maximum expected gain was achieved through the improvement of the five first strategies: 1) Government revenue; 2) Allocation mechanism; 3) Adaptive approach; 4) National strategic planning; and 5) Incentives). These strategies form one third of all proposed strategies. Better conservation and management strategic planning might look at all alternative interventions that would achieve the best management outcomes. Given the limited resources, the first five strategies identified in the analysis should be improved first to obtain better management outcomes.

7.3.3 Optimal conservation and management strategies

The key model components for improving implementation of recovery plans have been identified. I integrated this information into Table 7.6 to describe the optimal conservation and management strategy of threatened species recovery.

156

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

Table 7.6: Ranked issues and optimal conservation and management strategies for improving recovery planning according to a group of experts from Queensland and New South Wales. Items in bold are the new strategies and requirements necessary to improve the existing national recovery planning scheme

Major issues Best recovery strategies/actions Necessary requirements/resources • Improve the national scope of • Audit & amend legislation regarding strategic planning listing and recovery planning • Establish mandatory monitoring • Improving recovery plans’ guidelines and review reports 1. Legislation & policy • Establish a national forum on • Improve inter-state consistency of threatened species conservation programs and instruments • Enhance law enforcement • Increase government revenue • Employ decision-support tools • Develop and use better priority and • Fundraising funding allocation mechanisms Cooperative partnerships with public 2. Resource allocation • • Increase non-government revenue and private sectors • Increase public support for threatened species recovery • Enhanced mechanisms of incentives • Private-land conservation agreements • Market-based instruments for fostering conservation on private lands 3. Community engagement • Appropriate insurance regime for volunteers involved in recovery activities • Improve the incorporation of • Establish a national management adaptive approach into recovery information system planning • Seek better communication and 4. Scientific input • Establish targeted research & information-sharing mechanisms to monitoring of threatened species enhance scientists-managers dialogue • Knowledge-gaps identification

Forecasting outcomes of management scenarios Another result from the sensitivity analysis was an expert forecast of outcomes obtained from improving the recovery planning strategy. According to experts’ estimates (where all opinions were treated equally), the probability for effective implementation of recovery planning in the current scenario was 37.4% (where all strategies were at the Current condition state which was the worst case scenario). After changing the fifteen strategies at an Improved condition by 50% state, the probability of effective implementation increased to 42.8%. If all the strategies were improved by 100%, the probability of effective implementation would achieve 59.9%. These estimates were also analysed individually depending on each expert’s opinions (Table 7.6). Results showed great variation on the estimates, from very pessimistic scenarios in the current situation (e.g. 6.86%) to more optimistic forecasts in the best-case scenario (e.g. 74.1%). It is worth noting in the exercise that the expert ´Qld3´ was both the most pessimistic about the current state and the most optimistic about the effect of improving recovery strategies by 100% (Table 7.7).

157

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

Table 7.7: Expert estimates of probabilities for achieving an effective implementation of recovery plans after improving management scenarios by 50% and 100% Opinions Current Scenario improved Scenario improved scenario by 50% by 100% Qld 1 24 28.9 40.9 Qld 2 36.5 46.6 68.1 Qld 3 6.86* 13 74.1* Qld 4 52.9 57.9 63.7 NSW 5 49.5 52.1 60.7 NSW 6 58.2 60.8 69.8 NSW 7 38.7 45.1 59.2 NSW 8 32.6 38.1 42.9 Average 37.4 42.8 59.9

Estimates in bold shows the most pessimistic and optimistic scenarios; in this exercise both estimates belong to the same person

Results of the sensitivity and predictive analyses indicated that the threatened species management system cannot be improved by isolated interventions, but require a combination of several recovery strategies to increase the effectiveness of recovery plan’s implementation. Recovery strategies implemented in a small number and isolated manner will achieve only a minimal improvement in the outcomes. These results also showed that the key strategies for improving recovery planning are related to the four major issues, as observed in the top ten ranked strategies. It is also observed that the most necessary management interventions do not only relate to management at an internal level of the government (e.g. improving government revenue and establishing a national strategic planning), but are also related to the participation of landholders and communities (e.g. improving incentives), and to enhancing the incorporation of knowledge (e.g. conducting targeted research and monitoring, and considering the adaptive approach).

7.4 Discussion Improving knowledge about managerial aspects of threatened species In this chapter I investigated a theoretical model of the management system of threatened species. The theoretical model was developed to elicit knowledge about how institutional and organizational factors influence the effectiveness of recovery planning and how the management system could be improved. In the modelling process I analysed the interventions and strategies that may be necessary to overcome the impediments to effective implementation. The assessment not only considered the existing management procedures and mechanisms put in place by the Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales governments to recover threatened species, but also new strategies and instruments were formulated that may improve the performance of conservation and management programs.

158

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

Research in this area is relatively poor. Although some studies have been conducted on the institutional and organizational dimensions of threatened species recovery (e.g., Clark & Cragun 1994; Lundquist et al. 2002; Wallace 2003; Ruckelshaus & Darm 2006; Yaffee 2006), no other study has approached the analysis of institutional and organizational factors using a systems modelling approach.

Analysis of the management system was conducted with a group of experts/stakeholders, with the aim of capturing the state-based context where recovery planning is mostly operating. Results of workshops showed that there is a great number of existing recovery strategies in place that are still considered as valid for effective recovery plan’s implementation (85% of model components). At the same time, there were some management gaps. This was addressed by the identification of necessary resources and seven newly formulated components that in the future may be incorporated into the current management system, such as the National information system and the Forum for threatened species management. Explanation of all strategies is given in Appendix VII. From this analysis it can be observed that the management system contains most of the components necessary for effective implementation of recovery plans. Considering the scarcity of resources and personnel within government agencies, the management system of threatened species could be substantially improved with relatively few additions. There were several results that warrant attention; according to the sensitivity analysis, the issues Legislation and policy, Resources allocation, and Community engagement were assessed as more important than Scientific input for improving implementation of recovery plans (Section 7.3.2). There was an agreement of this valuation among experts. This may indicate that the management system requires a careful review of policy and management instruments, and re-shaping of the institutional structures in order to improve the allocation of resources and gain a greater participation of society, rather than investing more resources and efforts in research. This contrasts with results of the quantitative analysis of recovery actions (Chapter 4) where a greater effort is prescribed within recovery plans to conduct research (33% of prescribed actions) over other priority aspects of management such as policy, community engagement and education. The reasons for this disconnection between management priorities and conservation action may be related to the fact that most management plans are prepared by ecological scientists who, due to their training, often cannot see the social aspects of conservation and only focus their attention on ecological research (Clark & Cragun 1994; Clark 1996). This weakness has already been pointed out by other authors (e.g., Miller et al. 1994; Wallace et al. 2002), who stated that endangered species conservation efforts might suffer from an imbalance in knowledge and skills concerning ecological science research and social, organizational, and value- related matters.

159

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

A second part of the study involved conducting an examination of the strategies/interventions formulated by the experts/stakeholders, and predicting their likely impact on management outcomes. Selecting the right strategies and actions to achieve conservation can be quite difficult (Salafsky et al. 2002), especially in this context, where managerial aspects make the anticipation of decisions challenging. Through systems modelling it was possible to anticipate the impact of key system components on the outputs. This was an important step because the modelling procedure allowed analysis of the potential utility of fifteen recovery strategies and assessed their rank based on their relative influence. As mentioned in previous research, institutional and organizational factors are important for effective management (Clark & Cragun 1994; Hatch et al. 2002; Wallace et al. 2002). These types of factors were acknowledged by experts, as seen in the list of ranked recovery strategies. Strategies related to scientific information were considered less important as evidence that there is much work to do on improving the managerial aspects before investing resources in research alone.

The analysis also revealed that the individual influence of the strategies varied minimally. This means that no single strategy could by itself cause a significant change on the effectiveness of recovery plans implementation. Contrarily, the results showed that implementing a group of at least five strategies is necessary to achieve substantial changes. This may be due to the complexity of the management system where many managerial issues are involved and there is no single dominant solution to address them. Another important finding is that the maximum expected probability after improving all fifteen strategies by 100% is around 47%. This is still a very low probability for an effective implementation of recovery plans which may indicate the inherent difficulty of recovering threatened species. Even with the best group of strategies and perfect implementation, success is not guaranteed. There are also other factors that were not considered in the model and that may contribute with minimal probabilities. Consideration of more nodes in the model may lightly increase the probability of effectiveness, but the trade-off would be the simplicity of the model. The complexity of threatened species recovery has already been pointed out by other investigations (Clark & Harvey 2002b; Crouse et al. 2002; Wallace 2003); however, research on the managerial factors and interactions that occur in wildlife conservation and management systems still remains scarce.

The modelling approach was thought to be appropriate to obtain more valuable and manageable information about the social factors influencing management. Although the soft model constructed in this study did not provide reliable, quantitative predictions, it did provide a better understanding of the management system as a result of its visual representation and analysis of its performance.

160

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation

Soft or qualitative models are designed to integrate human and organizational factors as integral parts of the system, and they are built to provide insight and learning about the behaviour of the system, rather than hard data estimates (Checkland 1981; Maani & Cavana 2007). In this sense, one major result was the model itself, which emerged not from a preconceived concept but from the expertise of the experts. The model building and modelling processes developed in this investigation generated information about how management factors may affect implementation of a program and what are the key drivers. Scores from the implementation of recovery strategies were found to be a useful way to compare different scenarios within the management system with the basis for prioritizing the intervention that would achieve the best outputs. In this study it was not intended to provide directions for decision-making regarding threatened species management. The aim of the model was to provide insights and understanding about the many organizational and institutional factors that are influencing the success of recovery planning. Estimates of model outcomes are not hard data that may be used for predicting management scenarios accurately. Instead, the model was constructed to provide a framework for comparing and learning from the experiences of experts (Checkland 1981). Although the group of experts provided information from real scenarios, the data obtained from the model cannot be validated independently given its subjective nature. What it could do is to strengthen the model by revising consecutively its performance and outcomes, and integrating lessons from practice (Nyberg et al. 2006; Newton et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2007). The theoretical model could also be revised by other groups of stakeholders in the Commonwealth and state and territory governments to make it more comprehensive and universal. Thus, the modelling approach may be translated into an iterative exercise where more realistic predictions could be made about developing new strategic programs and implementing better management interventions.

Applying Bayesian networks modelling for threatened species management Several applications of Bayesian models have been developed for wildlife management; they have been mostly prepared to analyse biological and ecological data (e.g., Marcot et al. 2001; Paulsen & Hinrichsen 2002; VanderWerf et al. 2006; Pestes et al. 2008). In other studies, Bayesian modelling has been used to support decision-making by predicting the results of management interventions such as population manipulations and habitat enhancement (Tremblay et al. 2004; Conroy et al. 2008). Human factors have been mostly excluded from those analyses. In the field of threatened species recovery little it is known about the influence of managerial issues on the success and effectiveness of management and conservation programs. In other sectors such as Education and Health, the role of the key human factors to successful implementation of governmental programs has been addressed (Hall & Loucks 1977; Gustafson et al. 1993; Bosworth et al. 1999). Despite the

161

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation existing research on threatened species, managers and conservationists are left with poor understanding and guidance to assist them to translate this research into meaningful knowledge to improve the management aspects of threatened species. Given the limited resources available for recovery programs, research in the social sciences using predictive models is critical for the adequate design of strategies and efficient utilization of resources (Mathevet & Mauchamp 2005). Knowledge of the decision-making mechanisms is as important as the knowledge of the functioning of the biophysical system.

Other potential applications of BBNs in threatened species management research may be related to guiding and evaluating the implementation of conservation strategies (Newton et al. 2007). Similar models may be constructed with the help of managers and decision-makers as a tool for self- assessment and planning of management and conservation strategies (Wade 2000; Marcot et al. 2006). Monitoring and evaluation are also critical for effective management. Feedback from the implementation of the strategies could be integrated into the model to correct weaknesses and reinforce recovery planning as part of the cycle of adaptive management (Nyberg et al. 2006; Newton et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2007). Thus the Bayesian model may improve understanding of how management options affect the system by incorporating new information as managers learn from management interventions and add new elements not included at the first stage of the model (Cain 2001; Lynam et al. 2002; Henriksen & Barlebo 2008).

Bayesian models are also an appropriate tool for incorporating participatory management (Cain et al. 1999; Bosch et al. 2007; Henriksen et al. 2007). Participation of a group of stakeholders in a systematic process of collecting, discussing and analysing scenarios allows exploration of alternative perspectives, acknowledging uncertainty and building shared understanding and knowledge of management systems (Peterson et al. 2003). Since recovery programs require the establishment of collaborative arrangements between the government and other sectors, participatory management planning is important to foster dialogue and involvement for designing better strategies (Lynam et al. 2002). It has been said that allocation of funds often follows political or capricious decisions of those responsible for administrating biodiversity conservation programs (Sidle 1998; Czech & Krausman 1999; Male & Bean 2005); this may lead to a loss of commitment among the stakeholders involved in recovery activities. Construction of models such as the one developed in this thesis may lead to more transparent processes of analysis, planning and decision- making for recovery plans. Models allow articulating management options in qualitative and graphic forms, which help to communicate the management concepts to stakeholders and to show how different groups could come to endorse different courses of action, each consistent with their

162

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation own views and values (Maguire 1986). The process of constructing the models with input from different stakeholders may lead to the incorporation and scrutiny of elements of management not considered before. In recovery planning, the diversity of stakeholders may engender different priorities and objectives for collaborating in recovery plans. Those differences are not unhealthy; they are necessary to integrate a more comprehensive and realistic picture of the problem in question. Bayesian models are ideal for streamlining communication, mediation and learning across stakeholders and organizations (Lynam et al. 2002; Uusitalo 2007).

Model limitations It is important to acknowledge the limitations of models. It was intended to build a model as an exploratory tool to examine hypotheses about the factors that govern threatened species management and their influence in management outcomes. Generalizations cannot be employed since the data used in the model, which was wholly qualitative, reflected subjective opinions given by a small group of stakeholders/experts. The model also represented only a particular situation; in this case, the Queensland and New South Wales management scenarios for threatened species. Model building and conceptualization may reflect only the elements of the management system that were present or valid during that period of time, and from the views of involved experts. To address this subjectivity more objective information could improve the estimates (Cain et al. 2003). For this, I intended to conduct a second round of workshops in Queensland and New South Wales to discuss and verify the model outcomes with all experts. However, restrictions of time and costs and difficulties in getting the people together again impeded that objective. Experts representing other groups and disciplines could be involved in model building and reviewing processes, paying special attention to not making the group unwieldy.

Another point to consider is that the management system is dynamic, given that legislative, policy or institutional changes are continuously occurring. These changes could modify the current structure, the number of components, and behaviour of the model. Thus, predictions of the model should be taken with caution before making decisions based on the model outcomes. The management system model needs to be reviewed periodically to include changes in the components and structure, and new information as it emerges from practice. It is important to be aware of these changes when assessing the probabilities of the model as a result of the improved condition and implementation of the recovery strategies (Henderson & Burn 2004).

High variation of opinions and how to address it Model structure and performance could be revised with more stakeholders from each state and territory, as there are local issues that may influence the variation of opinions. As observed in 163

Chapter 7 Assessing management strategies for improving implementation previous chapters (4, 5 and 6), national recovery planning faces issues regarding differences across jurisdictions such as legislation, approaches to biodiversity conservation, and priorities for intervention. Opinions and complementary sources of data from other jurisdictions might be included in the model to have a broader perspective. Review, modification and evaluation of the model needs to be an iterative process to ensure that it represents the perspective of the stakeholder’s group accurately. A wider variety of stakeholders could also be involved during the elicitation process. This may help to enrich the perspective and learn from others experts’ experience. Consensus of opinions is not required given that Netica accommodates multiple opinions and assessing averaged probabilities. This increases the confidence that the model has captured the true variability of possible opinions. At the same time the model permits analysis of individual opinions, which may be useful when comparing information from different stakeholders. The Delphi method and Nominal group technique offer potential solutions for managing expert- elicited data (Dalkey & Helmer 1963; Milkovich et al. 1972; Jeffreys et al. 2008), but in this case those methods could only be used during the conceptualization phase to achieve consensus about the model structure.

Given that there are large knowledge gaps regarding how institutional and organizational factors influence management and recovery of threatened species, this study provided background information which may serve as a platform to construct better theoretical models and generate information about how management systems work and can be improved. Further research in this area may be focused on refining the model through successive stakeholder’s workshops, and incorporating new information and model components that may have been missed during this study. The exercise could be extended to other Australian jurisdictions and elsewhere to compare similar conceptual models.

7.5 Chapter summary

The chapter started with a short overview (Section 7.1) and a description of research methods (Section 7.2): Experts’ workshops, systems analysis, and systems modelling. Section 7.3 included the main finding of the investigation, separated into three main subsections: the management systems model (Section 7.3.1), model evaluation (Section 7.3.2), and optimal conservation and management strategies (Section 7.3.3.). Section 7.4 included a discussion of major findings regarding the identification of key recovery strategies that could be undertaken to improve implementation of recovery planning. Advantages and limitations of applying Bayesian modelling for threatened species management and conservation were also discussed.

164

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

CHAPTER 8 – GUIDELINES FOR IMPROVING RECOVERY PLANS

8.1 Chapter overview 8.2 Guidelines for preparing recovery plans 8.3 Tool for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of recovery plans 8.4 Chapter summary

8.1 Chapter overview

With the information generated from the previous four chapters I was able to identify the most important knowledge gaps in recovery planning and formulate a series of recommendations for improving plan’s design and development. I developed guidelines with the aim of addressing the key deficiencies currently found in Australian recovery plans, and to offer a tool for assessing the appropriateness of draft documents. Although guidelines for preparing recovery plans already exist in some states and the Commonwealth under the EPBCA, there are still weak points, particularly in the establishment of recovery objectives and performance criteria, and the use of monitoring and evaluation (Chapter 5). General recommendations for preparing recovery plans have previously been published (e.g. Clark et al. 1989; Miller et al. 1994; Burbidge 1996); although, during interviews managers and conservationists expressed the need for better guidelines to develop recovery plans. The aim of this chapter was not to repeat the content of the guidelines previously published, but to address the weak and missing elements detected in Australian recovery plans. This may point the way to improve recovery planning in the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions that are employing this management approach.

These general guidelines and the assessment tool were prepared for national recovery plans under the Commonwealth legislation, but they may also be valid for state and territory plans. Some sections of the guidelines may need to be adapted to particular circumstances as they arise. The guidelines and the assessment tool may assist policy-makers, managers, scientists and recovery teams to prepare more appropriate and adequate management plans. They are also designed to point out areas of recovery planning that require further research. The guidance strives to: 1) ensure a better consistency in the application of statutory and policy requirements for the development of recovery plans; 2) emphasise certain important aspects of recovery planning that are critical; and 3)

165

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning assist in keeping recovery plans useful, valid and up-to-date. Considering that this chapter is intended to provide recommendations, the structure and content follow a different format to previous chapters. This chapter does not specifically address a research question, nor provide a discussion of results. The chapter is presented in two sections: the first includes the proposed guidelines; the second provides a tool for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of recovery plans. The main headings of the proposed guidelines follow the same nomenclature and order of the Commonwealth’s guidance of content requirements. I used this format because any document or draft prepared as a recovery plan must accord with that structure in order to be adopted by the Commonwealth government. I formulated recommendations only on the sections of the Commonwealth guidance where authors of recovery plans showed poor design and where current points need further explanation. The guidelines are also intended to provide common conservation principles that can be adopted to prepare more appropriate and consistent management documents. Progress towards the use of a national standardised format is critical given the need for common and aligned elements of monitoring and evaluation of recovery plans across all jurisdictions (Chapters 4 and 5). The monitoring and evaluation scheme formulated in this chapter may also provide terms of reference that can be incorporated into conducting more regular research and evaluation of the recovery planning process. The guidelines could be applied to either single- or multi-species approaches.

The tool formulated to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of recovery plans incorporates a check-list based on the guidelines developed earlier in this chapter. The planning components considered crucial for an appropriate recovery plan were added to the check-list. The tool includes a scoring system to assess the extent of the draft’s compliance with the guidelines. This type of scoring system has been used in other disciplines for evaluating health protocols (e.g., AHRQ 2002; Robert et al. 2006) and compliance of security programs in the oil industry (e.g., Butler & Fekete 2005). The use of the assessment tool may assist to develop more standardised recovery plans with adequate information and directions to guide recovery more effectively. The tool was employed to assess three existing national recovery plans to show its practical application.

8.2 Guidelines for preparing recovery plans

Overall comments about recovery planning Recovery plans are management guides that include information for managing a single species, a group of species, or an ecological community. The aim of a management plan is to provide decision-makers with the best information (technical and socioeconomic) for managing and

166

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning recovering species and ecological communities at risk of extinction. Management plans are important documents because decisions about the allocation of scarce resources (human and financial), time and interventions are based on the information provided by them. Recovery plans also indicate which threatened species most urgently require management and conservation action.

Recovery plan authors need to keep in mind those elements for designing a good management document. The document itself should be clear and balanced in technical and non-technical language. The trade-offs between providing necessary biological and ecological detail and producing an accessible document for all stakeholders need to be carefully considered. All necessary technical language should be clearly explained in the document. Plans should be consistent and concise in defining the priority actions that will support the recovery of the concerned species or ecological community (see Chapter 5). Management plans should also identify the threatening processes affecting the survival of the species in the short and long term, and formulate threat-related actions to address them. These two components are essential for a good management plan. Often documents seek to be comprehensive by including extensive biological information about the species; however, this may either be irrelevant or divert the attention from important matters and confuse decision-makers about the key management information. It is important to develop a recovery plan with clearly defined sections and key elements, accommodated in a document of approximately fifteen-to-twenty pages. Although this criterion looks arbitrary, the intention is to avoid writing a large document that would lack the necessary simplicity and clarity, with distracting details that may divert the reader from the key message. Preparation and adoption of recovery plans may take up to five years, including both the drafting and approval processes. The writing of long recovery plans could be counterproductive because it delays implementation of urgent actions (Boersma et al. 2001). Having big and complicated documents also makes it more difficult for managers to review the plan.

Before reviewing the guidelines in detail I will summarise the key elements for a well designed recovery plan. The list of recommendations addresses the weak elements found in Australian recovery plans. Recommendation are based in legislative requirements and some relevant publications (Clark et al. 1989; Miller et al. 1994; Backhouse et al. 1996; Burbidge 1996; Foin et al. 1998; Clark et al. 2002a; Caddy & Agnew 2004). Recovery plans contain a series of elements in a very similar format to the ones used in other nations such as U.S. and Canada:

1) Define relevant managers, scientists and other stakeholders as members of a recovery team; 2) Outline clear and measurable objectives to be achieved during the period of the plan;

167

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

3) Establish consistent performance criteria for measuring the progress and achievement of recovery objectives; 4) Collect background technical information that might guide management decisions, and identify the gaps of scientific knowledge; 5) Determine the threatening processes affecting the species and identify ways to minimise or control them; 6) Identify the habitats that are critical to the survival of the species or community; 7) Identify a short list of the priority recovery actions that might be taken by relevant agencies, academic groups, and conservation organisations to promote conservation of the listed species and ecological communities; actions should be formulated to address the identified threatening processes, gaps in scientific information, need for additional habitat protection, and other relevant issues; 8) Develop a prioritising scheme for the recovery actions to be implemented which will assist managers to make decisions and allocate resources and efforts; 9) Schedule the implementation of recovery actions, guide the expenditure of resources, and define the responsible people for implementing the actions; 10) Establish a monitoring and evaluation scheme for following up implementation and assessing the progress towards achievement of recovery plan’s objectives through monitoring of performance criteria. Evaluate whether the species status has improved during the period of the plan, or whether the recovery efforts need to be extended over another five-year period; 11) Make this information available to other users through appropriate reporting. Prepare annual progress reports and a final evaluation report of the recovery plan according to the guidelines provided by DEWRA. Disseminate information in appropriate fora.

