Australia’s iodiversity onservation Strategy · ABCS across jurisdictions, improved effectiveness and efficiency of programs and investments) 3.3 Implementing robust national monitoring,

Gre

y-h

ead

ed f

lyin

g-f

ox

© N

ick

Eda

rds

Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

2010-2030

A Proposal for Revised Targets

PO Box 439, Avalon NSW 2107

With research assistance by

Judy Lambert AM, BPharm, BSc(Hons), PhD, GradDipEnvMgt, GradDipBusAdmin

Community Solutions

January 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I

INTRODUCTION 1

2015 NATIONAL TARGETS 2

Appropriateness of the National Targets 3

Current Priorities for Actions and National Targets 6

PROPOSED TARGET REVISIONS 7

Target 1: Participation in biodiversity conservation activities 7

Target 2: Indigenous employment and participation 9

Target 3: Complementary markets for ecosystem services 10

Target 4: Native habitat managed for biodiversity conservation 12

Target 5: Fragmented landscapes restored 15

Target 6: Continental-scale linkages established and managed 17

Target 7: Reduced impacts of invasive species 20

Target 8: Nationally agreed science priorities guiding research 23

Target 9: Jurisdictional alignment with Australian Biodiversity 26

Conservation Strategy

Target 10: Long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting 29

CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON NEW NATIONAL TARGETS 32

Humane Society International, January 2016: Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy - Proposed new National Targets

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In April 2015, Humane Society International (HSI) submitted to the Department of the Environment

an independent review of progress towards achievement of each of the ten “interim” National

Targets set in the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy1. To assist in the current 5-year

review of the Strategy, HSI now offers a proposal for a new set of high-level National Targets to

guide implementation of the Strategy in ways that enable progress towards the desired outcomes to

be effectively planned, implemented and monitored at intervals throughout the life of the Strategy.

The proposed new National Targets are placed in context in the Table below.

Priority action 1: Engaging all Australians

2015 National Target Proposed National Target, 2016-2020

1.1 Mainstreaming biodiversity (awareness-raising, public participation, industry participation, and cross-sectoral integration in planning and management) 1.2 Increasing Indigenous participation (employment and participation, use of knowledge, extent of land managed) 1.3 Enhancing strategic investments and partnerships (use of markets and other incentives, private expenditure, public-private partnerships)

1. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the number of Australians and public and private organisations who participate in biodiversity conservation activities 2. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation 3. By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value of complementary markets for ecosystem services

1. By December 2016, government funded projects directed to biodiversity conservation include an explicit allocation to biodiversity awareness—raising and that final acceptance of project completion is contingent on evidence of such activities within the project 2. By December 2016, review of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy has been completed and the resulting Strategy and its Action Plan are based on scientific evidence and include substantial opportunities for participatory action by individuals, communities, public sector organisations and businesses 3. By 2020, achieve a 25% increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation, using 2015 figures as a baseline 4. Using 2015 as a baseline, by 2020, achieve a doubling of the value of biodiversity outcomes of complementary markets for ecosystem services, after first ensuring that incentives, including subsidies, which result in perverse outcomes harmful to biodiversity, have been eliminated, phased out or reformed to avoid or minimise negative impacts

Priority action 2: Building ecosystem resilience in a changing climate

2.1 Protecting diversity (secure protection, private land, listed threatened species and ecological communities, natural habitat condition)

4. By 2015, achieve a national increase of 600,000 km

2 of native

habitat managed primarily for biodiversity conservation across terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments

5. By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial lands and inland waters, and 15% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape

1 Humane Society International (April 2015). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-

2030: An independent review of progress. Submission to Australian Government Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://hsi.org.au/assets/publications/ABCSreview2015.pdf

http://hsi.org.au/assets/publications/ABCSreview2015.pdf


ii

2.2 Maintaining and re-establishing ecosystem functions (connectivity, provision of environmental water allocations, improved ecological fire regimes) 2.3 Reducing threats to biodiversity (threatening processes, impacts of invasive species, early interventions to manage threats)

5. By 2015, 1,000 km

2 of

fragmented landscapes and aquatic systems are being restored to improve ecological connectivity 6. By 2015, four collaborative continental-scale linkages are established and managed to improve ecological connectivity 7. By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments

6. By 2020, at least 15% of degraded ecosystems are being restored, and areas being used for agriculture or pastoral production, forestry and aquaculture are being managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity and habitat connectivity 7. By 2020, at least four collaborative large-scale linkages are established and managed to improve ecological connectivity, the areas of focus being determined by science-based assessment of the capacity of sites to provide landscape-scale connectivity between strictly protected areas, climate refugia and other sites of high biodiversity significance 8. By 2020, coordinated, well-funded efforts are in place (1) to prevent the arrival of new potentially harmful species and (2) have achieved a net reduction in the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments through prevention of entry, early detection and risk-based management of control and eradication

