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 i 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. i 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. ii 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 iv 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;