A standardised common format for recovery plans across states and territories is necessary. It would include using a standardized nomenclature and compatible elements of analysis across plans that may allow creation of evidence accessible for all users and organisations. This may facilitate understanding of similar management issues and experiences, improve communication and information sharing among agencies, and allow agencies to learn from experience. Incorporating adaptive management into the recovery planning would improve the recovery process (Mace et al. 2001; Clark 2002; Meffe et al. 2002). A national approach may also reduce duplication of efforts and allow a more targeted and effective expenditure of limited resources by identifying common issues across the country and allocating the resources to national priorities (Chapter 6).

168

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

Commonwealth legislative requirements

Part A. Species/ecological community information and general requirements A major improvement in this section would be the standardisation of the conservation status categories across Commonwealth and state and territory jurisdictions. Most government agencies use, at least to some extent, the IUCN’s conservation status categories as a reference. But different categories are still used within threatened species lists in each jurisdiction, which confuses the actual conservation status of a species across the country. It may actually be the case that separate populations and subpopulations of a species have a different conservation status in different states. But often that difference is a result of jurisdictional boundaries and lack of coordination in aligning the management and conservation policy instruments (Chapters 4 and 6). Given the different conservation status of species, listing may indicate differences in conservation priorities in each jurisdiction, affecting the efficient allocation of funding and other resources. This may compromise the strategic national approach.

International issues Some recovery plans have been prepared for species whose spatial distribution goes beyond the Australian territory (e.g. migratory birds and whales). The recovery actions formulated in these documents are proposed for implementation in international waters or territories of other countries. Implementation and monitoring of all management actions in this type of recovery plan cannot be undertaken by Australian agencies. Implementation of Australian recovery plans at international scale is limited and depends on the existence of international agreements of cooperation on matters of biodiversity conservation (e.g. established agreements on migratory birds with Japan and China). The establishment of bilateral agreements with other countries or conservation organisations, together with monitoring of species may support the assessment of progress and effectiveness of those recovery plans.

Interests of stakeholders It is important to identify all the relevant stakeholders and explain to them the need to enter into collaborative agreements for threatened species management. Relevant stakeholders may be state and territory agencies, research bodies, conservation organisations, individuals, local councils, industry representatives and private landholders. Special attention should be given to the people with direct ownership of the areas occupied by the species covered by the plan. It is necessary to specify the people who need to be involved in some aspects of the recovery plan, clarifying their particular activities. This should be done separately from a listing of those people involved in

169

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning steering the recovery team through the whole life of the plan. Roles and responsibilities should be made clear from the beginning – at the time of planning the implementation of the recovery plan. Assignation of specific recovery actions and tasks within the implementation schedule needs to be established in the timetable of the strategic plan. An example of a timetable of actions is given below in the section on recovery actions.

Part B. Biological information Recovery plans need to provide relevant scientific information on the biological and ecological aspects of the species. Population estimates and trend data are particularly relevant for management and, when available, should be included in the plan. However, after reviewing the existing recovery plans, it was evident that these types of data are uncommon. A great number of recovery plans reported spatial information based only on a number of historical locations. Other plans reported the identification of current actual or potential sites of occurrence, and the identification of potential habitats. The extent of information on species distribution varies greatly, and maps of distribution are not available for many species. Mapping the distribution of ecological communities has been a still more difficult task. Completeness of map inventories varies according to state and territory jurisdictions.

Other scientific topics addressed in recovery plans are listed here in order of coverage: 1) Actual and potential threats; 2) Habitats; 3) Life history; 4) Population biology; 5) General biology and ecology; 6) Behaviour; and 7) Genetics. The coverage of these topics varied across plans (Chapter 6). For some species the extent of scientific knowledge is very poor. Often managers need to face situations of uncertainty due the lack of basic knowledge when making management decisions.

Some recovery plans made recommendations within the introduction section about the need for further research on the scientific topics listed above. Inconsistently, in some recovery plans those identified gaps of information were not addressed by prescription of recovery actions. This inconsistency varied depending on the scientific topic (Chapter 5). Generally plans consistently prescribed research actions on ecological parameters and habitat, but responded poorly to knowledge gaps on genetics and behaviour/dispersal (Chapter 5). This is a failure of plan design. Authors need to carefully review how well the recovery plan responds to scientific information needs. If more research is needed on any particular scientific topic for the purposes of guiding management, then a list of specific studies should be prepared and included in the schedule of recovery actions. These recovery actions should be clearly labelled as ‘research actions’. For those species with limited information, which is the generality, there is a tendency to prescribe more research actions than other types of actions (Sheil 2001). My analysis corroborated this observation;

170

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

Chapter 5 showed that from eight possible categories of recovery actions, 30% were research- related. The need for conducting more research in plans should be carefully justified, without compromising the urgency to address other conservation issues in the plan such as attention to threats.

Habitat critical to the survival of the species/ecological community Identification of habitat critical to the survival of the species/ecological community is a legislative requirement under the EPBCA. However, critical habitat has not been yet identified for nearly 40% of species covered by recovery plans. This low percentage shows that the requirement is insufficiently addressed in recovery plans. There are some management issues across jurisdictions that affect the compliance with this requirement (Chapter 4). For example, some state and territory agencies do not consider the identification and register of critical habitat as a good management practice where other conservation instruments are already in place. For those reasons it can be expected that some states and territories will not use the registration of critical habitat as a conservation tool.

There are other habitat protection schemes that are being utilised, such as the proclamation of private wildlife sanctuaries, formal reservation through Regional Forest Agreements, voluntary agreements and covenants (Land for Wildlife), and donation of land for conservation purposes. Considering the range of available conservation instruments, authors of recovery plans need to clearly specify the legal status of the land where the species occurs. In cases requiring a legal instrument for habitat protection, the plans’ authors should consider whether identification of critical habitat will be the strategy to be employed, or whether other conservation instruments will be applied.

Part C. Actual and potential threats Plans must identify all significant threatening processes affecting the species. According to the analysis in Chapter 5, information on threatening processes is well addressed in most recovery plans. This indicates that the knowledge on threatening processes affecting species at risk is well advanced. However, some recovery plans only indicate the ‘potential’ effects of threats in cases where scientific evidence about the actual effects is unavailable. This reflects knowledge gaps about the actual causes of endangerment of some species.

Nomenclature of threatening processes should follow a standardised format such as the IUCN’s Authority File for Threats (IUCN 2006b). Again, consistency of nomenclature is necessary to assist

171

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning understanding and managing common threatening processes across regions and jurisdictions (as is the aim of ecosystem- and regional-based management plans).

According to the findings of Chapter 5, between one and 11 (average = six) threatening processes were identified within each recovery plan, including both actual and potential threats. Having a greater number of threats than the average cited in the plan could complicate formulation of adequate solutions to abate or control them. A careful diagnosis is necessary to identify only the actual or potential threats that need priority and urgent attention. Where the actual impact of threats is not well known, research actions should be prescribed to address the knowledge gaps. There are several frameworks available that involve threat assessments based on the degree of species endangerment, threat impact and urgency (Master 1991; Flather et al. 1998; Salafsky & Margoluis 1999; Myers et al. 2000; Lindenmayer & Burgman 2005; Burgman et al. 2006). Those methodologies could assist to better identify and prioritise threatening processes.

The analysis of internal consistency revealed that 22% of recovery plans had serious failures related to the attention of the threats cited within the plan. In those cases threat abatement actions were prescribed without matching all identified threats in the plan. To address this inconsistency, a careful revision of the actual and potential threats thought to affect the target species should be made and matched by corresponding threat abatement actions. If relevant, the plan should refer to any of the officially listed Key Threatening Processes affecting the species and the Threat Abatement Plans in place under the EPBCA (see DEWHA 2008b; a).

Part D. Establishing objectives, performance criteria and recovery actions The objectives, recovery actions and performance criteria are key elements of a recovery plan as they embody what is needed in order to improve the conservation status of the target species/community. These components should demonstrate a logical and clear relationship and be presented in a manner that is easily understood.

Recovery plans may have multiple objectives. Objectives are more accurately measured when they are quantitative, although some qualitative objectives can also be used in the plan in a complementary way. Recovery objectives must be impact-oriented, measurable, time-limited and practical (Margoluis & Salafsky 1998; Gerber et al. 2002; Tear et al. 2005). Some plans defined recovery objectives in a vague and unquantifiable way, for example: ‘…to increase the number of populations’. For species lacking basic ecological knowledge this objective may be unmeasurable and unachievable because it relies on population data that may be non-existent or patchy. Objectives can be established for short and long-terms. Short-term objectives should preferably be

172

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning achievable within the life-time of the plan (one-to-five years). Intermediate objectives can also be established where the period of the plan is longer than five years. In this case, intermediate objectives work as stepping stones against which periodic assessments can be made. According to legislation, plans need a review after five years of implementation to evaluate whether objectives were achieved or whether another five-year period will be necessary.

Performance criteria are the measures or indicators that will provide the evidence for assessing progress of the plan. These indicators should be measurable, precise, and sensitive to the phenomenon being tracked (Margoluis & Salafsky 1998). Performance criteria must be defined in the plan, and they should be consistent with the objectives of the plan. Thus, performance criteria must allow assessment of whether the objectives have been achieved in the life-term of the plan. Since recovery might take decades, intermediate measures should also be established. In cases where there are several objectives, each one must be linked to a performance criterion.

Most performance criteria are based on changes in biological indicators such as population estimates. This may be inadequate because such information is unavailable for half of the species covered by plans (see Chapter 6). Elusive or cryptic species are very difficult to monitor. Other species are very time and resource-consuming and technically challenging to monitor regularly (Clarke et al. 2003). This focus on biological indicators is limited because it does not allow measurement of other management and conservation aspects of the recovery process (Salafsky et al. 2002). Other indicators should also be used complementarily such as habitat condition, status of threats (e.g., invasive species, control of diseases, poaching), and condition of ex-situ management (status of species in captivity) (Foin et al. 1998; Olsen 1998; Salafsky et al. 2002). Performance criteria should also be linked to a good monitoring program. The monitoring program will schedule and guide the activities for gathering of current, accurate, and relevant information on the concerned species and its habitats, which can then be used to assess the effectiveness of recovery efforts.

In multi-species and ecological community recovery plans it is necessary to carefully identify selected ecological indicators, e.g. keystone species (Simberloff 1998), because measuring the whole group of species may be challenging and costly. These indicator species should be sensitive to environmental changes and human interventions, easy to collect, monitor and analyse, and relevant to management objectives. To be useful in judging management performance, these indicator or keystone species should assist in assessing the condition of the whole ecological community.

173

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

Indicators of the social aspects of management such as community involvement, management capacity-building, degree of awareness, or extent of liaison with stakeholders should be included in the monitoring program. Social indicators are important for assessing the progress and effectiveness of recovery plans. This is particularly relevant for programs with a regional approach where a great diversity of stakeholders such as agencies, community groups and private landholders are involved (Aitken 2001; McDonald et al. 2003; Fenton 2006). I emphasise that social indicators should not replace biological indicators; both should be used complementarily to provide more evidence for assessing progress and effectiveness of programs. My analysis showed that 78% and 52% of recovery plans prescribed recovery actions to conduct educational programs and community involvement activities, respectively. This contrasted with only 4.7% of plans that prescribed performance indicators for those types of social aspects. In some plans there were objectives for social issues such as ‘promote community interest and involvement in the recovery of the species’. Such plans needed a performance criterion to measure the accomplishment of that objective: e.g., ‘reduced illegal collection of the orchid species by 50% and increased protection by 60% of private landholders’. Although these measures may be subjective, they provide more elements for assessing success of the plan. Table 8.1 shows some performance criteria related to the biological and social aspects of the recovery process.

Table 8.1: Examples of performance criteria and indicators for monitoring and assessing the progress of recovery plans Performance criteria Examples of indicators for monitoring a) Biological and ecological Population size estimates and trends; number of subpopulations; extent of measures geographical range, reproduction; habitat condition, rate of vegetation change. b) Threat management Abundance of invasive species; threat geographical range; degree of threat measures control; biochemical composition of agricultural runoff; impact of diseases; predation by introduced animals. c) Measures of social aspects Degree of community awareness, public attitudes and values; landholders’ attitude of the recovery plan and satisfaction toward participating in conservation initiatives; compliance with regulations (e.g. orchid collection); number of volunteers; media information. d) Measures of social aspects Number of recovery team meetings and attendance for planning and coordination; internal to the agency and the staff input into the project (participation; minutes), extent of recovery plan recovery team implementation (number of implemented tasks); liaison with stakeholders.

Performance criteria need to be linked to a monitoring schedule for measuring progress of the recovery plan. This can be done by prescribing a procedure for conducting regular monitoring activities and assessing progress of the performance criteria towards achievement of objectives. In this way, objectives, recovery actions, performance criteria and monitoring activities need careful design to be highly consistent. Table 8.2 shows a consistent way to formulate objectives, recovery actions and performance criteria and monitoring activities for a recovery plan.

174

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

Table 8.2: Examples of a consistent monitoring and evaluation scheme Objectives Recovery actions Performance criteria Monitoring activities 1) Increase the • Establish a number of Increase of the population Conduct monitoring of population and the individuals in an by 10%, and the number of population size and extent of spatial distribution of enclosure protected patches of occurrences to occurrence on the specified sites the species to secure from predators and 300 over the period of this once every six months over the its survival in the collectors. plan. period of the plan. wild. • Implement a weed Decrease the abundance of Monitor the abundance of weed and grazers weed species by 50% and species and the number of areas eradication program. exclude grazers by fencing. affected by grazers before and after installing the fence. 2) Raise public • Conduct an The number of people Conduct a survey of public awareness about the awareness campaign willing to conserve the attitude at the beginning of the protection and about the species in the community education and awareness conservation of the conservation of the increased by 50% at the end campaign and at the end of each species. species. of the recovery plan. year on selected communities and sites. Established at least two Follow up of establishment of conservation groups with 30 community groups and the members each in the local public attendance to meetings. community. 3) Improve the • Carry out a series of Attendance to the Monitor the committee meetings management capacity planning and training committee planning and to evaluate attendance, diversity of the agency at meetings in the local training meetings is and cohesion of stakeholder’s regional levels. community with satisfactory (n people) with groups. relevant stakeholders. representation of at least 70% of invited stakeholder’s groups.

Monitoring and evaluation of recovery plans Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) should be a fundamental component of any conservation program (Mace et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2002; Stem et al. 2005). However, 50% of the reviewed recovery plans in Chapter 5 did not incorporate any scheme for conducting M&E. This is one of the serious weaknesses of the recovery planning approach because after nearly two decades of making and implementing recovery plans, there is no comprehensive evidence of the worth and outcomes of such efforts (Chapter 4). Examination of recovery plans pointed to the need for the following key improvements:

a) The aim of conducting regular M&E is to assess the achievement of the management objectives listed in the recovery plan over the life-term of the plan. M&E may also assist in assessing whether the plan is to be finalised within, or extended for, another five-year period. M&E may help to correct objectives, e.g. whether the objectives are still valid, need modification or could be deleted. Strategies and recovery actions could also be corrected where evaluation results show undesired outcomes. b) M&E can assist staff in assessing future recovery planning requirements, in particular, committing to a long-term and consistent approach, and in setting baseline information for

175

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

future management. M&E can strengthen institutional capacity and reliability. Evaluation of internal activities of the recovery process may provide practitioners and managers with criteria and information to improve recovery plans and promote learning. Thus, government agencies and donors may obtain valuable information from M&E as required in external audits and reviews of programs’ accountability and efficiency. c) The implementation of the recovery plans could be seen as an experimental exercise that requires a careful collection of information as evidence to assess the success or failure of the plan. Thus, M&E incorporates adaptive management, an iterative process of improvement ― monitoring-reporting-revising-learning-rectifying (Foin et al. 1998; Clark 2002; Meffe et al. 2002). d) The national recovery planning scheme needs a common framework to undertake M&E across all jurisdictions and collate information in a central database administrated by DEWHA in constant exchange of information with the state and territory agencies. Establishment of a technical body or ‘Committee of evaluation’ might assist in developing the M&E framework and provide support to the state and territory agencies to conduct periodic reviews and evaluations. This body may reinforce the commitment of the Commonwealth government to support the implementation of the recovery planning scheme under the EPBCA and have more participation at state and territory level. e) In order to incorporate the M&E framework, recovery plans need a monitoring scheme for following up the implementation of the recovery actions formulated in the documents and assess their outputs and outcomes. This monitoring scheme should be designed consistently to match the recovery objectives, performance criteria, and recovery actions to follow up the performance of the recovery plan as shown in Table 8.2. In a formal evaluation those elements (achievement of objectives and performance criteria, and the implementation of recovery actions) may provide evidence of the recovery plan’s performance and effectiveness. f) Managers and recovery team members may need training to incorporate the elements of the M&E framework on their routine activities related to the recovery plan as a participatory formative procedure. g) The M&E framework may include an annual internal review of the recovery plan, including the examination of the extent implementation of actions and progress of the management process towards achieving the recovery objectives. The manager or team leader may coordinate this internal review with participation by other recovery team members. After the annual meeting a progress report should be prepared outlining the main findings revealed from the monitoring data, the achievements of the management interventions, and the adjustments necessary to

176

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

continue with the remaining period of the plan. Findings of such reviews may provide continual feedback of information on the condition of the system under management (target species, ecological communities, habitats, and threats) and performance of the recovery plan. h) A template of reporting information requirements may be produced, perhaps by the ‘Committee of Evaluation’ or the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, to standardise the procedure and ensure collation of uniform data sets across states and territories. The people responsible for producing the progress report should be within the recovery team, and preferably, it should be the same people who coordinate the final evaluation at the end of the recovery plan’s timeframe. Progress reports could be sent to DEWHA for storage and analysis. A central database of recovery plans would include all progress reports produced by recovery teams. Major data themes within recovery plan reports could be identified (as for recovery actions in Table 8.3). Recovery indexes could be developed based on the information of performance indicators, to undertake analytic comparisons across recovery plans. This could facilitate the evaluation of large numbers of recovery plans to obtain a comprehensive perspective of the management scheme. i) At the end of the recovery plan’s timeframe, a summative evaluation should be conducted by internal and external reviewers. Two types of evaluation could be developed: 1) an internal evaluation conducted by the recovery team; and 2) an external evaluation conducted by the ‘Committee of Evaluation’ or external reviewers. Both types of evaluations should also follow a standardised format of reporting, following the adopted M&E framework. The internal evaluation would assist to summarise all relevant data collected from monitoring activities and from annual progress reports. The evaluation would review the degree of implementation and worth of recovery actions, analysing the achievements and obstacles, and the contribution of the people and organisations involved in the recovery plan. This evaluation would address in more detail the administrative, institutional and organisational issues that have been influencing the success or failure of the recovery plan. The adequacy of efforts and resources should also be considered. Dissemination of these evaluation reports would help to reinforce the management capacity of all recovery groups. The external evaluation of recovery plans would assess its merit and effectiveness as a management instrument. The summary of information produced from the internal evaluation reports would assist the examination of goals and the measurement of the degree to which objectives were achieved through the assessment of performance criteria. The external evaluators would need a close collaboration with the recovery team members to exchange the information necessary for the evaluation.

177

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning j) It is important to mention in the recovery plan the people and organisations that will be involved in the evaluation of the recovery plan. Where a recovery team exists, some members with relevant qualifications may be involved in the evaluation. Where there is no recovery team in place the recovery plan should clarify who else will be involved in this requirement. k) An evaluation report should be produced, containing information in clear language for the relevant readers, and highlighting the key elements and achievements of the recovery plan. The use of common indicators of performance and data sets will simplify the storage and management of information in a database, with mechanisms of continuous information exchange between the states and territories and the Commonwealth. Evaluation reports would be sent to DEWHA, which will store the information in a central database, in accessible and compatible format according to the improved guidelines and template. The information may be provided in a variety of formats to meet the needs of different users such as policy-makers, planning managers, researchers and the public. Evaluation reports may also serve to meet the accountability requirements and funding agencies reporting (e.g. State of Environment Reports and Australian National Audit Office). l) Only through the use of a standardised and nationally-applied M&E framework would the Commonwealth and state and territory governments be able to evaluate the merit and effectiveness of the CESP and the recovery planning scheme. A National Forum on Threatened Species would facilitate the information and experience exchange across agencies, scientists and NRM groups. This forum was considered by the experts/stakeholders (Chapter 6) as an important instrument of communication that it is still missing in the current management system.

Prescription of recovery actions A key component of recovery plans is the prescription of research and management actions necessary to stop the decline and support the recovery of all species/communities covered in the plan. Where ecological information is unknown, one of the objectives will be undertaking research. Actions need to be specifically linked to the threats identified for the target species. Protection of habitats and important populations will need to be addressed in detail. Setting recovery actions requires careful planning among the members of the recovery team. The list of formulated recovery actions should include only those urgent management interventions necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of the recovery plan. The list of recovery actions should not be an overwhelming ‘wish list’ of activities that managers would never be able to implement in full due to restrictions of staff and resources. Recovery actions must target the key issues identified in the recovery plan such as manipulation of species populations, protection of critical habitat, control of threatening

178

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning processes, research of information gaps, and engagement of relevant stakeholders and the community. Table 8.3 shows a list of themes that could guide the classification and planning of recovery actions.

Table 8.3: Proposed themes and examples of recovery actions Themes of recovery actions Examples of recovery actions a) Research and monitoring Scientific studies on taxonomy; population estimates and trends, distribution; biological and ecological studies; population viability analysis; habitat assessments/mapping; assessment of threatening processes. b) Species manipulation Cultivation, food supply, propagation, benign introductions, reintroduction, translocations, captive breeding. c) Habitat Restoration/enhancement of habitat quality; reservation (protecting habitat through negotiation or acquisition of lands); use of economic incentives for habitat protection. d) Threat Regulation of hunting/harvest; management of domestic and introduced pest species (predator, competitor, parasites, disease); reduce incidental mortality; regulate pollution; control of wildfires. e) Community involvement Negotiation of agency-community conservation agreements; collaborative/co- management projects; incentive programs; liaison and participation of landholders/public/private groups in recovery actions; volunteering. f) Education, awareness, and Implementation of formal education programs; raising community awareness; training environmental campaigns; recovery information dissemination; enhance capacity building (training volunteers). g) Agency organisation and Activities related to agency performance; recovery team activities; collaboration management with the Threatened Species Scientific Committee; inter-agency lobbying and coordination; coordination of plan’s implementation; plan review and evaluation. h) Policy Adoption and implementation of international conventions; trade regulation; preparation or lobbying of instruments on protected areas management, regional management plans (e.g., catchments management plans, other wildlife management plans); environmental impact assessment; sector policy (development, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, tourism, maritime); enforcement of legislation.

The list of recovery actions must be linked to the objectives of the plan, the performance criteria and the monitoring activities as shown in Table 8.2. Consistency between these elements will allow assessment of progress of the recovery plan based in the degree of implementation of the scheduled recovery actions. The list of recovery actions should be brief and concise. Usually 15-20 recovery actions per plan should be the limit, given the institutional capacity, budgetary restrictions, and time-frame of the plan (one plan was found to have 60 recovery actions). The list of recovery actions should make the issues and topics addressed in the plan clear (as shown in Table 8.3). Prescription of recovery actions needs to show a balanced focus between research and management action, acknowledging the need for further research to support management, but also prescribing urgent actions to control the threatening processes affecting the species covered in the plan.

Recovery actions should be linked to the relevant stakeholder’s and agencies (Commonwealth and state and territory) that have the responsibility to implement them as shown in the schedule of Table 8.4.