Priority action 3: Getting measurable results

3.1 Reducing threats to biodiversity (accessibility of science and knowledge, improved alignment of research with conservation priorities, increased application of knowledge by all sectors) 3.2 Delivering conservation initiatives efficiently (alignment with ABCS across jurisdictions, improved effectiveness and efficiency of programs and investments) 3.3 Implementing robust national monitoring, reporting and evaluation (national accounts, use of MERI, information use in adaptive management)

8. By 2015, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are guiding research activities 9. By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment with the ABCS 10. By 2015, establish a national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system

9. By 2020, the six priority areas for action identified within the Long-term Plan for Australia’s Ecosystem Science have been accepted as nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation and are guiding collaborative research activities, policies and programs to conserve Australia’s ecosystems 10. By 2020, all jurisdictions will have reviewed relevant legislation, policies and programs and adopted and commenced implementation of an effective, participatory and updated biodiversity strategy, action plan and laws to maximise alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy within a context of retention of Commonwealth approval powers 11. By 2020 at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems 12. By 2020, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied, using the priority areas for action identified in the Long-term Plan for Australia’s Ecosystem Science as a basis for shared information


iii

While progress towards achievement of the National Targets set in the Australian Biodiversity

Conservation Strategy in 2015 has been poor, opportunities to reverse that situation are numerous.

This submission, together with an earlier evaluation submission provided by Humane Society

International in April 2015, offers guidance on how progress commensurate with Australia’s

significant place in conserving biodiversity globally can be made.


1

INTRODUCTION

That Australia has an important role to play in contributing to a reversal of existing declines in global

biodiversity is widely recognised.

As Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for 2010-20302 states:

“Australia’s biodiversity has developed largely in isolation over many

millions of years, making this continent one of the most biologically

diverse parts of the planet. It is estimated that Australia is home to as

many as 560,000 species. Many of these species are found nowhere else

on Earth…

We share the Earth with many other life forms that should be conserved

for their own sake as well as being, to varying degrees, essential for our

own existence”.

As the only developed nation that is home to such a rich (megadiverse) natural

environment, we owe it to ourselves, to future generations and to our fellow human beings

globally to conserve our biodiversity.

In the foreword to Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030, the Ministerial

Council recognised that:

“[This] web of life represents our store of natural capital and from it we get the

things we take for granted each day: the clean air we breathe, the fresh water we

drink and the variety of foods and fibres that we consume.

We get our artistic and spiritual inspiration from biodiversity…”

The National Targets set in the current Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy are

aimed at stopping the ongoing declines in biodiversity, so that we can “achieve healthy and

resilient biodiversity” and thus “provide a basis for living sustainably”. The task is to arrest

and reverse ongoing declines in biodiversity that have been identified in successive national

and international strategies. However, to date the targets, and proposed actions to

achieve them, are largely failing to fulfil that role (see, for instance Morton & Sheppard

(2014)3.

In April 2015, Humane Society International (HSI) submitted to the Department of the

Environment an independent review of progress towards achievement of each of the ten

“interim” National Targets set in the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy4. A

summary of those results follows.

2 Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2010). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation

Strategy. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. 3 Morton S & Sheppard A (2014). Conclusions. In: Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia. S

Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors); CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 4 Humane Society International (April 2015). Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-

2030: An independent review of progress. Submission to Australian Government Department of the Environment, Canberra.


2

2015 NATIONAL TARGETS

In its opening section, the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 (the

ABCS or the Strategy) commits to “10 interim national targets for the first five years”. In

providing a background to this proposal of revised National Targets, HSI re-presents some

key aspects of its previous submission made in April 2015.

Drawing on published information, both from government and from independent sources, HSI has

used its best endeavours to assess the progress made towards achievement of each of these 2015

“interim national targets” and has rated each using a traffic light scheme, as follows.

Target largely achieved

Making progress, but some considerable way to go to achieve the target

Little or no progress towards achieving this target and/or Serious impediments to progress

National interim targets Progress to date

1. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the number of Australians and public and private organisations who participate in biodiversity conservation activities.

2. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation.

3. By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value of complementary markets for ecosystem services.

4. By 2015, achieve a national increase of 600,000km2

of native habitat managed primarily for biodiversity conservation across terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.

5. By 2015, 1,000km2 of fragmented landscapes and aquatic

systems are being restored to improve ecological connectivity.