179

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

Table 8.4: Example of a schedule for implementation of recovery actions Issues Recovery actions Priority Targeted Estimated cost People responsible of areas $ implementation Research and Conduct studies on 1 Describe the 10,000.00 per Conservation agency monitoring distribution and abundance region year during the and appropriate of target species first two years University of the plan. Species Establish five colonies in 1 Herbarium Describe costs Describe the manipulation herbarium for propagation facilities of as in the organisations involved Southern example above as in the example provinces above Community Establish a group of 2 Describe Describe costs Describe the involvement volunteers in communities towns and as in the organisations involved to increase awareness communities example above as in the example about protection of the of the region above species

If management on private lands is identified as necessary (as in 60% of reviewed recovery plans; Chapter 6), recovery actions should indicate the type of conservation instruments that will be negotiated with landholders to encourage species and habitat conservation (e.g. collaborative voluntary agreements). Analysis of strategies in Chapter 7 revealed that, according to the stakeholders, incentives for conservation have the greatest potential for achieving the best outcomes.

The schedule of recovery actions should include a definition of the target geographical areas where the recovery actions are to be implemented. Use of a standardised prioritising system will assist managers to make decisions about the most urgent management interventions and the allocation of resources (e.g. 1 = urgent; 2 = necessary; 3 = beneficial).

Although the Commonwealth guidelines mention that information on implementation does not need to be detailed, it is important to maintain a record of implemented recovery actions and their outputs and/or outcomes in internal reports. These reports may be revised in the annual recovery team meetings and reported to the Commonwealth and state and territory governments.

Duration of recovery plan and estimated costs Recovery actions must be scheduled in a time-frame appropriate for the recovery plan. The estimated costs and the funding organisations must be included in the schedule. Failure to define these elements would leave the agencies without information about the needed resources that would affect the allocation of funding. Resource allocation should follow the most efficient and effective use of resources. It should show the relationship between the recovery plan and other management instruments, and demonstrate that consideration has been given to appropriate linkages that will result in the efficient use of resources and avoid unnecessary duplication. 180

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

8.3 Tool for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of recovery plans

This tool was developed to assist the preparation of adequate and appropriate recovery plans, according to the legislative requirements under the EPBCA. Appropriateness is assessed by the compliance of legislative requirements and measures of internal consistency as used in Chapter 5. Adequacy is related to the use of key conservation planning elements. This tool was designed for use in conjunction with the guidelines provided in the first section of this chapter.

The series of questions may be used as a check-list (Table 8.5). The tool utilises a scoring system that assesses the quality of the document. Every element of the recovery plan is to be judged based on a compliance scoring (0, 1, 2 pts). Definitions of criteria for using the scoring system are included in Table 8.6.

Table 8.5: Quality index based on the assessment of key elements of recovery plans Key elements of recovery plans Score 1) Does the plan meet all legislative requirements? 2) Does the plan define the permanent and occasional members of a recovery team? 3) Does the plan include clear and measurable objectives to be achieved within the defined timeframe? 4) Does the plan include the relevant scientific information that will guide management decisions? 5) Does the plan identify gaps of scientific knowledge and prescribe consistent research actions? 6) Does the plan identify the critical habitat for the survival of the species? 7) Does the plan identify the threatening processes affecting the species? 8) Are the identified threatening processes addressed by prescription of threat abatement actions? 9) Does the plan prescribe a list of priority recovery actions with identified responsibility for implementation to address the main issues mentioned in the plan? 10) Are the recovery actions arranged according to the prioritising scheme? 11) Does the plan include a five year time-framed schedule of recovery actions, linked to the responsible people involved in its implementation? 12) Does the plan establish a monitoring and evaluation framework by which the recovery plan will be evaluated? 13) Does the plan establish performance criteria consistent with the recovery objectives and monitoring activities? 14) Does the plan mention the people or organisation responsible for evaluating and reporting progress of the plan? 15) Does the plan give information on the costs and resources necessary to implement the recovery plan? Total score

Table 8.6: Criteria for the scoring system of recovery plans Points Criteria 0 The recovery plan did not address this planning element 1 The recovery plan did address this planning element but it is incomplete or deficient. For example, the plan might have identified the information gaps but left some of them without attention when prescribing the research actions. 2 The recovery plan appropriately addressed the planning element in a complete and efficient manner

In Table 8.5 the score of each planning element is to be presented in the right column. After assessing all key planning elements (rows) and assigning each score, the sum of all scores is to be

181

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning presented as a total score in the last row. The scoring system includes three categories of the quality of documents according to the total score (Table 8.7).

Table 8.7 Quality of recovery plans according to the scoring system Maximum total score: 30 pts Good recovery plan (it may need some minor corrections) 21 – 30 pts Moderate recovery plan that needs minor corrections 11 – 20 pts Poor recovery plan that needs major corrections 0 – 10 pts

To illustrate the application of the tool, I chose three recovery plans from the group of reviewed plans (Chapter 5) and conducted the assessment. These recovery plans were deliberately selected on the basis that represented differences in the level of quality (good, moderate and poor) (Tables 8.8 - 8.10).

Table 8.8: Example of a poorly designed recovery plan: Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) plan 2005-2010 Key planning elements of the recovery plan Score 1) Does the plan meet all the legislative requirements? 0 2) Does the plan define the permanent and occasional members of a recovery team? 0 3) Does the plan include clear and measurable objectives to be achieved within the defined timeframe? 0 4) Does the plan include the relevant scientific information that will guide management decisions? 2 5) Does the plan identify gaps of scientific knowledge and prescribe consistent research actions? 1 6) Does the plan identify the critical habitat for the survival of the species? 1 7) Does the plan identify the threatening processes affecting the species? 1 8) Are the identified threatening processes addressed by prescription of threat abatement actions? 0 9) Does the plan prescribe a list of priority recovery actions with identified responsibility for 1 implementation to address the main issues mentioned in the plan? 10) Are the recovery actions arranged according to the prioritising scheme? 0 11) Does the plan include a five year time-framed schedule of recovery actions, linked to the responsible 0 people involved in its implementation? 12) Does the plan establish a monitoring and evaluation framework by which the recovery plan will be 0 evaluated? 13) Does the plan establish performance criteria consistent with the recovery objectives and monitoring 0 activities? 14) Does the plan mention the people or organisation responsible for evaluating and reporting progress of 0 the plan? 15) Does the plan give information on the costs and resources necessary to implement the recovery plan? 0 Total score 6

182

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

Table 8.9: Example of a moderately well designed recovery plan: Tunbridge buttercup (Ranunculus prasinus) Plan 2006-2010 Key planning elements of the recovery plan Score 1) Does the plan meet all the legislative requirements? 1 2) Does the plan define the permanent and occasional members of a recovery team? 0 3) Does the plan include clear and measurable objectives to be achieved within the defined timeframe? 1 4) Does the plan include the relevant scientific information that will guide management decisions? 1 5) Does the plan identify gaps of scientific knowledge and prescribe consistent research actions? 2 6) Does the plan identify the critical habitat for the survival of the species? 2 7) Does the plan identify the threatening processes affecting the species? 2 8) Are the identified threatening processes addressed by prescription of threat abatement actions? 1 9) Does the plan prescribe a list of priority recovery actions with identified responsibility for 2 implementation to address the main issues mentioned in the plan? 10) Are the recovery actions arranged according to the prioritising scheme? 0 11) Does the plan include a five year time-framed schedule of recovery actions, linked to the responsible 2 people involved in its implementation? 12) Does the plan establish a monitoring and evaluation framework by which the recovery plan will be 1 evaluated? 13) Does the plan establish performance criteria consistent with the recovery objectives and monitoring 2 activities? 14) Does the plan mention the people or organisation responsible for evaluating and reporting progress of 2 the plan? 15) Does the plan give information on the costs and resources necessary to implement the recovery plan? 1 Total score 20

Table 8.10: Example of well designed recovery plan: Recovery plan for Marine turtles in Australia 2003- 2008 Key planning elements of the recovery plan Score 1) Does the plan meet all the legislative requirements? 1 2) Does the plan define the permanent and occasional members of a recovery team? 2 3) Does the plan include clear and measurable objectives to be achieved within the defined timeframe? 2 4) Does the plan include the relevant scientific information that will guide management decisions? 1 5) Does the plan identify gaps of scientific knowledge and prescribe consistent research actions? 2 6) Does the plan identify the critical habitat for the survival of the species? 2 7) Does the plan identify the threatening processes affecting the species? 2 8) Are the identified threatening processes addressed by prescription of threat abatement actions? 2 9) Does the plan prescribe a list of priority recovery actions with identified responsibility for 2 implementation to address the main issues mentioned in the plan? 10) Are the recovery actions arranged according to the prioritising scheme? 2 11) Does the plan include a five year time-framed schedule of recovery actions, linked to the responsible 2 people involved in its implementation? 12) Does the plan establish a monitoring and evaluation framework by which the recovery plan will be 2 evaluated? 13) Does the plan establish performance criteria consistent with the recovery objectives and monitoring 2 activities? 14) Does the plan mention the people or organisation responsible for evaluating and reporting progress of 2 the plan? 15) Does the plan give information on the costs and resources necessary to implement the recovery plan? 2 Total score 28

183

Chapter 8 Guidelines for improving recovery planning

8.4 Chapter summary

This chapter first presented a series of proposed guidelines for preparing appropriate and adequate recovery plans. The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendation about the key elements of planning that were identified in my review of recovery plans. Emphasis was given to the incorporation of an M&E framework for recovery plans that may assist assessment of the progress and effectiveness of the whole recovery planning scheme. The chapter also provided an assessment tool that may be incorporated into the recovery planning process. The tool was applied to three cases of recovery plans to illustrate how the extent of appropriateness and quality of management documents may vary according to plans’ authors or state-based planning requirements.

184

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion

CHAPTER 9 – DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

9.1 Chapter overview 9.2 General discussion 9.3 Conclusions 9.4 Implications for management and conservation 9.5 Directions for further research

9.5 Chapter summary

9.1 Chapter overview

In this chapter I summarise and discuss the main findings of this investigation and provide my conclusions. The chapter is structured around the four research questions established in Chapter 1. Major findings are discussed in subsections for each of the research topics (Section 9.2). Conclusions are provided in the same way, following a sequence of the research questions and discussion (Section 9.3). Comments on the practical implications of the research findings for the management and conservation of threatened species are given in Section 9.4. Section 9.5 provides suggested directions for future research and a brief final summary.

9.2 General discussion

Recovery planning has been one of the major strategies adopted by the Australian government to cope with the loss of biodiversity (Beeton et al. 2006). The CESP that has been in place for nearly two decades represents a significant effort undertaken by government agencies and other academic and civil organisations involved in management and conservation efforts. Unfortunately, many of those efforts and their outcomes have not been examined in the research literature. Most of the available information about recovery planning is stored in governmental reports (e.g. Boardman 1997; DEH 2005a; 2006a). State of the Environment reports have also revised the scheme, indicating progress in preparation of recovery plans (Saunders et al. 1996; Williams et al. 2001; Beeton et al. 2006), but little has been said about the impact of recovery plans on the restoration of threatened biodiversity.

There are also several reviews of the legislation on biodiversity (e.g., Woinarski & Fisher 1999; Kennedy et al. 2001; Macintosh & Wilkinson 2005). Although the analyses are not focused on 185

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion recovery planning, they included some insights into the CESP, especially on the listing process. According to those studies, listing is proceeding relatively well; however, preparation and adoption of recovery plans has been a slower process because of the lack of information on many threatened species and the administrative barriers imposed by operating across different jurisdictions (ANAO

2007; 2008).

There have been good intentions towards conducting research on management of Australian threatened species. A book edited by Stephen and Maxwell (1996) compiled several review papers on the issue. Most of the papers on recovery planning show information from case studies (e.g. Lundie-Jenkins 1996), or provide general recommendations for improving management (Backhouse et al. 1996; Burbidge 1996). Another important publication was focused on threatened species management in New South Wales (Hutchings et al. 2004). That book also incorporated a series of papers reviewing the issue. I obtained valuable background information for my thesis from those two important publications. Unfortunately, such analysis was not available from other states and territories. Another relevant review was conducted by Moore and Wooller (2004) on twenty four Australian recovery plans. Although I considered information from this publication in planning my research, the small sample of reviewed plans made it inadequate for an objective comparison of results. Yet, all of those publications have fallen short of providing comprehensive information on recovery planning. So far, there are no publications that address Australian recovery planning to the extent covered in this thesis.

Operation of the recovery planning strategy in regard to legislative, jurisdictional and institutional aspects It is difficult to evaluate recovery planning when no evidence of performance and outcomes is available and where published research is scant. The present investigation was challenged by these factors. Given the lack of data and monitoring on threatened species status, population trends, and information on implementation of recovery plans, progress and impact, it was impossible to assess the effectiveness of the recovery planning scheme. Finding these limitations during my exploratory work, I decided to conduct an evaluation of the planning and operational phases, which could also provide important insights into the Australian recovery planning scheme. Following the Policy evaluation methodologies, a series of legislative, jurisdictional and institutional aspects were identified as having significant impact on the operation of the CESP and recovery planning. Legislation provides the regulatory basis by which federal and state agencies respond to the Commonwealth conservation strategies. The analysis of recovery planning over time allowed detection of changes in the extent of preparation of recovery plans as a response to legislative

186

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion amendments. In regard to jurisdictional boundaries, my findings revealed that lack of coordination among agencies and inconsistent conservation mechanisms were severely affecting the extent of recovery planning, its implementation and achievements. It was evident from interviews that communication among agencies at national level was poor. Although bilateral agreements have been signed between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, it is necessary to further reinforce the coordination of recovery efforts. This issue is intimately related to the institutional arrangements needed to align conservation programs, define common schemes of action, share resources and information, and establish a standardised framework for M&E.

Recovery planning was reformed by the passage of the EPBCA, but problems remain and still recovery planning cannot be demonstrated to have been effective. A series of deficiencies and challenges for the federal and state and territory agencies were identified in Chapters 4-6. This information was used to provide practical recommendations for improving the recovery planning scheme. They are included in a section of recommendations within this final chapter.

Research in the US on threatened species recovery provided the best source of information against which I could compare my research findings. Several of the issues identified as influencing recovery planning in Australia were also identified in the research conducted in the US. In some studies the utility of recovery planning has been demonstrated by improvements in the status of species with dedicated recovery plans (Male & Bean 2005; Taylor et al. 2005; Kerkvliet & Langpap 2007). The approach to recovery planning followed in Australia has similarities with that used in the US. Species are nominated for listing, and a recovery plan is subsequently prepared and implemented (Clark 1994; Czech & Krausman 2001). Recovery teams are also established to coordinate and carry out the activities prescribed in recovery plans. In both scenarios, it is the states that have the major responsibility for implementing recovery plans; however, jurisdictional barriers are major issues influencing implementation. Another issues highlighted in debate in the US is the focus on single species recovery planning (Clark et al. 2002a; Hornaday & Bloom 2006; Mace et al. 2007). The appropriateness of this approach has been questioned due to the complicated bureaucratic needs, in terms of resources and staff, necessary to complete recovery plans for all listed species. According to the managers interviewed in my research, the government intends to move towards multi-species approaches, especially through regional plans. The effectiveness of the multi-species approach has been also debated in regard to the technical challenges for implementation (Boersma et al. 2001; Lundquist et al. 2002). With this evidence, we cannot take for granted that multi-species recovery plans will be more effective for management. The single-

187

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion species approach should be maintained as a complementary conservation mechanism to other instruments such as the regional and ecological-community plans.

Monitoring and evaluation of recovery planning is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. Authors of some independent reports agreed that lack of M&E limited the ability of the government to assess the progress, outcomes and effectiveness of the recovery planning strategy (Williams et al. 2001; Cork et al. 2006; ANAO 2007). Monitoring and evaluation is necessary not only to evaluate the status of species under management, but also to examine the worth of the main strategies and recovery activities, the approaches for management, and the cost-effectiveness of investments (Kleiman et al. 2000; Salafsky & Margoluis 2003; Stem et al. 2005). Monitoring and evaluation may offer the only opportunity to provide evidence for government agencies about the progress of the CESP. This evidence is important for incorporating adaptive management that would lead to improved recovery planning (Boersma et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2002). Monitoring and evaluation is also necessary to provide evidence for further research on recovery planning. One of the aims of this investigation was to provide information that would fill some of the gaps of knowledge about recovery planning. Research in this field is timely, as legislative reforms have recently modified the scheme of recovery planning at Commonwealth and state levels.

Appropriateness of the recovery planning scheme The Australian scheme has shown important progress in recovery planning. Compliance with legislative requirements in plans was high for some topics, but poor for others. Overall, plans were well designed and met the purpose of guiding management. The quantitative analysis of recovery plans (Chapter 5) showed the recovery plans had better compliance under the new legislation (EPBCA). This could be related to the existence of better guidelines for recovery planning or the accumulated technical expertise and experience in relevant agencies (Boersma et al. 2001). The availability of scientific and managerial information is the main factor affecting the adequate compliance of recovery plans.

Regarding the use of M&E components in recovery plans, the compliance was poor – only 36% of plans met this requirement. This is a major deficiency of the recovery planning scheme. Monitoring of recovery plans has also shown deficiencies in the US (Boersma et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2002) related to the lack of monitoring activities on threats and habitats. Monitoring of social aspects of management was almost nonexistent in some recovery plans. Although plans prescribed recovery actions on several social issues such as negotiation of volunteer agreements with private landholders or community-based awareness programs, very few plans proposed to monitor those activities. Several authors have recommended the use of complementary measures of the social

188

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion aspects of management (e.g. Backhouse & Clark 1995a; Bryan & Male 1996; Marsh et al. 2007), yet those measures, as observed in my analysis, are poorly considered in recovery plans (Chapter 5).

On the measures of internal consistency, recovery plans responded well in identifying information gaps and prescribing research actions. Although the percentage of consistency across plans varied in relation to the scientific topic, five of seven topics were consistently addressed by more than 60% of plans. Recovery plans were also consistent in addressing the threats identified in the plan. Here eight out of ten types of major threats were consistently addressed by more than 60% of all plans. In a similar study, Brigham et al. (2002) found a good consistency of plans on these parameters. They make reference to other studies where a consistency over 60% of all plans is considered as appropriate planning, although improvement is necessary.

Recovery plans showed deficiencies in their consistency in establishing performance criteria for measuring recovery objectives. Just over the half of recovery plans had well defined criteria. This deficiency has been also pointed out in research in the US (Gerber & Hatch 2002). This problem may be related to the deficiencies observed due the lack of an M&E framework for recovery planning. This inconsistency could also be a result of poor instructions in the government guidelines for establishing performance criteria. Other authors have underlined this problem (Cork et al. 2006; ANAO 2007). Performance criteria are crucial because they are the only mechanism to assess the success of recovery efforts (Gerber & Hatch 2002). Recommendations in regard to this issue were also given in Chapter 8.

Institutional and organisational factors influencing recovery planning The socioeconomic aspects involved in threatened species management is a topic that has been widely addressed in literature, although research specifically on recovery planning is not abundant. Mostly, case studies and narratives have been published. My findings, outlined below, are generally consistent with the issues identified in previous studies:

1) Coordination across Commonwealth, states and territories. This issue is related to the federal system of government that inevitably imposes jurisdictional barriers and has led to poor coordination (New 2006). These inconsistencies and conflicts of inter-organisational coordination have been identified as major impediments to the effective implementation of recovery planning (Clark & Cragun 2002; Wallace et al. 2002; Munro & Moore 2005; Farrier et al. 2007).

2) Inconsistency of strategies and programs across jurisdictions. These inconsistencies are also related to the different jurisdictions and the disparate strategic planning that occurs across governments. This is particularly difficult in a strategy such as recovery planning that purports to

189

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion cover the whole nation and employ uniform conservation mechanisms. However, the process of aligning inconsistent strategies between Commonwealth and states and territories has been challenging. Inconsistencies are influencing, directly and indirectly, other issues such as determination of national priorities, allocation of funding and conservation efforts, and exchange of information (ANAO 2007).

3) Management of species occurring on private land. This is certainly one of the major issues, as nearly 60% of species covered by recovery plans need implementation on private lands. Land tenure has also been identified as a serious limiting factor for the effective implementation of recovery plans in the US (Schemske et al. 1994; Bean & Wilcove 1997; Hatch et al. 2002). It has been observed that implementation of recovery plans is better on public lands because the access and delivery of actions are not restricted (Hatch et al. 2002). Access to land to conduct surveys and monitoring also leads to better knowledge of species on public lands (Bennett 1995).

4) Incorporation of science into recovery planning. Several papers have highlighted the importance of applying science in the management and conservation of threatened species, demonstrating that scientific knowledge is necessary through many phases of the recovery planning process. Science is used to assess the status of species and habitats, identify the threats affecting their survival, and to formulate the recovery actions that will address those threats (e.g., NRC 1995; Carroll et al. 1996; Pulliam & Babbitt 1997). According to my study, scientific knowledge about the species is patchy. Some topics are better studied that others. Differences between taxa have been identified; knowledge of major vertebrates and vascular plants is generally well advanced (Tear et al. 1995), while other groups such as invertebrates or non-vascular plants are less studied (Yen & New 1995; Hutchings 2004). A major concern for scientists is that agencies ignore science and often make decisions influenced by their experience, values, popular knowledge or politics (Sidle 1998; Wallace 2003; Male & Bean 2005).

5) Prioritising schemes for threatened species conservation. Information provided by the Commonwealth and state agencies revealed that all of those organisations use different schemes for prioritising conservation. Given the limited budgets for implementing recovery plans, schemes for prioritising conservation are critical (Master 1991; Williams et al. 2002; Brooks et al. 2006; Marsh et al. 2007). Some agencies have developed more sophisticated schemes than others. In other cases, the criteria for prioritising action and allocating funds are not clear. In my study I found that the states have developed clearer mechanisms than the Commonwealth. This has happened, perhaps, because it is the states that primarily make decisions about the preparation of recovery plans.

190

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion

6) Funding for implementation of recovery plans. Funding is crucial for implementing the many strategies and actions of recovery plans. Several studies have found a correlation between funding and favourable species status (Restani & Marzluff 2001; Miller et al. 2002; Male & Bean 2005). However, it has been recognized that the Commonwealth funding for recovery planning is inadequate (ANAO 2007). My analysis of recovery plans revealed that single species plans require between $100,000 and $200,000 for implementation. It is therefore unlikely that all recovery plans will be adequately funded. The ANAO (2007) recognised the limitation of resources and recommended establishing priority order for all recovery plans currently being prepared and then developing a strategy to expedite the completion and subsequent implementation of recovery plans.

The factors identified above are the most important that agencies and other organisations involved in recovery planning have to deal with. This shows the complexity of working on conservation where professionals need a broader perspective on the many socioeconomic issues that affect the success of threatened species programs (Crosthwaite 1995a; Male 1996; Papps 1996; Czech et al. 1998).

Improving recovery planning implementation Although there are several analyses that offer recommendations for improving the recovery process (e.g. Tear et al. 1993; Clark 1994; Miller et al. 1994; Foin et al. 1998), none have approached recovery planning as a whole system. Most studies have provided information on isolated aspects of management. Modelling of social aspects of threatened species management has been also poor. Traditional approaches to wildlife management research are still strongly focused on modelling of biological parameters and then proposing estimates for decision-making (e.g. Marcot et al. 2001; Paulsen & Hinrichsen 2002; VanderWerf et al. 2006; Pestes et al. 2008). Although numerous authors have pointed out that research on social issues is necessary to improve biodiversity conservation and management, current studies provide little guidance to deal with them. Given the limited resources available for recovery programs, research in the area of social sciences using predictive models is critical for the adequate design of strategies and efficient utilisation of resources (Mathevet & Mauchamp 2005).

Three main outcomes were obtained from the use of systems analysis and Bayesian modeling: a) identification and assessment of the major factors influencing the effective implementation of recovery planning; b) formulation of fifteen priority strategies for improving management, and assessment of their outcomes; and c) assessment of the optimal management and conservation strategies for improving recovery planning. This optimal strategy identified the group of key strategies necessary to achieve better outcomes in the management system model. The model also

191

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion allowed testing newly formulated strategies that are missing in the current government program. The modelling approach employed in this study may be incorporated into future research to obtain better knowledge on threatened species management systems.

9.3 Conclusions Research question No. 1: How does recovery planning operate in regard to legislative, jurisdictional and institutional aspects? All three levels of Australian government are involved in recovery planning implementation, but it is the states and territories that have the most active role and responsibility: eighty nine percent of recovery plans are focused on implementation in the states or territories against eleven percent on Commonwealth lands (Chapter 4). Although all states and territories have shown willingness to cooperate within the national approach, the federal system of government and the disparate state and territory legislation and conservation programs have inconsistencies that act as administrative barriers. Those inconsistencies are related to the listing categories, planning and prioritising processes, and monitoring and reporting activities on recovery planning (Chapter 4). State-based legislation greatly shapes the form in which recovery planning is performing on a national scale. The delivery of recovery planning relies on the state and territory legislative framework, administrative structures, conservation policies, and the capacity of state and territory agencies. In terms of program outputs, national recovery planning has had stronger development since the passage of the EPBCA. There had been a strong emphasis on the single-species approach of recovery planning (84.7% of the reviewed plans) (Chapter 5). Outputs of the Commonwealth Endangered Species Program (CESP) are the adoption of three hundred recovery plans, the registration of five critical habitats, the listing of seventeen threatening processes, and preparation and implementation of ten threat abatement plans. From a strictly legal and administrative point of view, the CESP has shown substantial progress. In terms of program outputs, the CESP and recovery planning shows rather poorer performance. From 1,632 nationally listed species and ecological communities, only ten species have been de-listed as a result of management and conservation actions. Nevertheless, these measures are too simplistic to evaluate the strategy. There are several individual success stories that indicate recovery planning is working towards the conservation objectives and demonstrating the worth of recovery efforts, though comprehensive evidence is not readily available. There is a lack of monitoring and evaluation of recovery planning at federal level. This affected the availability of information for this investigation, and was also found to be an important weakness of the CESP and recovery planning. There is no substantial and meaningful evidence about the worth and effectiveness of the strategy overall. At state level there

192

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion exist some efforts to follow up the implementation of recovery plans. New South Wales developed a tool to monitor implementation and collect evidence of the recovery planning process (PAS). That instrument is relatively new and it is in a phase of exploration. Those missing elements are the major weaknesses in the CESP and recovery planning.

Amendments to the EPBCA in 2006, which seemed to be made to accelerate the administrative processes of listing and recovery planning, could have negative effects on the CESP and development of recovery plans. There are, however, two main issues that will affect recovery efforts: 1) inventories and surveys that identify the abundance of listed threatened species on Commonwealth are no longer mandatory; and 2) preparation of recovery plans for all listed species is no longer a requirement. This will adversely affect threatened species management: 1) threatened species inventories and information on species status will not be monitored and up-to-date, provoking greater uncertainty due the lack of information; and 2) the rate of preparation of recovery plans will decrease and more species will remain outside of management efforts.

It is still too early to make a final judgment on the worth of recovery planning. Most recovery plans have only been in place for five to ten years. The strategy is relatively young compared to other conservation strategies such as the establishment of protected areas.

Research question No. 2: Do recovery plans comply with legislative requirements and coherent conservation planning? Compliance with legislative requirements varied greatly according to the topic. The simplest requirement Duration of the plan was the best addressed. The second-best-addressed requirement was Objectives, performance criteria and actions, which is one of the key elements of the recovery plan. The remaining topics had poor compliance, as they included more complex information: Species’ information and general requirements, Threats, and Species’ distribution and location. Improvements in compliance were made for some of the topics after the EPBCA, which may either reflect the utility of the guidelines or accumulation of better technical expertise and experience. Regarding the use of M&E, only thirty six per cent of recovery plans included a well formulated scheme. The M&E scheme cited in plans varied widely across the state and territory agencies, and it was not even standardised and consistent within agencies. Plans from Western Australia showed the most consistent and complete scheme for M&E. In the remaining states, measures established to conduct monitoring varied across plans. Nearly all recovery plans established biological and ecological parameters as criteria for assessing recovery. Measures of threat management were the second most used in plans. Setting of social measures was less used: sixty per cent of plans had

193

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion measures of internal aspects of the agency (e.g. improving agency organisation) and only five per cent had measures of aspects external to the agency (e.g. community awareness).

Overall, recovery plans were consistent in identifying scientific information gaps and formulating research actions. Six of the seven topics were well addressed in more than half of recovery plans. Population biology, Habitat, General ecology, and Threats were the topics with better consistency. No differences were detected across legislation and taxa. In relation to approach, single-species plans better addressed four of the seven topics: Population biology, Life history, Genetics, and General ecology.

Recovery plans performed relatively well in addressing the ten major threats, but the consistency varied across the type of threat. Eight of the ten major threats had an adequate response in over sixty per cent of plans. Fire related to management, Invasive weeds on habitat, and Introduced predator had the highest consistency. In contrast, Infrastructure development and Extraction had the poorest response. No clear patterns were observed across legislation, approach, and taxa. The individual response of plans to all threats mentioned in the plan was mostly well formulated (44.1%), and well formulated with minor deficiencies (34.3%). Both categories accounted for 78% of the recovery plans, which is a good result. No differences were detected across the paired comparisons between types of legislation, planning approach and taxa.

On the consistency of establishing performance criteria for measuring achievement of objectives, just over half of recovery plans had Well defined performance criteria, while slightly less than half had a Limited definition of performance criteria. In the paired comparisons, the only difference was detected in approach, with better recovery criteria in single-species plans.

Research question No. 3: What management factors have most influence on implementation of recovery plans at state level? Overall the stakeholders and experts agreed that implementation of recovery plans is the most challenging part of the recovery process, and also the most critical for achieving successful program delivery. In general, stakeholders/experts at federal level expressed the view that the six most influential issues or factors relevant to recovery plans’ implementation were: 1) coordination across Commonwealth and states and territories; 2) inconsistency of strategies and programs across jurisdictions; 3) management of species occurring on private land; 4) incorporation of science into recovery planning; 5) prioritising schemes for threatened species conservation; and 6) funding for recovery plans’ implementation.

194

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion

Analysis at state-based level showed some differences and similarities among the issues. Experts/stakeholders from Queensland considered that the five most important factors were (in order of importance): 1) poor coordination/communication among agencies; 2) incorporation of science into management; 3) inadequate funding and resource allocation; 4) lack of community engagement on recovery plans; and 5) policy.

The five most important factors in New South Wales were: 1) community values and knowledge, 2) legislation and policy, 3) scientific knowledge, 4) resource allocation, and 5) political will.

The identified types of factors and challenges are diverse, ranging from factors related to the internal administration of the program (e.g. funding and resource allocation) to factors external to the administration (e.g. community engagement).

Research question No. 4: What modifications could be made to the management system to improve implementation of recovery plans? Experts/stakeholders identified the key components of the threatened species management system considering the national management context, but also acknowledged state-level issues. In order of importance, there were four main issues identified: Legislation and policy; Resource allocation; Community engagement; and Scientific input. The top five strategies formulated to address the major issues were: Enhance government revenue; Establish better allocation mechanisms; Adopt adaptive approach; Adopt a national strategic planning; and Increase incentives for conservation.

Individual implementation of the strategies had a small impact on increasing the probability of effective implementation; however, the accumulated effect of various strategies could substantially improve the probability of effective implementation. This means that management does not require isolated interventions but a combination of several recovery strategies to improve the effectiveness of recovery. It was estimated that in the current management environment there is a probability of 37% of achieving an effective implementation of recovery planning; if the management strategies were improved the probability would increase to nearly 47% (Chapter 7). Still with all strategies in place, the probability of effective implementation is nearly 50:50. This demonstrates the inherent difficulty in recovering hundreds of threatened species.

The following strategies and requirements were identified to address each of the main issues: a) Legislation and policy. Strategies/actions: improve the national scope of strategic planning; improve inter-state consistency of conservation programs and instruments; and enhance law enforcement. Requirements/resources: Audit and amend legislation regarding listing and recovery planning and improving planning guidelines. 195

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion b) Resource allocation. Strategies/actions: Increase government revenue; develop better priority and funding allocation mechanisms; and increasing non-government revenue. Requirements/resources: Employ decision-support tools; fundraising; cooperative partnerships with public and private sectors; and increase public support. c) Community engagement. Strategies/actions: Enhanced mechanisms for providing incentives. Requirements/resources: Private-land conservation agreements and market-based instruments for fostering conservation on private lands. d) Scientific input. Strategies/actions: Improve the incorporation of an adaptive approach into recovery planning and establish targeted research and monitoring of threatened species. Requirements/resources: Seek better communication and information-sharing mechanisms to enhance scientists-managers dialogue and improve knowledge-gaps identification.

Strategies and requirements formulated to improve recovery planning were: Establish mandatory monitoring and review reports; establish a national forum on threatened species; design an appropriate insurance regime for volunteers involved in recovery activities; and establish a national management information system.

9.4 Implications of research findings for management and conservation I. Results of this study indicate that a national approach to recovery planning will need to reinforce the bilateral agreements to strengthen the institutional capacity and act regionally on state and territory jurisdictions. Better channels of coordination and communication are necessary to streamline the implementation of conservation programs across jurisdictions, specifically to work towards aligning conservation strategies and management instruments.

A monitoring and evaluation framework (M&E) is crucial for improving experience-based knowledge and adaptive management. This framework to be used by the Commonwealth and states/territory governments could be constructed via an agreed collaboration among all the agencies involved in the recovery process. Outcome-based evidence is necessary through the establishment of adequate measures of recovery and its monitoring. More consideration of indicators of the social aspects of recovery is needed. M&E could provide meaningful evidence for further research on recovery planning and management. M&E may also provide insights into the strengths and weaknesses of recovery planning and inform future legislation reforms and policy changes. This could be made only after conducting a comprehensive evaluation of recovery planning, including outputs and outcomes of the CESP. Otherwise, law and policy changes are

196

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion going to be made without considering the evidence of what has happened with the previous programs, and these changes risk repeating mistakes.

II. The analysis revealed that recovery plans are internally consistent in some areas, such as compliance with legislative requirements, prescription of research actions to address gaps of knowledge, and the response to threatening processes, although within these issues some improvements are needed. This study also identified those planning deficiencies that could be addressed by improving the recovery planning guidelines and more carefully reviewing the preparation and adoption of new recovery plans. Many of the weak points in the design of plans were addressed in Chapter 8 with recommendations. Better plan design will be linked to the alignment of strategies across jurisdictions and standardisation of information formats.

Single-species recovery plans showed better compliance and consistency in definition of clear and measurable objectives, better definition of threatening processes affecting the target species, better response to the gaps of scientific information on population biology, life history, genetics and general ecology; and better definition of performance criteria. With these elements the assessment of progress and effectiveness of plans would be easier. These results should be considered before moving away from this approach.

III. Identification of the most influential factors believed to influence recovery planning implementation is a first step towards designing better management and conservation strategies. There were more similarities than differences across the issues identified by the experts/stakeholders from Commonwealth and state scenarios. One important finding is that recovery planning was perceived to need more information on technical and socioeconomic aspects rather than ecological knowledge alone. There was a consensus among the experts/stakeholders that institutional and managerial aspects were also relevant. Knowledge in this area could inform conservation policy about the identified issues that need priority attention. For example, community values and knowledge, often perceived as less important in decision-making, was the issue perceived as most important in New South Wales. Another aspect that raised concern was the need to reinforce management of private lands. In this matter, community and conservation groups should be considered the key organisations for implementing recovery planning, and should be given more government support.

IV. Participatory research assessment permitted the construction of a conceptual model of the management system. Modelling can be used as a learning process by which a range of stakeholders/experts assess management decisions and evaluate their likely impact. The modelling

197

Chapter 9 Discussion and conclusion process also identified the management gaps and components that could be added to the existing management system to improve recovery planning. Conducting successive reviews of the model after implementing the management strategies would lead to its refinement. Modelling of scenarios may provide new directions for policy-making and formulation of new strategic planning.

9.5 Directions for further research 1) More effort is needed to understand the many facets and the intricate factors related to the success or failure of a conservation strategy. This study could be extended to other jurisdictions to examine how recovery planning is working and identify particularities. As mentioned earlier, the recovery planning scheme relies on state and territory legislation and government structures which shape particular contexts. Further research is necessary in this area to generate better understanding of the recovery planning process at national and state/territory levels. 2) Further research could address the available CESP output and outcome evidence, perhaps using the case study approach, to conduct a program evaluation with complementary information. This could add other points of reference for assessing the appropriateness and effectiveness of recovery planning. The impact of each of the planning approaches (single- and multi-species, ecological communities and regions) on biodiversity conservation still needs further examination. 3) Analysis of compliance and internal consistency could be extended to the new approaches of regional planning. Research may examine the establishment of appropriate M&E frameworks of recovery plans, focused on single- and multi-species and regional plans, for future assessments of accountability and effectiveness of the conservation strategy. 4) Further studies for developing instruments for the prioritisation of conservation action are needed. The present study provided some directions for research in this area, regarding the establishment of better criteria for assessing priority species, the identification of most severe threats, and the most urgent and effective management actions. 5) Assessment of management issues and challenges can be extended to other jurisdictions to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the barriers that affect the effective implementation of recovery plans. 6) The theoretical model can be strengthened by extending the participatory research to more experts/stakeholders. A more in-depth study could explore the identification of missing components and elimination of irrelevant ones in order to refine the model. This could lead to better modelling scenarios and predictions.

198

List of references

Abbitt, R. J. F. & J. M. Scott. 2001. Examining differences between recovered and declining endangered species. Conservation Biology 15(5):1274-1284. ABS. 2003. Year Book Australia, Environment and Australia's biodiversity, 2003 Ed., Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Government, Canberra, ACT. Adam, P. 2004. Opening a can of words: the importance of definitions in the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 59- 67. Adams, W. M. 2004. Again extinction: The story of conservation, 1 Ed., Earthscan, London, UK. AHRQ. 2002. Delphi Instrument for Hospital-based Domestic Violence Programs. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD. USA. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/domesticviol/dvtool.htm. Aitken, L. 2001. Community dimensions of natural resource management. Report on a position paper prepared for partners in the Consortium for Integrated Resource Management. The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines), Coorparoo, Qld. Allison, H. & R. J. Hobbs. 2006. Science and policy in natural resource management: Understanding system complexity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. ANAO. 2007. The Conservation and Protection of National Threatened Species and Ecological Communities, Audit Report No. 31 2006-07 Performance Audit, Australian National Audit Office, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. ANAO. 2008. Regional delivery model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, Audit Report No. 21 2007-08 Performance Audit, Australian National Audit Office, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. ANZECC. 2001. Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity, Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council. Environment Australia, Canberra. Auld, T. D. & M. Tozer. 2004. Endangered ecological communities and landscape conservation in NSW: Successes and failures in the Sydney Basin, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 94-101. Australian Government. 2000. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Act No. 91 of 1999 as amended. Canberra, ACT. Australian Government 2007. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Regulations 2007 (No. 1), Canberra, ACT. Babbie, E. 2005. The basics of social research, 3 Ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, California.

199

Backhouse, G. N. & T. W. Clark. 1995a. Case studies and policy initiatives in endangered species recovery in Australia: Introduction, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. W. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, 1 Ed., The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, pp. 3-8. Backhouse, G. N. & T. W. Clark. 1995b. Case studies and policy initiatives in endangered species recovery in Australia: recommendations, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. W. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, 1 Ed., The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, pp. 110-116. Backhouse, G. N., T. W. Clark & R. P. Reading. 1994. The Australian Eastern Barred bandicoot recovery program: evaluation and reorganization, in T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading & A. L. Clarke (Eds.), Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process, Island Press, Washington, D. C., pp. 251-271. Backhouse, G. N., T. W. Clark & R. L. Wallace. 1996. Reviewing recovery programs for endangered species: Some considerations and recommendations, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 170-179. Bader, H. R. 1989. Wolf conservation: The importance of following endangered species recovery plans. Harvard Environmental Law Review 13:517. Bader, M. 1992. The need for an ecosystem approach for endangered species protection. Public Land Law Review 13:137-147. Baillie, J. E. M., C. Hilton-Taylor & S. N. Stuart. 2004. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: A global species assessment, IUCN Publications Services Unit, Cambridge, UK, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Baker, J. 2004. Endangered populations: the concept in practice, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 82-87. Baker, L. & D. Baker-Gabb. 1996. Workshop report 2: Community involvement, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surry Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 195-198. Bana e Costa, C. A., E. C. Correa, L. Ensslin & J. C. Vansnick. 2000. Mapping critical factors for the survival of firms: A case study in the Brazilian textile industry, in G. E. Kersten, Z. Mikolajuk & A. Gar-On Yeh (Eds.), Decision support systems for sustainable development: A resource book of methods and applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, pp. 197-213. Bates, G. 2006. Environmental law in Australia, 6 Ed., LexisNexis Butterworths, Chatswood, NSW. Bean, M. J. & D. S. Wilcove. 1997. The private land problem. Conservation Biology 11(1):1-2. Beatley, T. 1994. Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered species and urban growth, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.

200

Beeton, R. J. S., K. I. Buckley, G. J. Jones, D. Morgan, R. E. Reichelt, D. Trewin & 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee. 2006. Australia State of the Environment 2006 At a Glance, Independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT. Bennett, A. F. 1995. Wildlife conservation and management on private land - facing the challenge, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. W. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, 1 Ed., The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, pp. 119-127. Berman, M. D. 2008. Endangered species, threatened fisheries: Science to the rescue! Evaluating the Congressionally designated Steller Sea Lion Research Program. Marine Policy 32:580-591. Beynon, N. 2000. New laws to protect environment and biodiversity: Challenges ahead. Issues April: 21-24. Beynon, N., M. Kennedy & A. Graham. 2005. Grumpy old greenies - lament waiting lists, wasted opportunities and wayward pork barrelling in Australia's biodiversity programs, Humane Society International, Sydney, NSW. Bisbal, G. A. 2001. Conceptual design of monitoring and evaluation plans for fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Ecosystem. Environmental Management 28(4):433-453. BLA. 2005. The Black Range: Landholders guide, 2 Ed., Barung Landcare Association Inc, Maleny, Qld. Boardman, N. K. 1997. Review of the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992, Environment Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. Boersma, P. D., P. Kareiva, W. F. Fagan, J. A. Clark & J. M. Hoekstra. 2001. How good are endangered species recovery plans? BioScience 51(8):643-649. Bosch, O. J. H., C. A. King, J. L. Herbohn, I. W. Russell & C. S. Smith. 2007. Getting the big picture in natural resource management -Systems thinking as ‘method’ for scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24:217-232. Bosworth, K., P. M. Gingiss, S. Potthoff & C. Roberts-Gray. 1999. A Bayesian model to predict the success of the implementation of health and education innovations in school-centered programs. Evaluation and Program Planning 22:1-11. Boyer, D. M. 2001. Single-species versus multiple-species recovery plans: A review of the Stock Island Tree Snail recovery plans. Endangered Species Update 18(6):223-226. Bradburn, N. M. 1983. Response effects, in P. H. Rossi, J. D. Wright, & A. B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of survey research, Academic Press, NY, pp. 289-328. Brebach, K. 2004. The recovery process - community perspectives and participation, Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, viewed November 2 2004, . Brewer, G. D. & T. W. Clark. 1994. A policy science perspective: Improving implementation, in T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading & A. L. Clarke (Eds.), Endangered species recovery: Finding the lessons, improving the process, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 391-413.

201

Briggs, S. 2007. Are Caughley's paradigms used by threatened species recovery planners?, paper presented to Fenner Conference on the Environment/20th Australasian Wildlife Management Society Annual Conference, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, ACT, 2-5 December 2007. Brigham, C. A., A. G. Power & A. Hunter. 2002. Evaluating the internal consistency of recovery plans for federally endangered species. Ecological Applications 12(3):648-654. Brooks, J. S., M. A. Franzen, C. M. Holmes, M. N. Grote & M. Borgerhoff Mulder. 2006. Testing hypothesis for the success of different conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 20(5):1528-1538. Brosnan, D. M. & M. J. Groom. 2006. The Integration of conservation science and policy: the pursuit of knowledge meets the use of knowledge, in M. J. Groom, G. K. Meffe & C. R. Carroll (Eds.), Principles of Conservation Biology, 3 Ed., Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp. 625-659. Brown, G. M. & J. F. Shogren. 1999. Economics of the Endangered Species Act. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(3):3-20. Brunckhorst, D. J. 2000. Bioregional planning, resource management beyond the new millennium, 1 Ed., Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam. Bryant, S. & B. Male. 1996. Workshop report 3: Monitoring and evaluation of recovery programs, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 198-201. Burbidge, A. A. 1996. Essentials for a good recovery plan, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 55-62. Burbidge, A. A. & R. W. G. Jenkins. 1984. Endangered vertebrates of Australia and its island territories. Report of the Working Group on Endangered Fauna of the Standing Committee of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service, Canberra, ACT. Burgman, M. A., D. Keith, S. D. Hopper, D. Widyatmoko & C. Drill. 2006. Threat syndromes and conservation of the Australian flora. Biological Conservation 134:73-82. Burgman, M. A. & D. B. Lindenmayer. 1998. Conservation biology for the Australian environment, 1 Ed., Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW. Butchart, S. H. M., H. R. Akcakaya, E. Kennedy & C. Hilton-Taylor. 2005. Biodiversity indicators based on trends in conservation status: Strengths of the IUCN red list index. Conservation Biology 20(2):579- 581. Butler, D. & D. Merton. 1992. The black robin: Saving the world's most endangered bird, Oxford University Press, Auckland, NZ. Butler, K. & G. Fekete. 2005. Measuring compliance program progress and impacts: lessons from USEPA’s national petroleum refinery compliance program. Seventh International Conference on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. April 2005. Marrakech, Morocco.

202

Caddy, J. F. & D. J. Agnew. 2004. An overview of recent global experiences with recovery plans for depleted marine resources and suggested guidelines for recovery planning. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14(1):43-112. Cain, J. 2001. Planning improvements in natural resource management: Guidelines for using Bayesian networks to support the planning and management of development programmes in the water sector and beyond, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK. Cain, J., C. Batchelor & D. Waughray. 1999. Belief networks: a framework for the participatory development of natural resource management strategies. Environment, Development and Sustainability 1:123-133. Cain, J. D., K. Jinapala, I. W. Makin, P. G. Somaratna, B. R. Ariyaratna & L. R. Perera. 2003. Participatory decision support for agricultural management: A case study from Sri Lanka. Agricultural Systems 76:457-482. Campbell, S. P., J. A. Clark, L. H. Crampton, A. D. Guerry, L. T. Hatch, P. R. Hosseini, J. J. Lawler & R. J. O'Connor. 2002. An assessment of monitoring efforts in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12(3):674-681. Carroll, R., C. Augspurger, A. Dobson, J. Franklin, G. Orians, W. Reid, R. Tracy, D. Wilcove & J. Wilson. 1996. Strengthening the use of science in achieving the goals of the Endangered Species Act: An assessment by the Ecological Society of America. Ecological Applications 6(1):1-11. Carson, R. L. 1962. The silent spring, Hamish Hamilton Ltd., London, UK. Caughley, G. & A. Gunn. 1996. Conservation biology in theory and practice, Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA. CBD. 2001. Global Biodiversity Outlook, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Chapman, A. D. 2005. Number of living species in Australia and the World, Australian Biodiversity Information Services, Report for the Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT. Chapple, S. 2001. The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth): One year later, Community Biodiversity Network, Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Australia, Sydney, NSW. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, NY. Checkland, P. & J. Scholes 1990. Soft systems methodology in action, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, NY. Chelimsky, E. & W. R. Shadish (eds). 1997. Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook, SAGE Publishing, Thousand Oaks, California. Christensen, N. L., A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R. Francis, J. R. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner & R. G. Woodmansee. 1996. The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecological Applications 6(3):665-691.