6. By 2015, four collaborative continental-scale linkages are established and managed to improve ecological connectivity.

7. By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.

8. By 2015, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are guiding research activities.

9. By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.

10. By 2015, establish a national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system.

Comment: The progress made is disappointing to a point where both the Targets and the

processes for implementing them require major review.

Two elements are important in reviewing the Strategy and its failure to date to turn around

Australia’s biodiversity crisis:

Is satisfactory progress being made in implementing the Strategy and the actions set out in

it?

Are the targets set appropriate to measuring progress towards achieving “healthy and

resilient biodiversity and providing a basis for living sustainably”?


3

The UN General Assembly’s recent adoption (18 September 2015) of a new Agenda for

Sustainable Development5, which includes a global set of 17 Sustainable Development

Goals and 169 targets attached to those goals, provides some high-level guidance for

revising Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Targets, as do the Aichi Biodiversity Targets6

adopted by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at their meeting in Nagoya,

Japan in 2010.

Using the UN documents and recent scientific publications, Humane Society International is

now proposing a new set of National Targets which complement and expand on our

previous (April 2015) submission to the 2015 review of the Australian Biodiversity

Conservation Strategy 2010-2030.

It is our view that the ABCS would benefit from a more comprehensive revision and

restructure that makes better use of both the Aichi targets and the global Sustainable

Development Goals and their recognition of the “integrated and indivisible” nature of goals

relating to the well-being of people and the planet. However, in the interests of

progressing the current review of the ABCS and its National Targets, we have limited this

submission to the National Targets and ways in which they might best be restructured to

strengthen their contribution to biodiversity conservation.

In this context, HSI has considered each of these targets based on a need for ‘SMART’

measures appropriate to effective monitoring of progress towards achievement of desired

outcomes, rather than simply measuring administrative performance (i.e. ‘Have we

achieved what we said we would?’ rather than ‘Have we done what we said we would?’).

Appropriateness of the national targets set by Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation

Strategy 2010-2030

Throughout the past decade, successive Australian Governments have recognised the

importance of monitoring as part of a cycle of adaptive management. In environment and

natural resource management, as in other fields of endeavour, it is important that the

targets set enable tracking of progress towards desired biodiversity outcomes. The

Department of the Environment7 defines such measures as SMART indicators - indicators

that are:

Simple (easily interpreted and monitored)

Measurable (statistically verifiable, reproducible and showing trends)

Accessible (regularly monitored, cost- effective and consistent)

Relevant (directly addressing issues or agreed objectives, such as those of the Matters for

Target for biodiversity conservation); and

Timely (providing early warning of potential problems)

5 UN General Assembly (Sept 2015). Sustainable Development Goals: 2015- Time for Global Action

www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ 6 Convention on Biological Diversity and UNEP (2010). Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-202 and

the Aichi Targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ 7 Department of the Environment. Environmental indicators for Reporting.

http://www.environment.gov.au [First published 2006 as part of Australia’s State of the Environment reporting, most recently accessed 6/2/2015]

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/

http://www.environment.gov.au/


4

Few, if any, of the National Targets contained in Australia’s current Biodiversity

Conservation Strategy, satisfy these criteria. Of particular significance is the need to

provide a baseline measure against which progress towards each target can be assessed

over time.

The planned 2015 review of Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, the

appropriateness of the interim targets set for 2015, and measurement of achievements

against them as an indicator of trends in biodiversity conservation provides an ideal

opportunity to reset the targets consistent with the international Strategic Plan for

Biodiversity and its Aichi targets. This review should provide a sound framework against

which to conduct further 5-yearly reviews throughout the life of the ABCS.

Such an alignment would:

Provide for more strategic and measurable assessment of progress towards

biodiversity conservation;

Make transparent to all sectors of the Australian community Australia’s efforts to

conserve biodiversity and the mechanisms for measuring that progress;

Streamline national and international reporting of Australia’s progress towards

biodiversity conservation, reducing duplication of effort and enabling the same

datasets to address different needs.

As indicated in our previous submission (April 2015), HSI recommends that:

1. The overarching national targets be reviewed to ensure that they

meet the criteria set for ‘SMART’ targets.

2. The revision process include consultation and opportunities for input

from all sectors, particularly the scientific community and those in the

community with a strong understanding of the current and ongoing

decline in Australia’s biodiversity, and the approaches needed to

arrest and reverse the crisis.

3. Both the national targets and the outcomes sought be better aligned

with the Aichi Biodiversity targets used to assess progress in

implementing the UN’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020.