203

Clark, J. A. 1994. The Endangered Species Act: its history, provisions, and effectiveness, in J. A. Clark, R. P. Reading & A. L. Clarke (Eds.), Endangered species recovery: finding the lessons, improving the process, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 19-43. Clark, J. A. & R. M. May. 2002. Taxonomic bias in conservation research. Science 297:191-192. Clark, J. A. & E. Harvey. 2002a. Assessing multi-species recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12(3):655-662. Clark, J. A., J. M. Hoekstra, P. D. Boersma & P. Kareiva. 2002a. Improving U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery plans: Key findings and recommendations of the SCB Recovery Plan Project. Conservation Biology 16(6):1510-1519. Clark, J. A., R. P. Reading & G. Backhouse. 2002b. Prototyping for successful conservation: the Eastern Barred Bandicoot Program. Endangered Species Update 19(4):125-129. Clark, T. W. 1996. Appraising threatened species recovery efforts: practical recommendations, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 1-22. Clark, T. W. 2002. Learning as a strategy for improvement endangered species conservation. Endangered Species Update 19(4):119-124. Clark, T. W., G. N. Backhouse & R. P. Reading. 1995a. Prototyping in endangered species recovery programs: The Eastern Barred Bandicoot experience, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. W. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, 1 Ed., The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, pp. 50-62. Clark, T. W. & J. R. Cragun. 1994. Organizational and managerial guidelines for endangered species restoration programs and recovery teams, in M. L. Bowles & C. J. Whelan (Eds.), Restoration of endangered species: conceptual issues, planning and implementation, 1 Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 9-33. Clark, T. W. & J. R. Cragun. 2002. Organization and management of endangered species programs. Endangered Species Update 19(4):114-118. Clark, T. W., R. Crete & J. Cada. 1989. Designing and managing successful endangered species recovery programs. Environmental Management 13(2):159-170. Clark, T. W. & A. H. Harvey. 2002b. Implementing endangered species recovery policy: Learning as we go? Endangered Species Update 19(4):147-155. Clark, T. W., R. P. Reading & A. L. Clarke. 1994a. Endangered Species Recovery: Finding the lessons, improving the process, 1 Ed., Island Press, Washington, DC. Clark, T. W., R. P. Reading & A. L. Clarke. 1994b. Introduction, in T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading & A. L. Clarke (Eds.), Endangered species recovery: Finding the lessons, improving the process, Island Press, Washington, DC., pp. 1-17. Clark, T. W., R. P. Reading & R. L. Wallace. 2002c. Research in endangered species conservation: An introduction to multiple methods. Endangered Species Update 19(4):106-112.

204

Clark, T. W. & R. L. Wallace. 2002. Understanding the human factors in endangered species recovery: An introduction to human social process. Endangered Species Update 15(1):2-9. Clark, T. W., R. L. Wallace & S. R. Kellert. 1995b. Endangered species protection: A framework for analyzing and improving performance, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 104-109. Clarke, R. H., D. L. Oliver, R. L. Boulton, P. Cassey & M. F. Clarke. 2003. Assessing programs for monitoring threatened species - a tale of three honeyeaters (Meliphagidae). Wildlife Research 30:427-435. Clayton, A. M. H. & N. J. Radcliffe. 1996. Sustainability: A systems approach, Earthscan Publications, London, UK. Commonwealth of Australia. 1982a. National Conservation Strategy for Australia: Living resource conservation for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Seminar Canberra 30 Nov - 3 December 1981, Department of Home Affairs and Environment, Canberra, ACT. Commonwealth of Australia. 1982b. National Conservation Strategy for Australia: Living resource conservation for sustainable development. Towards a National Conservation Strategy, a discussion paper, Department of Home Affairs and Environment, Canberra, ACT. Commonwealth of Australia. 1984. National Conservation Strategy for Australia: Living resource conservation for sustainable development. Proposed by a conference held in Canberra in June 1983, Department of Home Affairs and Environment, Canberra, ACT. Commonwealth of Australia. 1992. An Australian National Strategy for the Conservation of Australian species and communities threatened with extinction, Endangered Species Advisory Committee. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra, ACT. Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Australia´s National Report to the fourth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, The Department of Environment, Canberra, ACT. Commonwealth of Australia. 2004. A sustainability strategy for the Australian continent: Environment budget statement 2004-05, Canberra, ACT. Conroy, M. J., R. J. Barker, P. W. Dillingham, D. Fletcher, A. M. Gormley & I. M. Westbrooke. 2008. Application of decision theory to conservation management: Recovery of Hector's dolphin. Wildlife Research 35:93-102. Copley, P. & S. Garnett. 1996. Workshop report 1: Recovery plan implementation, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surry Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 191-195. Cork, S., P. Sattler & J. Alexandra. 2006. Biodiversity: theme commentary prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT. Cortes, F., A. Przeworski & J. Sprague. 1974. Systems analysis for social scientists, John Wiley & Sons, NY.

205

Crosthwaite, J. 1995a. Identifying and addressing social and economic issues in recovery planning: Experience with the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, in People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 78-86. Crouse, D. T., L. A. Mehrhoff, M. J. Parkin, D. R. Elam & L. Y. Chen. 2002. Endangered species recovery and the SCB study: A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service perspective. Ecological Applications 12(3):719-723. Cullen, R., E. Moran & K. F. D. Hughey. 2005. Measuring the success and cost effectiveness of New Zealand multi-species projects to the conservation of threatened species. Ecological Economics 53:311-323. Cutter, S. L. & W. H. Renwick. 1999. Exploration, conservation, preservation: a geographic perspective on natural resource use, 3 Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY. Czech, B. & P. R. Krausman. 1999. Public opinion on endangered species conservation and policy. Society & Natural Resources 12:469-479. Czech, B. & P. R. Krausman. 2001. The Endangered Species Act: History, conservation biology, and public policy, 1 Ed., The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Czech, B., P. R. Krausman & R. Borkhataria. 1998. Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Conservation Biology 12(5):1103-1112. Dalkey, N. & O. Helmer. 1963. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science 9(3):458-467. Davidson, E. J. 2005. Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. de Vaus, D. A. 2002. Surveys in social research, 5 Ed., Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW. DEC NSW. 2005. Threatened species, populations & ecological communities of NSW, Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, . DEC NSW. 2006. Introducing the threatened species priorities action statement (PAS), Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW, Sydney, NSW. DEH. 1999. An overview of the EPBC Act, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2000. EPBC Act Administrative guidelines on significance July 2000, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2001. National objectives and targets for biodiversity conservation 2001-2005, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT.

206

DEH. 2002. Revised Recovery Plan Guidelines for nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities, under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2005a. Department of the Environment and Heritage legislation annual report 2004-05. Volume two. Operation of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2005b. Department of the Environmental and Heritage annual report 2004-05. Volume one, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2005c. Threatened species and threatened ecological communities, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed 8 April 2005, . DEH. 2006a. Department of the Environment and Heritage Volume 2 Legislation annual reports 2005-06. Operation of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2006b. Progress in accessing environmental data and information, paper prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2006c. Species information partnerships: Sharing knowledge on threatened species, paper prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEH. 2007. Threatened species and threatened ecological communities, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed Aug 2007, . Department of the Environment and Heritage. 2005. Threatened species and threatened ecological communities, Department of the Environment and Heritage, viewed 8 April 2005, . DEST. 1996. The national strategy for the conservation of Australia's biological diversity, Australia Commonwealth Department of the Environment Sport and Territories, Canberra, ACT. DEWHA. 2008a. Approved threat abatement plans, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed May 20th 2008, . DEWHA. 2008b. Listed key threatening processes, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed May 20th 2008, .

207

DEWHA. 2008c. Species and ecological communities removed from the EPBC Act threatened list, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed 5th May 2008, . DEWR. 2007a. Annual report 2006-07 Environment Protection, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. DEWR. 2007b. Register of Critical Habitat, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Commonwealth of Australia, viewed 21 January 2008, . Dickman, C. R. 1996. Incorporating science into recovery planning for threatened species, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 63-73. Dickman, C. R., S. L. Pimm & M. Cardillo. 2007. The pathology of biodiversity loss: The practice of conservation, in D. MacDonald & K. Service (Eds.), Key topics in conservation biology, Blackwell Publishing, MA, pp. 1-16. Dixon, N. 1994. Protection of endangered species - how will Australia cope? Environmental and Planning Law Journal February: 6-30. Doremus, H. & J. E. Pagel. 2001. Why listing may be forever: Perspectives on delisting under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 15(5):1258-1268. Drew, P., Raymond, G., & D. Weinberg. 2006. Talk and interaction in social research methods. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, California. Dunning, J. B., M. J. Groom & H. R. Pulliam. 2006. Species and landscape approaches to conservation, in M. J. Groom, G. K. Meffe & C. R. Carroll (Eds.), Principles of Conservation Biology, 3 Ed., Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, pp. 419-465. Easter-Pilcher, A. 1996. Implementing the Endangered Species Act: Assessing the listing of species as endangered or threatened. BioScience 46(5):355-363. Edwards, S. R. 1995. Conserving biodiversity: resources for our future, in R. Bailey (Ed.), The true state of the planet, The Free Press, New York, NY, pp. 212-265. Ehrlich, P. R. & E. O. Wilson. 1991. Biodiversity studies: Science and policy. Science 253:758-762. Eisner, T., J. Lubchenco, E. O. Wilson, D. S. Wilcove & M. J. Bean. 1995. Building a scientifically sound policy for protecting endangered species. Science 268:1231-1232. EPA. 2008. Threatened plants and animals, Queensland Government, Environmental Protection Agency Qld, . Erwin, T. L. 1997. Biodiversity at its utmost: Tropical Forest Beetles, in M. L. Reaka-Kudla, D. E. Wilson, & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), Biodiversity II, Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, pp.27-40. Everitt, A. 1996. Developing critical evaluation. Evaluation 2(2):173-188.

208

Farrier, D., R. Whelan & C. Mooney. 2007. Threatened species listing as a trigger for conservation action. Environmental Science & Policy 10:219-229. Farrier, D. & R. J. Whelan. 2004. (Why) Do we need threatened species legislation?, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 30-48. Fenton, M. 2006. Socio-economic indicators and protocols for the national NRM monitoring & evaluation framework: The social and institutional foundations of NRM, National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra, ACT. Ferraro, P. & S. K. Pattanayak. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. Public Library of Science Biology 4(4):e105. Fiedler, P. L. & M. J. Groom. 2006. Restoration of damaged ecosystems and endangered populations, in M. J. Groom, G. K. Meffe & C. R. Carroll (Eds.), Principles of Conservation Biology, 3 Ed., Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, pp. 553-590. Fisher, F. 1995. Evaluating public policy, Nelson-Hall Publishers, USA. Fisher, D. E. 2003. Australian Environmental Law, 1 Ed., LawBook Co., Pyrmont, NSW. Flather, C. H., M. S. Knowles & I. A. Kendall. 1998. Threatened and endangered species geography. BioScience 48(5):365-375. Foin, T. C., S. P. D. Riley, A. L. Pawley, D. R. Ayres, T. M. Carlsen, P. J. Hodum & P. V. Switzer. 1998. Improving recovery planning for threatened and endangered species. BioScience 48(3):177-184. Foley, D. & A. Valenzuela. 2005. Critical ethnography: The politics of collaboration, in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3 Ed., SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Fontana, A., & J. H. Frey. 2000. The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text, in Denzin, N. K. & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2 Ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 645-672. Franklin, J. F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: Species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3(2):202-205. Fredman, P. & M. Boman. 1996. Endangered species and optimal environmental policy. Journal of Environmental Management 47:381-389. Frith, H. J. 1973. Wildlife conservation, Angus & Robertson, Sydney, NSW. Gardenfors, U., C. Hilton-Taylor, G. M. Mace & J. P. Rodriguez. 2001. The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels. Conservation Biology 15(5):1206-1212. Gerber, L. R. & L. T. Hatch. 2002. Are we recovering? An evaluation of recovery criteria under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 12(3):668-673. Gerber, L. R. & C. B. Schultz. 2001. Authorship and the use of biological information in endangered species recovery plans. Conservation Biology 15(5):1308-1314.

209

Gilpin, M. E. & M. E. Soule. 1986. Minimum viable populations: Processes of species extinction, in M. E. Soule (Ed.), Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp. 19-34. Gilpin, M. E. 2000. The single species: The efficient focus for biodiversity conservation, in J. A. Baden & P. Geddes (Eds.), Saving a place: Endangered species in the 21st century, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK, pp. 87-100. Goble, D. D., S. M. George, K. Mazaika, J. M. Scott & J. Karl. 1999. Local and national protection of endangered species: an assessment. Environmental Science & Policy 2:43-59. Goble, D. D., J. M. Scott & F. W. Davis. 2006. The Endangered Species Act at thirty: Renewing the conservation promise, vol. 1, Island Press, Washington, DC. Gordon, R. E., J. K. Lacy & J. R. Streeter. 1997. Conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Environmental International 23(3):359-419. Govey, I. & J. Owen. 1996. The New Zealand experience: Legislation, priorities and recovery planning, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 37-39. Griffin. 2004. Small steps for nature: A review of progress towards the National Objectives and Targets for Biological Diversity Conservation 2001-2005, Griffin NRM Pty Ltd/Humane Society International/WWF Australia, Sydney, NSW. Griffin & URS-Australia. 2006. Biodiversity Conservation in Regional Natural Resource Management: An evaluation of the Biodiversity Outcomes of Regional Investment, Griffin NRM Pty Ltd & URS Australia Ltd, Overview Report carried out for the Department of Environment and Heritage, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manuka, ACT. Groom, M. J. 2006. Threats to Biodiversity, in M. J. Groom, G. K. Meffe & C. R. Carroll (Eds.), Principles of Conservation Biology, 3 Ed., Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, pp. 63-109. Gustafson, D. H., F. Sainfort, S. W. Johnson & M. Sateia. 1993. Measuring quality of care in psychiatric emergencies: Construction and evaluation of a Bayesian index. Health Services Research 28(2):131- 158. Hadlock, T. D. & J. A. Beckwith. 2002. Recommendations to improve recovery of endangered species in the United States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7:37-53. Hagen, A. N. & K. E. Hodges. 2006. Resolving critical habitat designation failures: Reconciling law, policy, and biology. Conservation Biology 20(2):399-407. Hall, G. E. & S. F. Loucks. 1977. A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal 14(3):263-276. Hall, I. & D. Hall. 2004. Evaluation and social research: Introducing small-scale practice, Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY. Halpern, B. S., C. R. Pyke, H. E. Fox, J. C. Haney, M. A. Schlaeper & P. Zaradic. 2006. Gaps and mismatches between global conservation priorities and spending. Conservation Biology 20(1):56-64.

210

Hatch, L., M. Uriarte, D. Fink, L. Aldrich-Wolfe, R. G. Allen, C. Webb, K. Zamudio & A. Power. 2002. Jurisdiction over endangered species’ habitat: The impacts of people and property on recovery planning. Ecological Applications 12(3):690-700. Hecht, A. & M. J. Parkin. 2001. Improving peer review of listing and recovery plans under the Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 15(5):1269-1273. Henderson, J. S. & R. W. Burn. 2004. Uptake pathways: The potential of Bayesian belief networks to assist the management, monitoring and evaluation of development-oriented research. Agricultural Systems 79:3-15. Henriksen, H. J. & H. C. Barlebo. 2008. Reflections on the use of Bayesian belief networks for adaptive management. Journal of Environmental Management 88:1025-1036. Henriksen, H. J., P. Rasmussen, G. Brandt, D. von Bulow & F. V. Jensen. 2007. Public participation modelling using Bayesian networks in management of groundwater contamination. Environmental Modelling & Software 22:1101-1113. Herman, J. L., L. L. Morris & C. T. Fitz-Gibbon. 1987. Evaluator’s handbook, 2 Ed., SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, California. Hoekstra, J. M., J. A. Clark, W. F. Fagan & P. D. Boersma. 2002a. A comprehensive review of Endangered Species Act recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12(3):630-640. Hoekstra, J. M., W. F. Fagan & J. E. Bradley. 2002b. A critical role for critical habitat in the recovery planning process? Not yet. Ecological Applications 12(3):701-707. Hoffman, M., T. M. Brooks, G. A. B. Da Fonseca, C. Gascon, A. F. A. Hawkins, R. E. James, P. Langhammer, R. A. Mittermeier, J. D. Pilgrim, A. S. L. Rodrigues & J. M. C. Silva. 2008. Conservation planning and the IUCN Red List. Endangered Species Research doi:10.3354/esr00087. Hornaday, K. & V. Bloom. 2006. Multispecies recovery planning: Benefits and challenges. Endangered Species Update 23(2):10-11. Hoser, R. T. 1991. Endangered animals of Australia, 1 Ed., Pierson & Co, Mosman, NSW. Hutchings, P. 2004. Invertebrates and threatened species legislation, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, pp. 88-93. Hutchings, P. A. 2003. Threatened species management: out of its depth for marine invertebrates, in P. Hutchings & D. Lunney (Eds.), Conserving marine environments: Out of sight, out of mind, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW. Hutchings, P., D. Lunney & C. Dickman (eds). 2004. Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW. Ison, R. L., P. T. Maiteny & S. Carr. 1997. Systems methodologies for sustainable natural resources research and development. Agricultural Systems 55(2):257-272. ITS Global. 2006. Evaluation of the Bilateral Agreements for the regional components of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia. Final Report for the Australian Government, ITS Global, Melbourne, Vic.

211

IUCN. 2003. Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels, Version 3.0, 3 Ed., International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. IUCN. 2005. About IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2005, . IUCN. 2006a. IUCN Authority File for Conservation Actions, version 1.0, The World Conservation Union, viewed May 10th. 2006, . IUCN. 2006b. IUCN Authority File for Threats, version 2.1, The World Conservation Union, viewed May 6th. 2006, . IUCN. 2007. The IUCN Red List of Threatened species, The World Conservation Union/Species Survival Commission, viewed Jan 2008, . IUCN SSC. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, Version 3.1, 3.1 Ed., International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Species Survival Commission,, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Jackson, M. C. 2000. Systems approaches to management, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, NY. Jacobson, S. K. 1991. Evaluation model for developing, implementing, and assessing conservation education programs: Examples from Belize and Costa Rica. Environmental Management 15(2):143-150. Jacobson, S. K. 1999. Communication skills for conservation professionals, Island Press, Washington, D. C. Jacobson, S. K., J. K. Morris, J. S. Sanders, E. N. Wiley, M. Brooks, R. E. Bennetts, H. F. Percival & S. Marynowski. 2005. Understanding barriers to implementation of an adaptive land management program. Conservation Biology 20(5):1516-1527. Jarman, P. J. & M. A. Brock. 1996. Collaboration of science and management in endangered species recovery, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty &Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 74-78. Jarman, P., T. Friend, & L. Dovey. 2001. Bridled Nailtail Wallaby Recovery Program-Independent review. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, internal report, Toowoomba, Qld. Jarman, P. J. & M. A. Brock. 2004. The evolving intent and coverage of legislation to protect biodiversity in New South Wales, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp.1-19. Jeffreys, I., N. Lampkin, R. Zanoli & D. Vairo. 2008. Evaluating policy outcomes using stakeholders’ feedback and expert judgment. Organic action plan evaluation toolbox, Aberystwith University, UK, . Jennings, S. F. & S. A. Moore. 2000. The rhetoric behind regionalization in Australian natural resource management: Myth, reality and moving forward. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2:177-191.

212

Jensen, F. V. & T. D. Nielsen. 2007. Bayesian networks and decision graphs, 2 Ed., Springer, Spring Street, NY. Jewell, S. D. 2000. Multi-species recovery plans. Endangered Species Bulletin 25(3):30-31. Johnson, C. 2006. Australia's mammal extinctions: A 50,000 year history, Cambridge University Press, Port Melbourne, Vic. Johnson, K. A. 1999. Recovery and discovery: Where we have been and where might go with species recovery. Australian Mammalogy 21:75-86. Kaplan, J. B. 1960. The concept of institution: A review, evaluation, and suggested research procedure. Social Forces 39(2): 176-180. Kellert, S. R. 1985. Social and perceptual factors in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 49(2):528-536. Kennedy, M., N. Beynon, A. Graham & J. Pittock. 2001. Development and implementation of conservation law in Australia. Reciel 10(3):296-308. Kennedy, M. & R. Burton. 1986. A threatened species conservation strategy for Australia: Policies for the future, Endangered Species Program of Ecofund Australia, Manly, NSW. Kerkvliet, J. & C. Langpap. 2007. Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery scores. Ecological Economics 63:499-510. Kleiman, D. G., R. P. Reading, B. J. Miller, T. W. Clark, M. Scott, J. Robinson, R. L. Wallace, R. J. Cabin & F. Felleman. 2000. Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology 14(2):156-365. Kohm, K. A. 1991. Balancing on the brink of extinction: The Endangered Species Act and lessons for the future, Island Press, Washington, DC. Lambert, J. 2004. Threatened species legislation: does it work for local communities or Local Government?, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 158-163. Lamoreux, J., H. R. Akcakaya, L. Bennun, N. J. Collar, L. Boitani, D. Brackett, A. Brautigam, T. M. Brooks, G. A. B. Da Fonseca, R. A. Mittermeier, A. B. Rylands, U. Gardenfors, C. Hilton-Taylor, G. Mace, B. A. Stein & S. Stuart. 2003. Value of the IUCN Red List. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(5):214-215. Lawler, J. J., S. P. Campbell, A. D. Guerry, M. B. Kolozsvary, R. J. O'Connor & L. C. N. Seward. 2002. The scope and treatment of threats in endangered species recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12(3):663-667. Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac, and sketches here and there, Oxford University Press, lnc., New York, NY. Lindenmayer, D. B. 2007. On borrowed time: Australia's environmental crisis and what we must do about it, Penguin Books in association with CSIRO Publishing, Camberwell, Vic. Lindenmayer, D. B. & M. Burgman. 2005. Practical conservation biology, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Vic.

213

Lundquist, C. J., J. M. Diehl, E. Harvey & L. W. Botsford. 2002. Factors affecting implementation of recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12(3):713-718. Lynam, T., F. Bousquet, C. Le Page, P. d’Aquino, O. Barreteau, F. Chinembiri & B. Mombeshora. 2002. Adapting science to adaptive managers: Spidergrams, belief models, and multi-agent systems modeling. Conservation Ecology 5(2):24. Maani, K. E. & R. Y. Cavana. 2007. Systems thinking, Systems dynamics: Managing change and complexity, Pearson Education, North Short, NZ. Mace, G. M. 2004. The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - B 359:711-719. Mace, G. M. & J. E. M. Baillie. 2007. The 2010 Biodiversity indicators: Challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology 21(6):1406-1413. Mace, G. M., J. E. M. Baillie, S. R. Beissinger & K. H. Redford. 2001. Assessment and management of species at risk, in M. E. Soule & G. H. Orians (Eds.), Conservation biology: research priorities for the next decade, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 11-29. Mace, G. M., H. P. Possingham & N. Leader-Williams. 2007. Prioritizing choices in conservation, in D. MacDonald & K. Service (Eds.), Key topics in conservation biology, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp. 17-34. Mace, G. M. & J. D. Reynolds. 2001. Exploitation as a conservation issue, in J. D. Reynolds, G. M. Mace, K. H. Redford & J. G. Robinson (Eds.), Conservation of exploited species, 1 Ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1-15. Macintosh, A. 2002. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999: An overview of the first two years, WWF Australia, Humane Society International and Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Sydney, NSW. Macintosh, A. 2004. Why the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act's referral assessment and approval process is failing to achieve its environmental objectives. Environmental & Planning Law Journal 21:288-311. Macintosh, A. & D. Wilkinson. 2005. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999: An overview of the first two years, Report no. 81, The Australia Institute, ANU, ACT. Maguire, L. A. 1986. Using decision analysis to manage endangered species populations. Journal of Environmental Management 22:345-360. Male, B. 1994. Recovery action for threatened species - an Australian perspective. Ibis 137:204-208. Male, B. 1996. Recovery of Australia threatened species - a national perspective, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 23-27. Male, T. D. & M. J. Bean. 2005. Measuring progress in US endangered species conservation. Ecology Letters 8:986-992.

214

Marcot, B. G., P. A. Hohenlohe, S. Morey, R. Holmes, R. Molina, M. C. Turley, M. H. Huff & J. A. Laurence. 2006. Characterizing species at risk II: Using Bayesian belief networks as decision support tools to determine species conservation categories under the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecology and Society 11(2):12. Marcot, B. G., R. S. Holthausen, M. G. Raphael, M. M. Rowland & M. J. Wisdom. 2001. Using Bayesian belief networks to evaluate fish and wildlife population viability under land management alternatives from an environmental impact statement. Forest Ecology & Management 153:29-42. Margoluis, R. & N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success: Designing, managing and monitoring conservation and development projects, Island Press, Washington, DC. Margoluis, R. & N. Salafsky. 2001. Is our project succeeding? A guide to threat reduction assessment for conservation, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC. Margules, C. R. & R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243-253. Marsh, H., A. Dennis, H. Hines, A. Kutt, K. McDonald, E. Weber, S. Williams & J. Winter. 2007. Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife. Conservation Biology 21(2):387-399. Master, L. L. 1991. Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation Biology 5(4):559- 563. Mathevet, R. & A. Mauchamp. 2005. Evidence-based conservation: Dealing with social issues. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(8):422-423. May, R. M. 1988. How many species are there on Earth? Science 241(4872):1441-1449. McCleery, R. A., R. R. Lopez & N. J. Silvy. 2007. Transferring research to endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2134-2141. McDonald, G. T., C. A. McAlpine, B. M. Taylor & A. R. Vagg. 2003. Criteria and methods for evaluating regional plans in the tropical savannas, stage 1 report for Project 3.2.1, Bioregional Planning in the Tropical Savannas, CSIRO, Brisbane, Qld. McIntyre, M. J. 1995. Conservation of the Brolga Grus rubicundus in Victoria: The role of private land, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. W. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, 1 Ed., The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, pp. 166-167. McIntyre, S., G. W. Barret, R. L. Kitching & H. F. Recher. 1992. Species triage: Seeing beyond wounded rhinos. Conservation Biology 6(4):604-606. McNeill, P. & S. Chapman. 2005. Research methods, 3 Ed., Routledge, NY. Meffe, G. K., C. R. Carroll & M. J. Groom. 2006. What is conservation biology?, in M. J. Groom, G. K. Meffe & C. R. Carroll (Eds.), Principles of Conservation Biology, 3 Ed., Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA, pp. 3-25. Meffe, G. K., L. A. Nielsen, R. L. Knight & D. A. Schenborn. 2002. Ecosystem management: adaptive, community-based conservation, Island Press, Washington, DC. Metrick, A. & M. L. Weitzman. 1996. Patterns of behavior in endangered species preservation. Land Economics 72(1):1-16.

215

Milkovich, G. T., A. J. Annoni & T. A. Mahoney. 1972. The use of the Delphi procedures in manpower forecasting. Management Science 19(4):381-388. Millar, J. 2001. Listening to landholders: Approaches to community nature conservation in Queensland, National Forum Taking Care for the Bush, Perth, WA. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis, World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Miller, B., R. Reading, C. Conway, J. A. Jackson, M. Hutchins, N. Snyder, S. Forrest, J. Frazier & S. Derrickson. 1994. A model for improving endangered species recovery programs. Environmental Management 18(5):637-645. Miller, G. 1996. Ecosystem management: Improving the Endangered Species Act. Ecological Applications 6(3):715-717. Miller, J. K., J. M. Scott, C. R. Miller & L. P. Waits. 2002. The Endangered Species Act: Dollars and sense? BioScience 52(2):163-168. Miller, K. K. & D. N. Jones. 2005. Wildlife management in Australia: perceptions of objectives and priorities. Wildlife Research 32:265-272. Miller, K. K. & T. K. McGee. 2001. Toward incorporating human dimensions information into wildlife management decision-making. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 6:205-221. Moore, S. A. & S. Wooller. 2004. Review of landscape, multi- and single species recovery planning for threatened species, WWF Australia, Sydney, NSW. Morris, J. K., S. K. Jacobson & R. O. Flamm. 2007. Lessons from an evaluation of a boater outreach program for manatee protection. Environmental Management 40:596-602. Moulton, M. P. & J. Sanderson. 1999. Wildlife issues in a changing world, Second edition Ed., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Munro, J. K. & S. A. Moore. 2005. Using landholder perspectives to evaluate and improve recovery planning for Toolibin Lake in the West Australian wheatbelt. Ecological Management and Restoration 6(2):111-117. Murphy, M. J. & S. Nally. 2004. Case studies in implementing the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 for invertebrate conservation, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: Is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 107-124. Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. B. da Fonseca & J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853-858. Nadkarni, S. & P. P. Shenoy. 2004. A causal mapping approach to constructing Bayesian networks. Decision Support Systems 38:259-281. Nagel, S. S. 2002. Handbook of public policy evaluation, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. NCCNSW/EDO. 2006. The status of biodiversity conservation in New South Wales, Nature Conservation Council of NSW/Environmental Defender's Office of NSW, Sydney, NSW.

216

Neuman, W. L. 2006. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, 6 Ed., Pearson Education, Boston, MA. New, T. R. 2006. Conservation biology in Australia: An introduction, 2 Ed., Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic. Newton, A. C., G. B. Stewart, A. Diaz, D. Golicher & A. S. Pullin. 2007. Bayesian Belief Networks as a tool for evidence-based conservation management. Journal for Nature Conservation 15:144-160. Norsys. 2007. Netica, Norsys Software Corporation, viewed Jan 2007, . NRC. 1995. Science and the Endangered Species Act, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. NRM Ministerial Council. 2002. Natural resource management monitoring and evaluation framework, Commonwealth Government, Canberra, ACT. NSW DECC. 2007. Introducing the NSW Threatened species priorities action statement (PAS), Department of the Environment and Climate Change, Sydney, NSW. NSW Government. 1995. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 No. 101, NSW. NSW NPWS. 2003. Saving our threatened native animals and plants, recovery and threat abatement in action. 2003 update. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW. Nyberg, J. B., B. G. Marcot & R. Sulyma. 2006. Using Bayesian belief networks in adaptive management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 36(12):3104-3116. O'Connell, M. 1992. Response to: 'Six biological reasons why the endangered species Act doesn't work and what to do about it'. Conservation Biology 6(1):140-143. OECD-WPEP. 2000. Environmental performance reviews (1st Cycle): conclusions and recommendations, OECD Working Party on Environmental Performance, Australia. O'Faircheallaigh, C. 1997, Evaluating government policies: Uranium policy and aboriginal people in Australia's Northern territory, Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld. O'Faircheallaigh, C. & B. Ryan. 1992. Program evaluation and performance monitoring, an Australian perspective, 1 Ed., The MacMillan Company of Australia PTY LTD, Melbourne, Vic. Olsen, P. 1998. Australia's pest animals: New solutions to old problems, Bureau of Resource Sciences and Kangaroo Press, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Kingston, Canberra, ACT. Orians, G. H. 1993. Endangered at what level? Ecological Applications 3(2):206-208. Papps, D. 1996. Commonwealth and State Government frameworks for recovery planning for threatened species and communities, in S. Stephens & S. Maxwell (Eds.), Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 28-36. Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2 Ed., SAGE Publishing, Newbury Park, California. Paulsen, C. M. & R. A. Hinrichsen. 2002. Experimental management for Snake River spring-summer Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): Trade-offs between conservation and learning for a threatened species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59(4):717-725.

217

PCE. 2003. Illuminated or blinded by science?: A discussion paper on the role of science in environmental policy and decision-making, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington, NZ. Pestes, L. R., R. M. Peterman, M. J. Bradford & C. C. Wood. 2008. Bayesian decision analysis for evaluating management options to promote recovery of a depleted salmon population. Conservation Biology 22(2):351-361. Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming & S. R. Carpenter. 2003. Scenario planning: A tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17(2):358-366. Pimm, S. L., G. J. Russell, J. L. Gittleman & T. M. Brooks. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269(5222):347-350. Pollino, C. A., O. Woodberry, A. Nicholson, K. Korb & B. T. Hart. 2007. Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software 22:1140-1152. Pombo, R. W. 2005. The ESA at 30: Time for Congress to update and strengthen the law, US House of representatives Resources Committee. http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/ issues/more/esa/whitepaper.htm Possingham, H. P., S. J. Andelman, M. A. Burgman, R. A. Medellin, L. L. Master & D. A. Keith. 2002. Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17(11):503-507. Pouyat, R. V. 1999. Science and environmental policy- making them compatible. BioScience 49(4):281-286. Pulliam, H. R. & B. Babbitt. 1997. Science and the protection of endangered species. Science 275(5299):499-500. Pullin, A. S. & T. M. Knight. 2003. Support for decision making in conservation practice: An evidence- based approach. Journal for Nature Conservation 11:83-90. Queensland Government. 2006. Guideline for the preparation of a recovery plan, Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, City East, Qld. The State of Queensland/EPA. 2008. State of the Environment Queensland 2007, Biodiversity. The Environmental Protection Agency, Qld. Rachlinski, J. J. 1997. Noah by the numbers: An empirical evaluation of the Endangered Species Act. Cornell Law Review 82:356-383. Raven, L. 1995. Liaising with landholders, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. W. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, 1 Ed., The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, pp. 209-210. Reading, R. P. & B. Miller. 2000. Endangered animals: A reference guide to conflicting issues, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. Recher, H. F. & L. Lim. 1990. A review of current ideas of the extinction, conservation and management of Australia's vertebrate fauna. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16:287-301. Restani, M. & J. M. Marzluff. 2001. Avian conservation under the Endangered Species Act: Expenditures versus recovery priorities. Conservation Biology 15(5):1292-1299.

218

Restani, M. & J. M. Marzluff. 2002. Funding extinction? Biological needs and political realities in the allocation of resources to endangered species recovery. BioScience 52(2):169-177. Robbins, S. P. & T. A. Judge. 2007. Organizational behavior, 12 Ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Robert, L., M. D. Cohen, and G. S. Jennings. 2006. A new method of evaluating the quality of radiology reports. Academic Radiology 13(2):241-248. Rodrigues, A. S. L., J. D. Pilgrim, J. F. Lamoreux, M. Hoffman & T. M. Brooks. 2006. The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(2):71-76. Roemer, G. W. & C. J. Donland. 2004. Biology, policy and law in endangered species conservation: I The case history of the Island Fox on the Northern Channel Islands. Endangered Species Update 21(1):23-31. Rohlf, D. 1991. Six biological reasons why the Endangered Species Act doesn’t work- and what to do about it. Conservation Biology 5(3):273-282. Rossi, P. H., H. E. Freeman & M. W. Lipsey. 1999. Evaluation: A systematic approach, 6 Ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Ruckelshaus, M. & D. Darm. 2006. Science and implementation, in J. M. Scott, D. D. Goble & F. W. Davis (Eds.), The Endangered Species Act at thirty: Conserving biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes, Vol. 2, Island Press, Washington, DC, vol. 2, pp. 105-126. Salafsky, N. & R. Margoluis. 1999. Threat reduction assessment: A practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology 13(4):830-841. Salafsky, N. & R. Margoluis. 2003. What conservation can learn from other fields about monitoring and evaluation? BioScience 53(2):120-121. Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K. H. Redford & J. G. Robinson. 2002. Improving the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology 16(6):1469-1479. Salzer, D. & N. Salafsky. 2006. Allocating resources between taking action, assessing status, and measuring effectiveness of conservation actions. Natural Areas Journal 26(3):310-316. Sattler, P. & C. Creighton. 2002. Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment 2002, National Land and Water Resources Audit on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia, Turner, ACT. Saunders, D., A. Beattie, S. Eliott, M. Fox, B. Hill, B. Pressey, D. Veal, J. Venning, M. Maliel & C. Zammit. 1996. Australia: State of the Environment 1996. Chapter 4 Biodiversity, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT. Saunders, D., C. Margules & B. Hill. 1998. Environmental indicators for national state of the environment reporting: Biodiversity - Australia State of the Environment, Environment Australia, part of the Department of the Environment, Canberra, ACT. Schemske, D. W., B. C. Husband, M. H. Ruckelshaus, C. Goodwillie, I. M. Parker & J. G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75(3):584-606. Sciama, Y. 2004. Endangered species: The clock is ticking, Chambers Harrap Publishers, France.

219

Scott, J. M., D. D. Goble, L. K. Svancara & A. Pidgorna. 2006. By the numbers, in D. D. Goble, J. M. Scott & F. W. Davis (Eds.), The Endangered Species Act at Thirty: Renewing the conservation premise, Vol. 1, Island Press, Washington, DC. Scott, J. M., D. D. Goble, J. A. Wiens, D. S. Wilcove, M. Bean & T. Male. 2005. Recovery of imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act: the need for a new approach. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(7):383-389. Scriven, M. 1997. Truth and objectivity in evaluation, in E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook, SAGE Publishing, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 477-500. Scudder, G. G. E. 1999. Endangered species protection in Canada. Conservation Biology 13(5):963-965. Shea, K., H. P. Possingham, W. W. Murdoch & R. Roush. 2002. Active adaptive management in insect pest and weed control: Intervention with plan for learning. Ecological Applications 12(3):927-936. Sheil, D. 2001. Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: Realities, priorities, and distractions. Conservation Biology 15(4):1179-1182. Shields, J. M. 2004. Threatened species legislation and threatened species recovery: does the former lead to the latter?, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 135-144. Sidle, J. G. 1998. Arbitrary and capricious species conservation. Conservation Biology 12(1):248-249. Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: Is single-species management passe in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83(3):247-257. Sinclair, A. R. E. 2000. Is conservation achieving its ends?, in G. C. van Kooten, E. H. Bulte & A. R. E. Sinclair (Eds.), Conserving Nature’s diversity: Insights from biology, ethics and economics, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Hampshire, England, pp. 30-44. Smales, I., P. Menkhorst & G. Horroks. 1995. The Helmet Honeyeater recovery programme: A view of its organization and operation, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 35-44. Smallwood, K. S., J. Beyea & M. L. Morrison. 1999. Using the best scientific data for endangered species conservation. Environmental Management 24(4):421-435. Smith, C. S., L. Felderhof & O. J. H. Bosch. 2007. Adaptive management: Making it happen through participatory systems analysis. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24:567-587. Smyth, D. S. & P. B. Checkland. 1976. Using a systems approach: The structure of Root Definitions. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 5(1):75-83. Soule, M. E., J. A. Estes, B. Miller & D. L. Honnold. 2005. Strongly interacting species: Conservation policy, management, and ethics. BioScience 55(2):168-176. Stem, C., R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky & M. Brown. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: A review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology 19(2):295-309.

220

Stephens, S. & S. Maxwell (eds). 1996. Back from the brink: Refining the threatened species recovery process, Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited in association with Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Chipping Norton, NSW. Stephens, S. 2001. Vision and viability: How achievable is landscape conservation in Australia? Ecological Management and Restoration 2(3):189-195. Stinchcombe, J., L. C. Moyle, B. R. Hudgens, P. L. Bloch, S. Chinnadurai & W. F. Morris. 2002. The influence of the academic conservation biology literature on endangered species recovery planning. Conservation Ecology 6(2):15. Stoskopf, M. K., K. Beck, B. B. Fazio, T. K. Fuller, E. M. Gese, B. T. Kelly, F. F. Knowlton, D. L. Murray, W. Waddell & L. Waits. 2005. From the field: Implementing recovery of the red wolf - integrating research scientists and managers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(3):1145-1152. Susskind, L. E., R. K. Jain & A. O. Martyniuk. 2001. Better environmental policy studies, how to design and conduct more effective analyses, Island Press, Washington, DC. Sutherland, W. J., A. S. Pullin, P. M. Dolman & T. M. Knight. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(6):305-308. Swanson, T. M. 1994. The international regulation of extinction, The MacMillan Press LTD, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK. Talbot, B., S. Molloy, R. Chapman & M. Riches. 2004. The rivers to the sea: Experiences with two endangered aquatic fish species, in P. Hutchings, D. Lunney & C. Dickman (Eds.), Threatened species legislation: Is it just an Act?, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, NSW, Australia, pp. 125-134. Taylor, M. F. J., K. F. Suckling & J. J. Rachlinski. 2005. The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A quantitative analysis. BioScience 55(4):360-367. Tear, T. H., P. Kareiva, P. L. Angermeier, P. Comer, B. Czech, R. Kautz, L. Landon, D. Mehlman, K. Murphy, M. Ruckelshaus, J. M. Scott & G. Wilhere. 2005. How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55(10):835-849. Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward & B. Griffith. 1993. Status and prospectus for success of the Endangered Species Act: A look at recovery plans. Science 262:976-977. Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward & B. Griffith. 1995. Recovery plans and the Endangered Species Act: Are criticisms supported by data? Conservation Biology 9(1):182-195. The Royal Society. 2003. Measuring biodiversity for conservation. Policy document 11/03, The Royal Society, London, UK. Thibodeau, F. R. 1983. Endangered species: Deciding which species to save. Environmental Management 7(2):101-107. Thomas, C. W. 2003. Bureaucratic landscapes: Interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity, Politics, science and the environment, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Tisdell, C., C. Wilson & H. Swarna Nantha. 2006. Public choice of species for the ’Ark’: Phylogenetic similarity and preferred wildlife species for survival. Journal for Nature Conservation 14:97-105.

221

Total Environment Centre. 1983. Our wildlife in peril, The Endangered Species Committee of the Total Environment Centre Ed., A. H. & A. W. Reed PTY LTD, Frenchs Forest, NSW. Townsend, C. R. 2008. Ecological Applications: towards a sustainable world, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. Trauger, D. L. 1999. Can we manage for biological diversity in the absence of scientific certainty?, in R. Baydack, H. Campa III & J. B. Haufler (Eds.), Practical approaches to the conservation of biological diversity, Island Press, Washington, DC., pp. 195-202. Tremblay, J. P., A. Hester, J. Mcleod & J. Huot. 2004. Choice and development of decision support tools for the sustainable management of deer-forest systems. Forest Ecology & Management 191:1-16. TSSC. 2002. Threatened Species Scientific Committee: Procedural manual, Environment Australia, Canberra. TSSC. 2005. Threatened Species Scientific Committee Annual Report 1 July 2004 - June 2005, Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT. Turban, E., J. E. Aronson & T. P. Liang. 2005. Decision support systems and intelligent systems, 7 Ed., Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. U.S. FWS. 2007. Threatened and endangered species system, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, viewed June 2007, . U.S. GAO. 2006a. Endangered species: Many factors affect the length of time to recover select species, GAO-06-730, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC. U.S. GAO. 2006b. Endangered species: Time and costs required to recover species are largely unknown, GAO-06-463R, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC. UCS. 2004. Scientific integrity in policy making: An investigation into the Bush Administration's misuse of science, Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA. UNEP. 2007. Global Environment Outlook (GEO 4): Environment for development (Chapter 5 Biodiversity), United Nations Environment Programme, Progress Press, Valletta, Malta. Uusitalo, L. 2007. Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecological Modelling 203:312-318. van Kooten, G. C. 1998. Economics of conservation biology: a critical review. Environmental Science & Policy 1:13-25. VanderWerf, E. A., J. J. Groombridge, J. S. Fretz & K. J. Swinnerton. 2006. Decision analysis to guide recovery of the po’ouli, a critically endangered Hawaiian honeycreeper. Biological Conservation 129:383-392. Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco & J. Melillo. 1997. Human’s domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499. Wade, P. R. 2000. Bayesian methods in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 14(5):1308-1316. Wallace, R. L. 2003. Social influences on conservation: Lessons from U.S. recovery programs for marine mammals. Conservation Biology 17(1):104-115.

222

Wallace, R. L., T. W. Clark & R. P. Reading. 2002. Interdisciplinary endangered species conservation: A new approach for a new century. Endangered Species Update 19(4):70-72. Wallington, T. J., R. J. Hobbs & S. A. Moore. 2005. Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: A review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society 10(1):15. Walters, C. J. 1998. Improving links between ecosystem scientist and managers, in M. L. Pace & P. M. Groffman (Eds.), Successes, limitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science, Springer-Verlag, NY, pp. 272-286. Webster, A. G., R. K. Humphries & P. Robertson. 1995. The striped legless lizard Delma impar: Case study of a threatened species recovery programme, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 29-34. Welsh, A. B. 2004. Factors influencing the effectiveness of local versus national protection of migratory species: a case study of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes, North America. Environmental Science & Policy 7:315-328. Westrum, R. 1994. An organizational perspective: Designing recovery teams from the inside out, in T. W. Clark, R. P. Reading & A. L. Clarke (Eds.), Endangered species recovery: Finding the lessons, improving the process, Island Press, Washington, DC., pp. 327-349. Whitten, J. L., L. D. Bentley & K. C. Dittman. 2001. System analysis and design methods, 5 Ed., Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. Wilcove, D. S. & L. L. Master. 2005. How many endangered species are there in the United States? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(8):414-420. Wiley, D. N., J. C. Moller, R. M. Pace III & C. Carlson. 2008. Effectiveness of voluntary conservation agreements: Case study of endangered whales and commercial whale watching. Conservation Biology 22(2):450-457. Wilkinson, S. 2004. Focus group research, in D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, SAGE Publications, London, UK., pp. 177-199. Williams, B. K., J. D. Nichols & M. J. Conroy. 2002. Analysis and management of animal populations: Modeling, estimation, and decision making, Academic Press, San Diego, California. Williams, J., C. Read, A. Norton, S. Dovers, M. Burgman, W. Proctor & H. Anderson. 2001. Biodiversity, Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report), CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, ACT. Wilson, B. A. & T. W. Clark. 1995. The Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988: A five-year review of its implementation, in People and nature conservation: Perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 78-86. Wilson, E. O. 1989. Threats to biodiversity. Scientific American 261(108):112-116. Wilson, E. O. 2001a. The diversity of life, 2 Ed., Penguin Books, London, UK.

223

Wilson, P. I. 2001b. Deregulating endangered species protection. Society & Natural Resources 14:161-171. Woinarski, J. C. Z. & A. Fisher. 1999. The Australian endangered species protection Act 1992. Conservation Biology 13(5):959-962. Yaffee, S. L. 1996. Ecosystem management in practice: The importance of human institutions. Ecological Applications 6(3):724-727. Yaffee, S. L. 1997. Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conservation Biology 11(2):328-337. Yaffee, S. L. 2006. Collaborative decision making, in D. D. Goble, J. M. Scott & F. W. Davis (Eds.), The Endangered Species Act at thirty, Vol. 1, Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 208-220. Yen, A. L. & T. R. New. 1995. Some problems affecting implementation of recovery programmes for threatened Australian non-marine invertebrate species, in A. Bennett, G. Backhouse & T. Clark (Eds.), People and nature conservation: perspectives on private land use and endangered species recovery, The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and Surrey Beatty & Sons PTY Limited, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 9-14. Yoccoz, N. G., J. D. Nichols & T. Boulinier. 2001. Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16(8):446-453. Zammit, C., G. Cockfield & S. Funnell. 2000. An outcomes-based framework for evaluating natural resources management policies and programs, Project no: 6.250/USQ3, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld.