4. The Australian Government provide leadership in revising the national

targets and the outcomes and actions that underpin them. That the

changes be achieved working in collaboration with other jurisdictions,

scientists, business and community interests, including non-

government organisations with a demonstrated interest in the

conservation of Australia’s biodiversity.

In addition, HSI recommends that:

5. In order to track progress, consistent with sound adaptive

management principles, further 5-yearly reviews be conducted

throughout the life of the ABCS.


5

Throughout the remainder of this submission, HSI has provided

Recommendations in support of each proposed National Target. The majority of

these Recommendations were included in our earlier (April 2015) submission,

with many being updated with strengthening additions. To assist in the review

process, HSI offers a proposal for a new set of high-level National Targets to

guide implementation of the ABCS in ways that enable progress towards the

desired outcomes to be effectively planned, implemented and monitored at

intervals throughout the remaining life of the Strategy.


6

Current Priorities for Actions and National Targets

At present, the ABCS 2010-2030 is built around three “Priorities for action” and nine “Sub-

priorities” that, together, “reflect the critical components of change needed in the way that

Australians view, understand and approach biodiversity issues”.

The Table below summarises the Priority actions and Sub-priorities that provide the current

framework for the ABCS and the National Targets currently linked with each.

Priority action 1: Engaging all Australians 2015 National Target

1.1 Mainstreaming biodiversity (awareness-raising, public participation, industry participation, and cross-sectoral integration in planning and management) 1.2 Increasing Indigenous participation (employment and participation, use of knowledge, extent of land managed) 1.3 Enhancing strategic investments and partnerships (use of markets and other incentives, private expenditure, public-private partnerships)

1. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the number of Australians and public and private organisations who participate in biodiversity conservation activities 2. By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation 3. By 2015, achieve a doubling of the value of complementary markets for ecosystem services

Priority action 2: Building ecosystem resilience in a changing climate

2.1 Protecting diversity (secure protection, private land, listed threatened species and ecological communities, natural habitat condition) 2.2 Maintaining and re-establishing ecosystem functions (connectivity, provision of environmental water allocations, improved ecological fire regimes) 2.3 Reducing threats to biodiversity (threatening processes, impacts of invasive species, early interventions to manage threats)

4.By 2015, achieve a national increase of 600,000 km

2 of native habitat managed

primarily for biodiversity conservation across terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments 5.By 2015, 1,000 km

2 of fragmented

landscapes and aquatic systems are being restored to improve ecological connectivity 6.By 2015, four collaborative continental-scale linkages are established and managed to improve ecological connectivity 7.By 2015, reduce by at least 10% the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments

Priority action 3: Getting measurable results

3.1 Reducing threats to biodiversity (accessibility of science and knowledge, improved alignment of research with conservation priorities, increased application of knowledge by all sectors) 3.2 Delivering conservation initiatives efficiently (alignment with ABCS across jurisdictions, improved effectiveness and efficiency of programs and investments) 3.3 Implementing robust national monitoring, reporting and evaluation (national accounts, use of MERI, information use in adaptive management)

8.By 2015, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are guiding research activities By 2015, all jurisdictions will review relevant legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment with the ABCS 10.By 2015, establish a national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system


7

Target 1 (2010-2015): By 2015, achieve a 25% increase in the number of

Australians and public and private organisations who participate in

biodiversity conservation activities.

Summary of HSI assessment: This Target, perhaps more than most others in the Australian

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030, is almost meaningless in that it meets few of

the parameters that define a SMART target. No reliable baseline can readily be identified

against which progress towards the target can be measured. The closest current

assessment comes to this is the results of a 2011-12 national survey of ‘Community

engagement with nature conservation’, cited in Australia’s Fifth National Report to the

Convention on Biological Diversity8. However, the parameters required to properly assess

trends in numbers of Australians participating in biodiversity conservation activities are not

regularly, consistently or cost-effectively measured and they do not appear to provide

information that enables early warning of potential problems. An even more fundamental

concern is that awareness of ‘biodiversity’, its important role in life support processes and

the actions that individuals, communities, businesses and governments can take to help

conserve biodiversity are still poorly understood.

Performance rating: Red alert, since progress cannot meaningfully be

assessed using the current Target.

HSI Recommendations:

6. That in reviewing the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

and its interim Targets, all jurisdictions collaborate to develop more

meaningful National Targets relating to the Outcomes identified in the

national Action Plan.