224

Appendices

Appendix I: Questionnaire

1. What programs does your organisation operate in relation to threatened species? 2. What are the objectives of such programs? 3. How are those programs being implemented and what are the outcomes? 4. What factors are influencing results of your organisation’s program implementation? 5. Are the strategic programs consistent and appropriate in regard to international conservation treaties? What are those conservation treaties? 6. How are your organisation’s strategic programs being implemented across federal and state jurisdictions? 7. Are your projects collaborative with other governmental and non-governmental agencies? What are those agencies? 8. How is the collaboration with those agencies coordinated? 9. Is there consistency between threatened species strategies at federal and state governments? 10. How do factors such as land tenure, critical habitat and species conservation status influence program implementation? 11. In your opinion, are single-species or multiple-species recovery plans more effective? Why? 12. Do the threatened species programs in your organisation include monitoring and evaluation? 13. What is the evaluation framework used? 14. What are the most significant findings from evaluation on threatened species management within your organisation? 15. What are the strengths and weaknesses on threatened species management within your organisation? 16. What case study within your organisation do you recommend to evaluate threatened species management in depth? Are there other organisations involved? 17. Does your organisation collaborate with a Threatened Species Scientific Committee? How?

225

Appendix II: List of Commonwealth, state and territory recovery plans adopted under the EPBCA by January 2006

Recovery plans were downloaded from: http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/index.html

ID Recovery plan title 1 Abba bell (Darwinia sp Williamson) Interim recovery plan 2003-2008 2 National recovery plan for the Abbott's Booby Papasula booby 3 Recovery plan for Acacia porcata 1999-2001 4 The recovery plan for the Albany Cone Bush (Isopogon uncinatus) 2001-2003 5 Recovery Plan for Albatrosses and Giant-petrels 6 Recovery plan for the threatened alpine flora -Anemone buttercup, Feldmark grass, Raleigh sedge and Shining cudweed 7 Recovery plan for the Angle-stemmed Myrtle (Austromyrtus gonoclada) 8 Aquatic root mat communities number 1-4 of caves of the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Ridge 9 Interim recovery plan Aquatic root mat community of caves of the Swan Coastal Plain 2000-2003 10 The recovery plan for the Araluen zieria (Zieria adenophora) 11 Recovery Plan for stream-dwelling rainforest frogs of the wet tropics biogeographic region of North-east Qld 2000-2004 12 Assemblages of organic mound (Tumulus) springs of the Swan Coastal Plain, Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 13 Recovery plan for twelve threatened spider-orchid Caladenia R. Br. taxa of Victoria and South Australia 2000-04 14 Recovery plan for the Bald-tip Beard orchid (Calochilus richiae Nicholls) 15 Blue, Fin and Sei whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010 16 Bertya sp. Cobar-Coolabah (Cunningham and Milthorpe s.n., 2/8/73) Recovery Plan 17 Boscabel conostylis (Conostylis setigera Subsp. Dasys) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 18 Burrowing Crayfish (Engaeus) Recovery Plan 2001-2005 19 Multi-species Recovery Plan for the Carpentarian Antechinus, Butler's Dunnart and Northern Hopping-mouse 2004-08 20 Revised recovery plan for the Carpentarian Rock-rat Zyzomys palatalis 21 Recovery Plan for stream frogs of South-East Queensland 2001-2005 22 National Recovery Plan for the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl (Ninox natalis) 23 Interim Recovery Plan for the Cinnamon Sun Orchid (Thelymitra Manginii) 1999-2002 24 Recovery plan for the Pedder, Swan, Clarence, Swamp and Saddled galaxias 25 Corymbia calophylla - Kingia australis woodland on heavy soil (Swan coastal plain community type 3a - Gibson et al., 1994) Interim recovery plan 2000-2003 26 Corymbia calophylla - Xanthorrhoea preissii woodlands and shrub lands (Swan coastal plain community type 3c - Gibson et al. 1994) Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 27 Coxen's fig-parrot Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni recovery plan 2001−2005 28 Recovery Plan for the twenty-five threatened orchid taxa of Victoria, SA and NSW 2003-2007 29 Dandaragan Mallee (Eucalyptus dolorosa) Interim Recovery plan 2004-2009 30 Eastern Barred Bandicoot Perameles gunnii (mainland subspecies) Recovery plan 31 Eastern Shrub lands and Woodlands (Swan coastal plain community 20c) Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 32 Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub Endangered Ecological Community Recovery Plan 33 Eneabba Malleee (Eucalyptus impensa) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 34 Recovery Plan for Tasmanian Forest Epacrids 1999-2004 35 Recovery Plan for the Stream-dwelling Rainforest Frogs of the Eungella Region of Mid-eastern Qld 2000-2004 36 Recovery Plan for Threatened Tasmanian Lowland Euphrasia Species 1997-2001 37 Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 38 Gilbert’s Potoroo (Potorous gilbertii) Recovery Plan 39 Recovery Plan for the Golden Bandicoot Isoodon auratus and Golden-backed Tree-rat Mesembriomys macrurus 2004-2009 40 Recovery plan for the golden-shouldered parrot Psephotus chrysopterygius 2003-2007 41 Grassland Earless Dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla National Recovery Plan 2000 -2004 42 White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan 43 Gypsum Goodenia (Goodenia integerrima) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 44 Helmeted Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1999-2003 45 Ironstone Grevillea (Grevillea elongata) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 46 Recovery plan for the Julia Creek dunnart (Sminthopsis douglasi) 2000 - 2004 47 Large-fruited Tammin wattle (Acacia ataxiphylla subsp. magna) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 48 Recovery Plan for Cave-dwelling Bats, Rhinolophus philippinensis, Hipposideros semoni and Taphozous troughtoni 2001-2005 49 Leadbeater's Possum (Gymnobelideus leadbeateri) Recovery Plan 50 Recovery Plan for the Lord Howe Woodhen (Gallirallus sylvestris) 51 Lowly Greenhood (Pterostylis despectans) 'Mt Bryan' Recovery Plan

226

52 The Mala (Lagorchestes hirsutus) Recovery Plan 53 McCutcheon's Grevillea (Grevillea maccutcheonii) Interim Recorvery Plan 2003-2008 54 Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail Thersites mitchellae (Cox, 1864) Recovery Plan 55 Montane Heath and Thicket of the South West Botanical Province Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 56 Narrow Curved-leaf Grevillea (Grevillea curviloba subsp. incurva) Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 57 Recovery Plan for the Natural Temperate Grassland of the Southern Tablelands (NSW and ACT): An EEComm. 58 Recovery Plan for the Nightcap Oak (Eidothea hardeniana) 59 Recovery Plan for the Norfolk Island Green Parrot (Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae cookii) 60 National Recovery Plan for the Norfolk Island Scarlet Robin (Petroica multicolor multicolor) and Norfolk Island Golden Whistler (Pachycephala pectoralis xanthoprocta) 61 Recovery plan for the northern hairy-nosed Wombat (Lasiorhinus krefftii) 2004-2008 62 Orange-bellied and White-bellied Frogs Recovery Plan 1999-2001 63 National Multi-species Recovery Plan for the Partridge Pigeon; Crested Shrike-tit, Masked Owl and Masked Owl 64 Yellow-spotted Bell Frog (Litoria castanea) and Peppered Tree Frog (Litoria piperata) Recovery Plan 65 Conservation Research Statement and Species Recovery Plan for Persoonia nutans 66 Proserpine Rock-wallaby (Petrogale persephone) Recovery Plan 2000-2004 67 Pungent Jacksonia (Jacksonia pungens ms) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 68 Rough Emu Bush (Eremophila scaberula) Recovery Plan 1999-2002 69 Scott River Boronia (Boronia exilis) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 70 Recovery Plan for 10 species of Seabirds 71 Shrubland and woodlands on Muchea limestone Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 72 Shrubland associations on Southern Swan coastal plain ironstone (Busselton) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-02 73 Shrubland and Woodlands on Perth to Gingin Irostone Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 74 Recovery Plan for Slater's Skink, Egernia slateri, 2005-2010 75 Sub-Antartic Fur Seal and Southern Elephant Seal Recovery Plan 76 Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010 77 Recovery Plan for Spalding Blown Grass (Agrostis limitanea) 78 Recovery Plan for four species of handfish 79 Spyridium obcordatum (Hook f.) W. M. Recovery Plan 80 Recovery Plan for the Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar) 1999-2003 81 Recovery Plan for the Tallong Midge Orchid (Genoplesium plumosum) 82 Thick-billed Grasswren (eastern subspecies) Amytornis textilis modestus (North, 1902) Recovery Plan 83 Recovery Plan for Tuggeranong Lignum (Muehlenbeckia tuggeranong) 84 Recovery Plan for the Wedge-tailed Eagle 1998-2003 85 Western Prickly Honeysuckle (Lambertia echinata subsp. occidentalis) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 86 Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan 2005-2010 87 White-flowered Philotheca (Philotheca basistyla) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 88 Wongan Gully wattle (Acacia pharangites) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 89 Recovery Plan for Zieria formosa, Zieria buxijugum and Zieria parrisiae 90 The Recovery Plan for Zieria prostrata 91 Basalt Greenhood (Pterostylis basaltica) Recovery Plan 2000-2004 92 Blue Babe-in-the-cradle Orchid (Epiblema grandiflorum var. cyaneum ms.) Recovery Plan 2000-2003 93 Caladenia arenaria Fitzg. Recovery Plan 94 National Recovery Plan for the Christmas Island Pipistrelle Pipistrellus murrayi 95 Recovery Plan for the Southern Corroboree Frog (Pseudophyryne corroboree) 96 Approved NSW Recovery Plan Davidson's Plum (Davidsonia jerseyana) 97 Eastern (freshwater) Cod (Maccullochella ikei) Recovery Plan 98 Frankston Spider Orchid (Caladenia robinsonii G. W. Carr) Recovery Plan 1999-2003 99 Recovery Plan for Ginninderra Peppercress (Lepidium ginninderrense) 100 Granite Featherflower (Verticordia staminosa Subsp. Cylindracea var. cylindracea) 101 Grevillea obtusiflora subsp. obtusiflora and subsp. fecunda Recovery Plan 102 Hinged Dragon Orchid (Caladenia drakeoides) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 103 Pterostylis gibbosa (R. Br.) Illawarra Greenhood Orchid Recovery Plan 104 Long-flowered Nancy (Wurmbea tubulosa) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 105 National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl 106 Recovery Plan for the Elaeocarpus sp. Rocky Creek (syn E. sp. 2 Minyon) 107 Recovery Plan for the endangered native Jute species, Corchorus cunninghamii F. Muell. in Queensland 2001-06 108 One-headed Smokebush (Conospermum densiflorum subsp. Unicephalatum) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 109 The Interim Recovery Plan for Phalanx Grevillea (Grevillea dryandroides subsp. dryandroides) 110 Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Bluetongue lizard (Tiliqua adelaidensis) 111 Rose Mallee (Eucalyptus rhodantha) Recovery Plan 1999-2002 112 Scaly-leaved featherflower (Verticordia spicata subsp. Squamosa) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 113 Southern Shepherds Purse (Ballantinia antipoda) Reovery Plan 114 Spotted Tree Frog 1998-2002 Recovery Plan 115 Swamp Starflower (Calytrix breviseta subsp. Breviseta) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009

227

116 Three springs Daviesia (Daviesia bursarioides) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 117 Underground Orchid (Rhizanthella gardneri) Interim recovery plan 2003-2008 118 Recovery Plan for the Whipstick Westringia (Westringia crassifolia) 1999-2001 119 The Interim Recovery Plan for the Wongan Cactus (Daviesa euphorbioides) 2000-2003 120 Recovery Plan for Zieria lasiocaulis J. A. Armstrong 121 The Recovery Plan for the Bathurst Copper Butterfly (Paralucia spinifera) 2001-2006 122 Blunt Wattle (Acacia aprica) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 123 National Recovery Plan for the Christmas Island Frigatebird (Fregata andrewsi) 124 Corangamite Water-skink (Eulamprus tympanum marnieae) Recovery Plan 1998-2003 125 Dibbler (Parantechinus apicalis) Recovery Plan 2003-2013 126 Elegant Spider Orchid (Caladenia elegans) Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 127 The Interim Recovery Plan Gillham's Bell (Darwinia oxylepis) 2001-2003 128 Recovery Plan for the South Australian Subespecies of the Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) 2005-2010 129 Green Hill Thomasia (Thomasia sp. Green Hill) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 130 Hakea pulvinifera Recovery Plan 131 Humpback whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010 132 Recovery Plan for the Isis tamarind Alectryon ramiflorus 2003-2007 133 Long-footed Potoroo (Potorous longipes) Recovery Plan 134 The Mary River Cod Recovery Plan 135 Mountain Villarsia (Villarsia Calthifolia) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 136 Allocasuarina portuensis Recovery Plan 137 Orange-bellied Parrot Recovery Plan 1998-2002 138 Pink-lipped Spider Orchid (Caladenia behrii) Recovery Plan 139 Ripple-leaf Muttonwood (Rapanea species A Richmond River) 140 Salt Myoporum (Myoporum turbinatum) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 141 Small-flowered Snottygobble (Personia micranthera) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 142 Recovery plan for the southern cassowary Casuarius casuarius johnsonii 2001-2005 143 Split-Leaved Grevillea (Grevillea althoferorum) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 144 The Interim Recovery Plan for the Stirling Range Beard Heath (Leucopogon gnaphalioides) 2001-2003 145 National Recovery Plan for Tectaria devexa 146 Recovery Plan for the Trout Cod Maccullochella macquariensis 147 Western Swap Tortoise (Pseudemydura umbrina) Recovery Plan 148 Whicher Range Dryandra (Dryandra squarrosa subsp. argillacea) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 149 National recovery plan for the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis) 150 Recovery Plan Arachnorchis woolcockiorum (syn. Caladenia woolcockiorum) (Woolcock's spider orchid) 151 Baw Baw Frog (Philoria frosti) Recovery Plan 1997-2001 152 Recovery Plan for the Black-eared Miner Manorina melanotis 2002-2006: Conservation of old-growth dependent mallee fauna 153 Botany Bay Bearded Greenhood orchid 154 Recovery plan for the Bridled nailtail wallaby (Onychogalea fraenata) 1997-2001 155 National Recovery Plan for the Christmas Island Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus natalis 156 Chuditch Recovery Plan 157 Cunderdin Daviesia (Daviesia cunderdin) Recovery Plan 1999-2002 158 The Recovery Plan for Djoongari or the Shark Bay Mouse (Pseudomys fieldi) 1992-2001 159 Dwarf Spider Orchid (Caladenia bryceana subsp. bryceana ms.) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 160 Epacris stuartii Recovery Plan 161 National Recovery Plan for The Christmas Island Spleenwort Asplenium listeri 162 Recovery Plan for a Sub-Alpine herb (Gentiana baeverlenii) 163 Recovery Plan for Boronia granitica (Granite Boronia) 164 Recovery Plan Grevillea beadleana 165 Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark (Carcharias taurus) is Australia 166 Hairy-Stemmed Zig-Zag Wattle (Acacia Subflexuosa Subsp. Capillata) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 167 Recovery Plan for Arachnorchis macroclavia (syn. Caladenia macroclavia) (Large-club Spider-orchid) 168 Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000-2004 169 Moresby Range Drummondita (Drummondita ericoides) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 170 Noisy Scrub-bird (Atrichornis clamosus) Recovery Plan 171 National Recovery Plan for the Northern Bettong (Bettongia tropica) 2000-2004 172 Paynes Find Mallee (Eucalyptus Crucis Subsp. Praecipua) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 173 Pinnate-leaved Eremophila (Eremophila pinnatifida ms) Interim Recovery Plan 2002-2007 174 Red Snakebush (Hemiandra gardneri) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 175 Salt Pipewort (Eriocaulon carsonii) Recovery Plan 176 Spiral Fruited Wattle (Acacia Cochlocarpa subsp. Cochlocarpa ms). Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 177 Spreading Grevillea (Grevillea humifusa) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 178 Sunshine Diuris (Diuris fragrantissima) (Orchidaceae: Diurudinae) Recovery Plan 1998-2002 179 Tangle Wattle (Acacia volubilis) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008

228

180 Tunbridge buttercup (Ranunculus prasinus) Flora Recovery Plan 2006-2010 181 Varnish Bush (Eremophila viscida) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 182 White Beauty Spider Orchid (Caladenia argocalla) Recovery Plan 183 Wing-fruited Lasiopetalum (Lasiopetalum pterocarpum ms) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 184 Illawarra zieria (Zieria granulata) Recovery Plan 185 Bellinger River Emydura Emydura macquarii (Bellinger River) Recovery Plan 186 Chiddarcooping Myriophyllum (Myriophyllum lapidicola) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 187 Recovery Plan for the Central Rock-rat (Zyzomys pedunculatus) 188 Curved-leaf Grevillea (Grevillea curviloba subsp. Curviloba) Interim Recovery Plan 2000-2003 189 Acacia pubescens (Downy Wattle) Recovery Plan 190 Recovery Plan for the East Lynne Midge Orchid (Genoplesium vernale) 191 Flame Spider-flower (Grevillea kennedyana) Recovery Plan 192 Gorae Leek Orchid (Prasophyllum diversyflorum) (Orchidaceae) Recovery Plan 2000-2004 193 Grampians Pincushion Lily (Borya mirabilis Churchill) Recovery Plan 2001-2005 194 Halbury Greenhood (Pterostylis 'Halbury') Recovery Plan 195 Irenepharsus trypherus (Illawarra Irene) Recovery Plan 196 Irwin's Conostylis (Conostylis dielsii subsp. Teres) Interim Recovery Plan 2005-2009 197 The Interim Recovery Plan for the Late Hammer Orchid (Drakea confluens ms.) 2001-2003 198 National Recovery Plan for the Magnificent Broodfrog (Pseudophryne covacevichae) 2000-2004 199 Matted Centrolepis (Centrolepis caespitosa) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2008 200 Narrow-petalled featherflower (Verticordia plumosa var. Pleiobotrya) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 201 NortHampton Midget Greenhood (Pterostylis sp. Northampton) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 202 Persoonia mollis subspecies maxima Recovery Plan 203 Prostrate Flame Flower (Chorizema humile) Recovery Plan 1999-2002 204 Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phrygia) Recovery Plan 1999-2003 205 Scaly-Butt Mallee (Eucalyptus leprophloia) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 206 Somersby Mintbush Prostanthera junonis Recovery Plan 207 Stiff Groundsel (Senecio behrianus) Recovery Plan 1999-2001 208 Trigwell's Rulingia (Rulingia sp. Trigwell Bridge) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 209 Western Woolly Cyphanthera (Cyphanthera odgersii subsp. Occidentalis) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 210 Wongan Hills Triggerplant (Stylidium coroniforme) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 211 National Recovery Plan for the Christmas Island Shrew Crocidura attenuata trichura 212 Cumquat Eremophila (Eremophila denticulata subsp. Trisulcata Ms) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 213 Daphnandra sp C 'Illawarra' (Ilawarra Socketwood) Recovery Plan 214 Giant Andersonia (Andersonia axilliflora) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 215 The Recovery Plan for the Blue Mountains Water Skink (Eulamprus leuraensis) 216 Gingin Wax (Chamelaucium sp. Gingin) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 217 The Recovery Plan for the Great Desert Skink (Egernia kintorei) 2001-2011 218 Grevillea caleyi R. Br. (Proteaceae) Recovery Plan 219 Hughan's featherflower (Verticordia hughanii) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 220 The Recovery Plan for Leionema lachnaeoides 2001-2006 221 Mallee Box (Eucalyptus cuprea) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 222 Meelup Mallee (Eucalyptus phylacis) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 223 Milky Emu Bush (Eremophila lactea) Recovery Plan 1999-2002 224 Recovery Plan for the Mt. Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurus intermedius) 1999-2003 225 Barbarea australis Flora Recovery Plan 1999-2002 226 Orange-flowered wattle (Acacia auratiflora ms.) Interim Recovery Plan 1999-2002 227 Phebalium daviesii Recovery Plan 1996-2004 228 Quartz-loving Synaphea (Synaphea quartzitica) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008 229 Round-leafed honeysuckle (Lambertia orbifolia subsp. Orbifolia ms.) Interim Recovery Plan 2002-2007 230 National Recovery Plan for the Shy Susan (Tetratheca gunnii) 2001-2005 231 Small Flowered Conostylis (Conostylis micrantha) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 232 Spiral Flag (Patersonia spirafolia) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 233 Splendid Wattle (Acacia splendens ms) Interim Recovery Plan 2004-2009 234 Swift Parrot Recovery Plan 235 Recovery Plan for the Tumut Grevillea (Grevillea wilkinsonii) 236 Whorled Eremophila (Eremophila verticillata) Interim Recovery Plan 2003-2008

229

Appendix III: Classification of types of recovery actions and threats cited in recovery plans

A) Types of recovery actions

a) Species manipulation-related: Cultivation, food supply, propagation, benign introductions, reintroduction, translocations, captive breeding; plant/seed banks and collections, genetic management; genome/germoplasm resource banks; management of interactions with other native species (competition/predation), and population manipulations. b) Habitat-related: Control/revert land clearing; restoration of habitat quality; reservation (protecting habitat through negotiation or acquisition of lands for reserve); economic incentives for habitat protection (fencing); minimize/control natural and human disturbance regimes (prescribed fire management); restore/enhance/protect breeding, feeding and sheltering habitats; create/restore/protect habitat for corridors; and register of critical habitat under legislation. c) Threat-related: Regulate hunting/harvesting; management of domestic and introduced pest species (predator, competitor, parasites, disease); incidental mortality, regulate pollution (solid, liquid, air, toxic substances); control of resources overexploitation; management of hydrological regimes/salinity; and control of wildfire. d) Research and monitoring: Studies conducted by scientists, managers, postgraduate students on various topics: Taxonomy; distribution, population estimates and trends; biology/ecology; genetics; population viability analysis; habitat assessments/mapping; assessment of threatening processes; use and harvesting; cultural significance of species; monitoring of population trends and conservation measures. e) Community involvement: Government-community agreements (voluntary conservation agreements); collaborative/co-management projects; incentive programs; liaison and participation of landholders/public/private groups; volunteering in implementing recovery actions. f) Education, awareness and training: Implementation of formal education programs; participation in conservation fora; raising community awareness; environmental campaigns; recovery information dissemination; and capacity building (training workshops for volunteers). g) Agency, organisation and management: Agency performance; recovery team activities, Threatened Species Scientific Committee activities; inter-agency lobbying and coordination; plan implementation, plan re-assessment, review and evaluation; and administrative duties. h) Policy-related: Adoption and implementation of international conventions and agreements; trade management; protected areas management; regional/local management plans (e.g., catchments management plans, wildlife management plans, and other management instruments); environmental impact assessment; sector policy (development, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, tourism, maritime); and enforcement of legislation.

230

B) Categories of classification of threats Source: IUCN Authority File for Threats, version 2.1 (IUCN, 2006b)

1. Habitat loss/degradation (human induced) 7. Natural disasters 1.1. Agriculture 7.1. Drought 1.2. Land management of non-agricultural areas 7.2. Storms/flooding 1.3. Extraction 7.3. Temperature extremes 1.4. Infrastructure development 7.4. Wildfire 1.5. Invasive alien species 7.5. Volcanoes 1.6. Change in native species dynamics 7.6. Avalanches/landslides 1.7. Fires 7.7. Other 1.8. Other 8. Changes in native species dynamics 2. Invasive alien species (directly affecting the species) 8.1. Competitors 2.1. Competitors 8.2. Predators 2.2. Predators 8.3. Prey/food base 2.3. Hybridizers 8.4. Hybridizers 2.4. Pathogens/parasites 8.5. Pathogens/parasites 2.5. Other 8.6. Mutualisms 3. Harvesting (hunting/gathering) 8.7. Other 3.1. Food 9. Intrinsic population factors 3.2. Medicine 9.1. Limited dispersal 3.3. Fuel 9.2. Poor recruitment/reproduction/ 3.4. Materials regeneration 3.5. Cultural/scientific/leisure activities 9.3. High juvenile mortality 3.6. Other 9.4. Inbreeding 4. Accidental mortality 9.5. Low densities 4.1. Bycatch 9.6. Skewed sex ratios 4.2. Collision 9.7. Slow growth rates 4.3. Other 9.8. Population fluctuations 5. Persecution 9.9. Restricted range 5.1. Pest control 9.10. Other 5.2. Other 10. Human disturbance 6. Pollution (affecting habitat and/or species) 10.1. Recreation/tourism 6.1. Atmospheric pollution 10.2. Research 6.2. Land pollution 10.3. War/civil unrest 6.3. Water pollution 10.4. Transport 6.4. Other 10.5. Fire 10.6. Other

231

Appendix IV: Measures and criteria for assessing the appropriateness of recovery plans

I. Definition of legislative requirements for preparing recovery plans under the EPBCA a) Species’ information and general requirements: Species name, conservation status, taxonomy, description of target species/community; objects of the EPBC Act; international obligations; affected interests; role and interests of indigenous people; benefits to other species/communities; and social and economic impacts. b) Distribution and location: Distribution; habitat critical to the survival of the species/community; mapping of habitat critical; and important populations. c) Known and potential threats: Biology and ecology relevant to threatening processes; identification of threats; areas and populations under threat. d) Objectives, performance criteria and actions: Recovery objectives and timelines; performance criteria; evaluation of success or failure; and recovery actions. e) Duration of recovery plan: Duration of the plan in years, including a timetable of activities f) Estimated costs of the plan’s implementation: cost of plan’s implementation and resources allocation

The question and the possible coded responses in the data base were:

Does the plan include this content requirement and what is the degree of its coverage?

Responses:

1) Not addressed: where none of the components of the topic were addressed in the plan

2) Partially addressed: where some components of the topic were addressed in the plan

3) Poor in information: where all components of the topic were addressed in the plan, but some information was judged to be incomplete or insufficient.

4) Complete: where each topic was addressed in the plan, with complete and appropriate information

Assessed elements of M&E in recovery plans IV. Does the plan propose a scheme to monitor and evaluate its implementation and effectiveness? V. What type of measure is proposed to be monitored? a. Biological/ecological/habitat measures b. Threat abatement measures c. Measures of social aspects external to the recovery plan d. Measures of social aspects within the recovery plan VI. Does the plan specify the organisation responsible for reviewing the plan?

232

To respond to question no. 1 regarding to the establishment and appropriateness of a scheme for M&E, the possible responses in the database were:

1. Does the plan propose a system to monitor and evaluate its implementation and effectiveness?

Responses:

1) No: where the recovery plan did not mention any instruction or scheme to undertake regular review of implementation of actions and a formal evaluation at the end of the plans’ timeframe.

2) Incomplete scheme: where a partial and incomplete scheme was set out for M&E; for example, only monitoring activities of implementation were mentioned, but the plan lacked of instructions to conduct regular review, or did not state the organization responsible of evaluating the plan.

3) Well formulated: where a complete and well formulated scheme of M&E was included in the plan to conduct formative annual reviews of the plan’s progress and achievements, and a formal summative evaluation at the end of the plan timeframe. The plan also stated the organization responsible for conducting the evaluation and set instructions for reporting.

To respond to question no. 2 regarding to the type of measures proposed to be monitored, the possible responses were:

2. What type of measure is proposed to be monitored?

Responses:

Yes or none against the following measure categories:

a) Biological and ecological measures: e.g. population size counts and trends, number of subpopulations, extent of geographical range, habitat quantity and condition;

b) Threat management measures: e.g. abundance of invasive species, extent of threat geographical range, degree of control; biochemical composition data of agricultural runoff;

c) Measures of social aspects external to the recovery plan: e.g. degree of community awareness, public attitudes and level of participation; landholder’s collaboration and attitude to participate in conservation initiatives; political commitment, and media information

d) Measures of social aspects internal to the recovery plan: e.g. recovery team performance; meetings of planning and coordination; extent of recovery plan implementation.

233

To respond to question no. 3 regarding the definition of the organisation responsible for reviewing the plan, the possible responses were:

3. Does the plan specify the organisation responsible for reviewing the plan?

Responses:

1) No: where the plan do not specify the responsible organisation.

2) Yes: where the plan does specified the responsible organisation.

II. Definition of topics of scientific information addressed in recovery plans: a) Habitat: location of occurrences, historical/current range, habitat quality/extension; trends, mapping; habitat fragmentation. b) Population biology: population size, population trends, subpopulations by geographical areas, demographic rates, population viability analysis models. c) Life history: life span, mode of reproduction, pollination, litter size/seed production, age of sexual maturity, mortality, fecundity. d) Genetics: basic genetics, variation within/among populations, gene flow, inbreeding. e) Behaviour/dispersal: movement patterns in animals, breeding, foraging, dispersal strategies in plants. f) General ecology: direct/indirect interactions, succession, predictable disturbance regimes. g) Threatening processes: all non-human and human-induced factors threatening species/ecological communities.

Judgment responses and criteria for assessing whether the recovery plans addressed or not the gaps of scientific knowledge:

Does the plan indicate that more scientific information on this topic is needed and call for collection of information by prescription of research actions?

Responses:

1) Not addressed: where there was no call for further information, or where plans mentioned that information on the seven topics was limited or scarce, and there were no research actions prescribed to address the gaps of knowledge.

2) Addressed: where the recovery plan did stated within the section of specie’s description that more information is needed, and there were research actions formulated to address the gaps of knowledge.

234

III. Plan’s response to threatening processes a) Overall recovery plans’ response to the ten major threats was assessed by the following criteria:

How well does the plan respond to the ten major threatening processes?

Response:

1) No response: No threat management actions are prescribed to address the threat cited in the plan

2) Limited response: Threat is cited in the plan as potential, minor or major; however, only one management action was prescribed which was considered to be insufficient to abate or control the threat

3) Good response: There are two or three appropriate management actions prescribed in the plan to abate or control each of the threats cited in the plan.

b) The individual response of each plan to the threats identified within the document was assessed against the criteria shown below:

Was an appropriate response of the recovery plan to the threatening processes identified?

Response:

1) No, major inconsistency: where more than fifty per cent of the threats were not addressed by the document, including major, minor and potential threats.

2) No, there are several deficiencies: where thirty to fifty per cent of the threats were not addressed by the document or the major threats did not receive attention.

3) Yes, with minor deficiencies: where seventy to ninety per cent of the threats were addressed by the document and all major threats did received attention. There were however some minor or potential threats without attention.

4) Yes, well formulated: where more than ninety per cent of the identified threats were addressed.

235

IV. Consistency between recovery objectives and performance criteria. Criteria for assessing responses in the database:

Are the performance criteria consistent with, and allow measurement of, achievement of objectives? Responses:

1) None: where the performance criteria established for measuring performance are not consistent with the objectives and the established indicators for monitoring.

2) Limited: where the performance criteria stated for measuring progress are consistent with the objectives, but the established indicators for monitoring are not measurable in magnitude and timeframe, e.g. ‘the population has increased or decreased’, or ‘ensure the long-term survival of the species throughout its extant distribution’.

3) Well defined: where the established performance criteria for measuring progress are consistent with both the objectives and the indicators for monitoring. Indicators are measurable in magnitude and timeframe, e.g. ‘at least 20 self maintaining populations should exist with an increasing rate of ten percent within five years, and the minimum size of at least ten populations should exceed 300 adults’.

236

Appendix V: Criteria for the assessment of scientific knowledge topics in recovery plans

The topics selected for analysis were: Habitat, population biology, life history, genetics, behaviour/dispersal, general ecology, and threatening processes. Description of each topic category is shown in the box below:

1) Habitat: location of occurrences, historical/current range, habitat quality/extension; trends, mapping; habitat fragmentation.

2) Population biology: population size, population trends, subpopulations by geographical areas, demographic rates, PVA models.

3) Life history: life span, mode of reproduction, pollination, litter size/seed production, age of sexual maturity, mortality, fecundity.

4) Genetics: basic genetics, variation within/among populations, gene flow, inbreeding.

5) Behaviour/dispersal: movement patterns in animals, breeding, foraging, dispersal strategies in plants.

6) General ecology: direct/indirect interactions, succession, predictable disturbance regimes.

7) Threatening processes: all non-human and human-induced factors threatening species/ecological communities.

Each of the seven topics was assessed in recovery plans to see the degree of coverage of information. The question made in the database and the criteria to respond are explained in the box below.

Was information on this topic included in the recovery plan and what is the degree of coverage?

Responses:

a) Not mentioned: Where information of the topic was nil or expressed to be inexistent.

b) Poor: Information of the topic was considered minimum in content, coverage and relevance to management, ranging from the mention of the topic in a single line to the coverage in a paragraph of up to ten lines. Scientific referencing was used minimally.

c) Limited: Information of the topic was included in a paragraph of at least ten lines, up to three paragraphs of the same size. Information was considered relevant to context and management, and included a short description of the current knowledge of the species. A small number of scientific references are also included. No maps, tables or diagrams complementing the information were included.

d) Comprehensive: Information of the topic was presented in more than three paragraphs of ten lines approximately up to several pages. Current and relevant knowledge of the species was presented in an appropriate manner for guiding management. Review of scientific publications was extensive and appropriate. The text is complemented with maps, tables or diagrams.

237

Appendix VI: Components of the management system elicited during the expert workshops

A) Outcomes of the workshop in New South Wales Issues Strategies/actions Requirements a) Consistency in objects of acts and ● Undertake audit of relevant legislation commitment for implementation ● Stakeholders support ● Seek legislative amendments b) Mandatory commitment to E.S.D. ● Undertake audit of relevant legislation ● Stakeholders support ● Seek legislative amendments c) Mandate stewardship payment ● Stakeholders support ● Treasury support based on pricing of ecosystem services ● Link with biodiversity banking/offset scheme d) Focus legislation on management ● Document failings of species approaches

1. Legislation & policy & policy 1. Legislation of threatening processes ● Priority consideration to threatening processes nomination ● Lease with stakeholders regarding the importance of manage. threatening processes a) Fund raising ● Use of lotteries ● Encourage philanthropy b) Focus on strategic actions ● Prepare and implement regional biodiversity plans ● Standardise CEP template to be used to maximize conservation outcomes c) Revenue raising initiatives ● Resource use of environmental levies allocation

2. Resources 2. Resources d) Use of economic instruments ● Investigate opportunities to expand tax rebate applicable to conservation ● Expand use of market-based instruments in biodiversity conservation a) School programs ● Training for teachers ● Incorporation into K-12 curriculum ● Funding resource kits b) Strength people’s understanding ● Media campaign (new and old media) of their action on environment ● Multi-cultural/multi-lingual programs ● Rural and urban populations targeted c) Get communities working on ● Provide appropriate training/skills/support projects ● Appropriate insurance regime knowledge ● Work community planning to build ownership of projects d) Economical and financial ● Private land stewardship agreements (long-term resources and commitment)

3. Communityvalues & mechanisms that value ecosystem ● Public awareness campaigns services ● Translation of research on ecosystem services to the community a) Better integration of academic ● Open access to information resources knowledge ● Mechanisms for regular dialogue between academics and policy-makers ● Create mechanisms for public involvement in information collection processes b) Evaluation of past programs ● Development of appropriate methodology ● Compile information on past programs ● Dissemination of results c) Funding of poorly studies areas ● Identify priority areas ● Seek sponsorship d) Integration of ● Research on effects of key threatening processes on ecosystems, services, ecological/economic/social research private and public lands 4. Scientific knowledge knowledge 4. Scientific to address threatening processes ● Creation of multi-disciplinary teams (ecological/economic/social) ● Develop of social and economical models to address ecological problems a) Change community attitudes ● Marketing of science and research b) Direct lobbying of politicians, ● Priority campaigns NGO´s, individuals ● High profile spokesperson ● Iconic species c) Education and awareness about ● Compile information and prepare brochures & articles for dissemination threatened species ● Communication strategies for targeting particular TS issues ● Evaluate effectiveness of education/awareness campaigns

5. Political will d) Compile and communicate ● Compile relevant publications/ reports and translate into accessible form and evidence of impacts circulate ● Conference presentation

238

B) Outcomes of the workshop in Queensland Issues Strategies/actions Requirements a) Provide better training and access to ● National database of threatened species information and expertise relevant science for current and future ● Field days (case studies’ traditional methods) managers ● Access to scientific literature (electronic databases) b) Collection of reporting of ● Provide targeted funding to support M&E and associated information monitoring information at a scale management relevant to detect change c) Create mechanisms to ensure ● Organisational support to develop positive, productive relationships regular communication between ● Appropriate/targeted methods and language scientists and managers into management management into d) Reform legislation to require ● Monitoring strategies are designed within a management framework, i.e. enforcement of M&E, policy review, management objectives are explicit 1. Incorporation of of science 1. Incorporation adaptive management ● Bring into line state and national threatened species listing a) Improve access to information ● National TS recovery and threat management databases ● Annual national TS forum with managers & scientists to distribute and translate their findings ● Publicize government access to scientific literature b) recognize the need for ● More funding for dedicated communicators/ or training communication and allocate necessary resources to it c) Create a central ‘dump’ for all ● A national demand for such system jurisdictions data/information related to threatened ● Identify stakeholders to invest funding to create and maintain a database species ● Make habitat mapping available to all land managers 2. Coordination across across 2. Coordination d) Use technology and other diverse ● Not just web/email techniques to communicate a) Generating funds ● Public demand for the environment to be a priority & profiling TS to government to encourage grater investment/budget allocation ● Active education of public on critical issues ● Engaging organisations with the capacity to generate funds, e.g. NGO’s, sponsors, etc. & marketing budget b) Decision support T/priority setting ● Simultaneously considers costs, benefits (cost-benefit analysis) & probability & Active adaptive management of success of actions ● Monitoring informs future management decisions: management objectives

allocation explicit, choose between multiple management actions to fund c) Reform of legislation to tighten o ● Identify barriers/faults on system and modify eliminate loop holes preventing ● Remove competitiveness in funding allocation/approval processes and

3.Funding and resource effective implementation of plans encourage cooperative project development and partnerships d) Address actions at more effective ● Allocate funds/resources to deal with base at appropriate scale/time frame scale, longer time-frames funding ● Using appropriate prioritising models a) Target notification of recovery plans ● More rigorous guidelines for recovery plans (mandated by legislation) and actions to appropriate stakeholders ● National consistency in planning, notification and consultation processes including NGO’s and local ● Incorporate their feedback into policy government planners b) Regularly reform legislation to give ● Relevant to current science enforceability ● National forum to review policy and legislation of TS at federal/state scales

teeth and address compatibility across jurisdictions ● Privatize enforcement (with strict guidelines) c) Mandatory monitoring and publicity ● Development of a national monitoring management system and report with of recovery trends greater detail of TS recovery in the State of Environment Report

4. Poor policy and lack of ● Make it interesting to public (marketing) d) Commit adequate recovery funds ● Demonstrate negative impact of species loss on society a) Communication between scientists, ● Give responsibility of translating and transferring information from scientists managers and public; consultation and to community and land managers. promotion ● Incorporation of community ideas via consultation process; i.e. real consultation not just meeting legislative requirements ● Appropriate education, communication (language, methods); dispelling of myths ● Engage supporters and protagonists to resolve issues and identify mutual benefits b) Creating links and partnerships ● Strategic planning process to identify partners and how to create links ● An active approach by individuals/groups/agencies to work in partnerships c) Capacity building ● Public understanding/education ● Up-skilling community volunteers to deliver project actions 5. Community engagement engagement 5. Community d) Allocate necessary resources ● Demonstrate (scientifically) the value of community participation so as to make case for funding

239

Appendix VII: Definition of components (nodes) of the management system model

Outcome node of the management system

Effective Major outcome of the management system that can be achieved by addressing four implementation of major issues: Scientific input, Resources allocation, Community engagement, and recovery planning Policy and governance.

Subsystem: Scientific input

Scientific input One of the major issues that can be addressed by the integration of three strategies: Integration of science, Targeted research and monitoring, and Adaptive approach. Issue

Integration of science Strategy that acknowledges the need of integrating four requirements of the model: Multidisciplinary approach, Incorporation of public knowledge, Scientists– managers dialogue, and national management information system. Targeted research and Strategy that acknowledges the need of integrating three requirements of the model: monitoring Scientists–managers dialogue, Knowledge gaps identification, and National management information system. Adaptive approach Strategy that acknowledges the need of integrating three requirements of the model:

Strategies/actions Knowledge gaps identification, National management information system, and Monitoring and evaluation system. Multidisciplinary approach Collaboration of multidisciplinary teams (ecologists, anthropologists, mathematicians, economists, sociologists) taking a holistic approach to recovery. Incorporation of public Consideration of traditional, popular and indigenous environmental knowledge and knowledge information into the recovery planning process. Scientists – managers A regular and effective dialogue and communication, using a common language, dialogue and interchange of information between agencies and scientists about planning and implementation of recovery planning. Knowledge gaps As part of the effective dialogue between agencies and scientists, a common identification approach emerges to identify information gaps that are necessary for improving recovery planning and management. National management A national approach to recovery planning, with standardised and consistent strategic information system information. It requires a central database with a standardised guidance of recovery plans, and aligned listing criteria and conservation status categories. Decision- making based on national priorities with consultation of all Federal and state and

Requirements Requirements territory agencies. Consistent approach for strategic planning, common goals setting, data management and interchange of information for priority setting and implementation. Monitoring and evaluation A common framework for conducting monitoring and evaluation of recovery system planning at national scale. Standardised procedures and use of indicators for monitoring and assessing progress against objectives. Standardised format for reporting on recovery plans implementation. Standardised framework for conducting reviews and evaluation of plan’s performance and effectiveness. It requires the systematic collection of data in a central database with interchange of information across jurisdictions.

240

Subsystem: Resources allocation

Resources One of the major issues that can be addressed by an effective and adequate integration of four strategies: allocation Government revenue, Non-government revenue, Allocation mechanism, and Other financial sources. Issue Government Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of two requirements of the model: revenue Fundraising and Public support. Non-government Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of three requirements of the model: revenue Fundraising, Public support, and Cooperative partnerships. Allocation Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of two requirements of the model: mechanism Public support and Decision-support tools. Other financial Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of two requirements of the model: sources Cooperative partnerships and Environmental levies Strategies/actions Fundraising Efforts to solicit voluntary monetary contributions from individuals or organisations for non-profit activities such as education, community involvement projects, land purchase and other conservation initiatives. Fundraising is undertaken mostly by non-governmental organisations to acquire sufficient funds to support their activities. Public support Awareness campaigns and the use of iconic species may attract support from public and politicians who at the same time may influence agencies on decision-making when allocating funds. Decision-support Some agencies have developed or adopted decision-support tools to assess and take wiser decisions based tools on a series of scientific, socioeconomic and management criteria. Cooperative Voluntary and cooperative agreements between agencies, industry sectors and community groups to share Requirements Requirements partnerships strategies, efforts, resources, and information through mutually beneficial approaches for threatened species recovery. Environmental A series of instruments to obtain environmental incomes in the form of taxes from development projects. levies

241

Subsystem: Community engagement

Community engagement One of the major issues that can be addressed by an effective and adequate integration of four strategies: Incentives, Awareness programs, Project

Issue collaboration, and School programs. Incentives Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of four requirements of the model: Private-land conservation agreements, Market-based instruments, Appropriate insurance regime, and Cooperative partnerships. Awareness programs Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of three requirements of the model: Environmental education, Targeted community-sector programs, and Media campaigns. Project collaboration Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of three requirements of the model: Public consultation and negotiation, Volunteer training, and Joint planning and implementation. Strategies/actions School programs Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of three requirements of the model: Teachers training, Incorporation into curriculum, and Resources kits. Private-land conservation There are several legal mechanisms for establishing voluntary conservation agreements agreements for the protection, management and conservation of private lands where threatened species occur. Those include tax rebate, local government rate relief, water rate relief; providing funding for fencing and habitat restoration projects; provision of management advice. Market-based instruments Economical instruments to benefit and compensate those landholders that establish a voluntary conservation agreement with purposes of biodiversity conservation. Those may include: Biodiversity certification, Biobanking and biodiversity offsets, and other environmental compensations. Appropriate insurance regime Insurance regime provided by the government to assure coverage to those volunteers involved in recovery activities and fieldwork, such as pest control, habitat restoration, fencing, wildlife surveys. Environmental education Formal and informal educational activities conducted by the government and other organisations with the purpose of changing the general public’s behaviour and attitudes towards the protection of threatened species and their habitats. Targeted community-sector More formal educational campaigns directed to those community sectors that programs have been identified as having conflicts with the protection and conservation of threatened species and their habitats. Media campaigns Use of the media to raise public awareness and support for those initiatives established by the government and conservation organisations towards the protection and conservation of threatened species and their habitats. Public consultation and Open dialogue and negotiation between government and general public, negotiation especially private landholders and developers, about the conservation strategies

Requirements Requirements intended to be established by environmental agencies towards the protection of threatened species and their habitats. Such conservation strategies may restrict development and primary activities as agriculture; therefore, dialogue and negotiation are necessary to establish agreements of mutual benefits for all involved parties. Volunteer training Training activities conducted by agencies, universities and conservation organisations for those volunteers and other stakeholders that intend to support recovery activities such as wildlife surveys and monitoring, pest control, fencing, eradication of weeds, habitat restoration, and others. Joint planning and Participatory recovery planning and management of threatened species with implementation involvement of all relevant stakeholders and the three levels of government. Teachers training Training activities conducted by agencies, universities and conservation organisations for those teachers of primary and high school on issues related to threatened species conservation. Incorporation into curriculum Incorporation of threatened species issues into the primary and high school programs and courses as part of the curriculum. Resources kits Resource kits and complementary materials specially designed to support educational activities on threatened species conservation

242

Subsystem: Legislation and policy

Legislation and policy One of the major issues that can be addressed by an effective and adequate integration of four strategies: Mandatory monitoring reports, Enforceability, Inter-State consistency, and National

Issue strategic planning. Mandatory monitoring Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of two requirements of the model: reports Audit and amendment of legislation and Plan guidelines. Enforceability Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of two requirements of the model: Audit and amendment of legislation and Stakeholders collaboration. Inter-State consistency Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of three requirements of the model: Audit and amendment of legislation, Plan guidelines, and National forum on threatened species. National strategic Strategy that acknowledges the effective and adequate integration of four requirements of the Strategies/actions planning model: Audit and amendment of legislation, Plan guidelines, Targeted notification of plans, and National forum on threatened species. Audit and amendment Periodical review and amendment of primary legislation on threatened species. Monitoring and of legislation evaluation of main governmental programs that enforce and deliver legislation. Update policy to the current science. Stakeholders Participation of all relevant stakeholders in recovery planning, with collaboration within the collaboration implementation, monitoring and reporting phases of programs. Plan guidelines Improved guidelines and formats for recovery planning with consistent and standardised content across jurisdictions. Targeted notification Target notification of recovery plans and actions to appropriate stakeholders including landholders, Requirements Requirements of plans conservation groups and local government planners. National forum on Annual or biannual meeting at national scale to discuss experiences, issues and achievements about threatened species the recovery planning strategies across all jurisdictions. Address compatibility across jurisdictions.

243