7. That the Target, and the Outcomes sought be more closely related to:

o Aichi target 1 (awareness of the values of biodiversity and the steps that

people can take to conserve and use it sustainably),

o Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development

strategies, planning processes, national accounting systems and reporting

systems),

o Aichi target 4 (Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have

taken steps to achieve… sustainable production and consumption… ); and

o Aichi Targets 17 to 20 (addressing enhanced implementation through

participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building).That

the Australian Government revitalise its private land conservation

covenanting program as an important strategy in increasing community

engagement in rural landscapes.

8. That the guidelines for government funded projects for biodiversity

conservation be amended to include explicit requirements for

inclusion of an allocation to biodiversity awareness-raising and that

8 Australian Government Department of Environment (May 2014). Australia’s Fifth National Report

to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Department of the Environment, Canberra.


8

final acceptance of project completion be contingent on evidence of

such activities within each funded project.

Suggested new National Targets:

Replace existing National Target 1 with new Targets 1 and 2.

New National Target 1: By December 2016, government funded

projects directed to biodiversity conservation include an explicit

allocation to biodiversity awareness-raising and final acceptance of

project completion is contingent on evidence of such activities

within the project. (Relates particularly to Aichi Target 1); and

New National Target 2: By December 2016, review of the Australian

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy has been completed and the resulting

Strategy and its Action Plan are based on scientific evidence and include

substantial opportunities for participatory action by individuals,

communities, public sector organisations and businesses. (Relates

particularly to Aichi Targets 4 and 17).


9

Review of progress against Target 2: By 2015, achieve a 25% increase

in employment and participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity

conservation.

Summary of HSI assessment: Programs including the Indigenous Protected Areas program,

Working on Country and programs run by non-government conservation land management

organisations, including the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Pew Trusts, Bush Heritage

Australia and The Nature Conservancy are contributing to the attainment of this National

Target through their work in partnership with Aboriginal people to increase sharing of

traditional and western scientific methods of managing for conservation.

Performance rating: While concerns exist that changes in the focus of

Indigenous employment of people on their country has diminished the

extent to which Indigenous people are being supported to conserve

biodiversity, performance against this target has been assessed as having

largely been achieved. The challenge will be to maintain this

achievement under existing programmes.


9. That the focus of the previous Working on Country program on promoting

biodiversity and conservation of cultural resources be reinstated within the

current Jobs, Land and Economy program9.

10. That non-government organisations working with Aboriginal people to manage

their country for conservation outcomes, through collaborative use of

appropriate fire regimes, feral animal and weed control and other mechanisms,

receive public and private sector support for such work.

11. That in reviewing national Target 2 and actions to achieve it, greater attention

be paid to:

o Aichi target 2 (biodiversity values integrated with development and

poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and being

incorporated in national accounts and reporting systems),

o Aichi target 14 (restoration of essential ecosystem services… taking account

of Indigenous needs); and

o Aichi target 15 (relating to ecosystem resilience and the contribution of

biodiversity to carbon stocks).

o Aichi target 18 (relating to traditional knowledge, innovations and practices

and customary use of biological resources).

Retain National Target 2, which will become National Target 3 and update its target date

and baseline.

9 Australian Government. Jobs, Land and Economy. www.indigenous.gov.au [accessed December

2015].

New National Target 3: By 2020, achieve a 25% increase in employment and

participation of Indigenous peoples in biodiversity conservation, using 2015

figures as a baseline. (Relates particularly to Aichi Targets 2, 14, 15 and 18)

http://www.indigenous.gov.au/


10

Review of progress against Target 3: By 2015, achieve a doubling of the

value of complementary markets for ecosystem services.

Summary of HSI assessment: Increasingly the fact that markets for ecosystem services are

not achieving their intended outcomes is being recognised. While Australia may have

doubled the value of complementary markets for ecosystem services, as defined by the

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy target, measures of the total ecosystem services market

value are not readily obtained. Furthermore, considerable concern exists that the intent of

the target has not been achieved because of inadequate attention to the design of

programs providing payments for ecosystem services, with resulting perverse outcomes

harmful to biodiversity.

Performance rating: Although during the 1990s and early 2000s,

Australia was a leader in exploring complementary markets for ecosystem

services, the outcomes achieved are not extensive. Failure to adopt an

ecosystem services approach as a holistic framework within which to

improve biodiversity conservation, the establishment of markets

addressing a single or few resources providing services, and a lack of

continuity and commitment to voluntary NRM institutions create high

levels of caution about the ongoing outcomes of complementary markets

for ecosystem services.


12. That the Australian Government provides leadership in ensuring the successful

application of market-based instruments to the conservation of ecosystem

services by facilitating strategic dialogue within and among governments at

state and national scales.

13. That the dialogue begin from a premise that the relationships between

ecosystem processes, services benefits and beneficiaries provides a way to

inform planning, rather than viewing ecological debates as a contest between

biodiversity and socio-economic benefits.

14. That greater attention be paid to the design of programs providing payments

for ecosystem services, to ensure that they do not result in perverse outcomes

harmful to biodiversity. In this context Australian participation in the work of

the UN Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

should prove beneficial.

15. That where complementary markets are used in conserving biodiversity or

ecosystem services, government commitments be to long-term support for

their implementation through holistic actions.

16. That biobanking and offsetting schemes for the conservation of biodiversity

and ecosystem services not be applied where Matters of National

Environmental Significance are involved.


11

17. That in redefining Target 3 of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

greater account be taken of Aichi target 3, which relates to “elimination, phase

out or reform” of “incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity”.

New National Target 4: Using 2015 as a baseline, by 2020, achieve a

doubling of the value of biodiversity outcomes of complementary markets

for ecosystem services, after first ensuring that incentives, including

subsidies, which result in perverse outcomes harmful to biodiversity, have

been eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to avoid or minimise

negative impacts. (Relates particularly to Aichi Target 3)


12

Review of progress against Target 4: By 2015, achieve a national

increase of 600,000km2 of native habitat managed primarily for

biodiversity conservation across, terrestrial, aquatic and marine

environments.

Summary of HSI assessment: Australia has in recent years significantly increased the extent

of the National Reserve System. These initiatives have been strongly complemented by the

work of private land conservation organisations. However, protected areas managed

strictly for conservation outcomes (IUCN Category I – IV or equivalent), connected by

appropriately managed connecting corridors across the landscape are necessary to achieve

biodiversity conservation outcomes. Furthermore, the extent to which the additions to the

NRS have enhanced ‘comprehensive, adequate and representative’ protection of

Australia’s ecosystems and species diversity is an important consideration.

World-leading marine scientist Professor Callum Roberts, who led the setting of the 2003

global target, told the 2014 World Parks Congress10 that his research since the 2003 Durban

Congress shows that protecting one-third of ocean habitats will best secure a wide range of

conservation and management benefits. The 10 percent proposed in Aichi target 11 is no

longer considered adequate to provide resilience to the impacts of climate change, enable

rebuilding of populations of fish and other marine life, and restoration of sustainable

production of fisheries.

As Taylor, Fitzsimons & Sattler (2014)16 report, although the 2012 expansion of Australia’s

marine National Reserve System brought total coverage up to one-third of Australia’s

waters, only 13.5 percent is in “highly protected areas such as marine national parks, no-

take or green zones”. In order to “meet a standard of 15 percent of each of 2,420 marine

ecosystems and 30 percent of the habitats of each of 177 marine species of national

environmental significance” an expansion of marine national parks, no-take or green zones

to nearly 30 percent of state and Australian waters would be required.

Performance rating: While the Australian Government can properly claim

that it has substantially expanded the National Reserve System in recent

years, the gains are less robust than might at first glance appear. Not only

is a significant part of the increase in IUCN category V and VI reserves,

which lack adequate protection to conserve biodiversity. The reserves

established continue to lack the representativeness and connectivity

required for sound biodiversity outcomes. And, in the case of the marine

reserve system, management remains ill-defined and is currently subject

to review. The performance rating for this Target is therefore one of

significant caution.

10

IUCN (Nov 2014). The Promise of Sydney: Innovative approaches to World Heritage http://worldparkscongress.org/drupal/node/152 [accessed January 2016].

http://worldparkscongress.org/drupal/node/152


13


In addressing this National Target, the area conserved within the National Reserve System

is an important consideration, as are the private lands covenanted in perpetuity for

conservation outcomes. However, consistent with the definitions of IUCN reserve

categorisation, consideration must also be given to the extent to which the reserved areas

provide protection and conservation management for the full suite of species and

ecosystems. It is therefore recommended:

18. That the Australian Government work in close collaboration with

State and Territory Governments and with non-government

conservation organisations to ensure that the National Reserve

System and the Marine Reserve System become “comprehensive,

adequate and representative” of species, ecological communities and

ecosystems, thus meeting long-standing national and international

commitments.

19. That consistent with the recommendations provided by Taylor,

Fitzsimons and Sattler (2014), the Australian Government increase

funding for the National Reserve System to $170 million per year and

that appropriate funding be provided to enable the buy-out of

fisheries operations needed to achieve a comprehensive, adequate

and representative marine and coastal reserve system.

20. That the National Reserve System, Ecosystems of National

Importance, Wetlands of National Importance and Wild Rivers

become Matters of National Environmental Significance under the

provisions of the EPBC Act 1999, thus requiring the Australian

Government Minister for the Environment to approve any action that

will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact.

21. That the current reviews of marine protected areas be discontinued

and instead the Australian Government embrace the substantial body

of science already amassed in determining the composition of the

national marine reserve system, and ratify a world class network of

marine parks.

22. That governments increase funding allocations to enable greater provision of

incentives to landholders adopting permanent conservation covenants on their

properties, with emphasis placed on those parcels of land that are important in

protecting threatened ecological communities and those providing habitat

connectivity across the landscape. In particular, that the Australian

Government revitalise the national covenanting program and that places

adopting an in-perpetuity conservation covenant be designated Matters of

National Environmental Significance.

23. That state and local governments provide rate relief to landholders

with in-perpetuity conservation covenants on their properties, thus

providing additional incentives for entry into such agreements to

protect high conservation value remnants, and to provide additional

resources for management of that land.


14

24. That governments review relevant taxation laws, so that conservation

is properly recognised as a legitimate land use, thus allowing owners

of land managed for conservation outcomes to deduct non-capital

expenditure on conservation works against income, and allowing land

protected by in-perpetuity covenants to be exempt from capital gains

tax on future sale or purchase of that land.

25. That activities such as mining and other activities causing substantial

change to biodiversity values not be permitted on land that is under a

permanent conservation covenant.

26. That in reframing Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target

4, greater account be taken of:

o Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat),

o Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,

aquaculture and forestry); and

o Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland

water and 10% of marine areas through “ecologically representative and

well connected systems of protected areas…”)

New National Target 5: By 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial lands and inland

water, and 15% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular

importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through

effectively and equitably managed ecologically representative and well

connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based

conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and

seascape. (Relating directly to Aichi Target 11)


15

Review of progress against Target 5: By 2015, 1,000km2 of fragmented

landscapes and aquatic systems are being restored to improve ecological

connectivity.

Summary of HSI assessment: There are numerous factors currently working contrary to

the achievement of more effective restoration of fragmented landscapes. Furthermore, it

is difficult to locate science-based information that enables an assessment of progress

against this Target.

As Taylor, Eber and Toni (2014)11 report in their assessment of changing land use on

Australia’s wildlife “Clearing, fragmentation or habitat degradation are recorded as threats

to 76% of nationally threatened species”.

If fragmented landscapes are to be restored, then land outside designated reserves must

be managed sympathetically to conservation outcomes. As McIntyre (2014)12 indicates,

based on decades of sound scientific research, both the amount and arrangement of

habitat within the landscape are important, with optimal habitat connections being

determined by the land uses across an area.

Worboys and Mackey13 highlight in their 2013 discussion of ‘connectivity conservation’, the

importance of structure, management and governance in ensuring fragmented landscapes

are restored. The objectives of that restoration must be to restore the landscape in ways

that best enable conservation of whole-of-continent ecological processes and adaptation to

climate change.

Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target 5 is identified as having relevance to

Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of habitat), Aichi target 7

(relating to sustainable management of agriculture, aquaculture and forestry), Aichi target

11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland water and 10% of marine areas

through ‘ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”),

Aichi target 14 (ecosystems providing essential services, taking into account the needs of

women, Indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable), and Aichi target

15 (ecosystem resilience through conservation and restoration of at least 15% of degraded

ecosystems).

Performance rating: Despite substantial investment by successive

governments and a considerable body of work by community-based

organisations and individual landholders to restore fragmented

landscapes, a lack of sound science-based monitoring and evaluation and

uncertainties around current emphasis of government programs in

11

Taylor M, Eber S and Toni P (2014). Changing land use to save Australian wildlife. WWF Australia, Sydney. 12

McIntyre S (2014). Farming, pastoralism and forestry. In: S Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors) (2014). Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia; CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 13

Worboys GL and Mackey B (2013). Connectivity conservation initiatives: a national and international perspective. In: Fitzsimons J, Pulsford I and Wescott G (eds). Linking Australian Landscapes: Lessons and opportunities from large-scale conservation networks; CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.


16

restoration that will effectively ‘restore ecological connectivity’, progress

against this target can only be rated with caution.

That the programs addressing habitat fragmentation are numerous and diverse is appropriate, given

the threats posed by these actions. The structure of relatively natural habitats across the landscape,

the management of those habitats and the governance arrangements in place to support them are

all important.


27. That a science-based whole-of-landscape approach be taken and

rewarded in planning and managing for biodiversity conservation,

with ‘biodiversity hotspots’, climate refugia and other places of high

biodiversity significance given priority for support.

28. That the objectives of programs such as the National Landcare

Programme, the Twenty Million Trees Programme and the Green

Army Programme be clearly directed to restoration of fragmented

landscapes and that the achievements of funded projects be

measured against these objectives.

29. That a strong Environmental Stewardship program, targeting

remnants of fragmented threatened ecological communities, climate

refugia and landscape connectivity, be established as a high priority

for restoration of fragmented landscapes.

30. That State and Federal laws governing the conservation of biodiversity

and, in particular, native vegetation be retained and strengthened to

ensure that clearing be permitted only where it can be shown to

“maintain or improve” the biodiversity of an area.

31. That, in revisiting Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Target

5 greater account be taken of:

o Aichi target 5 (relating to loss, degradation and fragmentation of

habitat),

o Aichi target 7 (relating to sustainable management of agriculture,

aquaculture and forestry),

o Aichi target 11 (relating to conservation of 17% of terrestrial and

inland water and 10% of marine areas through ‘ecologically

representative and well connected systems of protected areas…”),

o Aichi target 14 (ecosystems providing essential services, taking into

account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and

the poor and vulnerable); and

o Aichi target 15 (ecosystem resilience through conservation and

restoration of at least 15% of degraded ecosystems).

New National Target 6: By 2020, at least 15% of degraded ecosystems are

being restored, and areas being used for agricultural or pastoral production,

forestry and aquaculture are being managed sustainably, ensuring

conservation of biodiversity and habitat connectivity. (Relates primarily to

Aichi Targets 5, 7, 11 and 15)


17

Review of progress against Target 6: By 2015, four collaborative

continental-scale linkages are established and managed to improve

ecological connectivity.

Summary of HSI assessment: One of the three priorities on which the ABCS rests is

“building ecosystem resilience in a changing climate”. Continental-scale corridors are

widely identified in the scientific literature as an important part of that adaptation and

resilience-building.

While some of the identified large-scale linkage projects are well under way, others are

merely in planning stages, lack financial support and/or have not achieved the parameters

necessary to ongoing success, parameters identified by Fitzsimons, Pulsford and Wescott

(2013)14 as:

The importance of a large scale of operation and the challenges that presents

The importance of a shared and guiding vision

Social and economic factors that are critical to success

The role of leadership and ‘champions’

The importance of appropriate governance

The key role of funding for on-ground actions

The place of a conservation plan and the delivery of broader NRM objectives

The role of existing and new protected areas providing an essential core of

connectivity networks; and

The need for effective communication between diverse members of the

connectivity project.

In its annual report for 2013-14, the Australian Government Department of the

Environment, in addressing Biodiversity and Ecosystem outcomes15, reports that the

National Wildlife Corridors Plan and associated management arrangements have been:

“…discontinued as a result of changing Government priorities. New

programmes, such as the 20 Million Trees Programme, will support the

planting of native trees and associated understorey species to re-establish

green corridors and urban forests”.

Current 20 Million Trees and Green Army programs lack the powerful commitment to

collaborative continental-scale linkages established and managed to improve ecological

connectivity that was contained in the previous National Wildlife Corridors Plan. The alert

by Taylor, Fitzsimons and Sattler (2014)16, that protected area connectivity “has increased

[only] modestly for terrestrial protected areas in terms of the median distance between

14

Fitzsimons J, Pulsford I and Wescott G (eds) (2013). Linking Australia’s Landscapes: Lessons and Opportunities from Large-scale Conservation Networks. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 15

Australian Government Department of Environment (2014). Annual Report: Outcome 1- Biodiversity and Ecosystems. http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment [accessed January 2015]. 16

Taylor M, Fitzsimons J and Sattler P (2014). Building Nature’s Safety Net 2014: A decade of protected area achievements in Australia. Report prepared for WWF Australia, Sydney.

http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment

http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/publications/annual-report-2013-14-environment


18

neighbouring protected areas, but this progress has been undermined by increasing land

use intensity in landscapes between protected areas”, heightens the need for a strong

commitment to large-scale corridor connectivity management for biodiversity outcomes.

Reporting to the Convention on Biodiversity Conservation, the Australian Government links

this national Target to Aichi Target 11 on conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services

which addresses “well connected systems of protected areas”. However, the indicators of

progress provided relate to the National Wildlife Corridors Plan. Although not considered

in the Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biodiversity Conservation, Australia’s

Target 6 should also have relevance to Aichi target 4, addressing sustainable production

and keeping use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits, Aichi target 5

relating to rate of loss of all natural habitats and Aichi target 7 relating to sustainable

management of agriculture, aquaculture and forestry ensuring conservation of biodiversity.

Performance rating: Although good progress has been made with some

large-scale connectivity projects, progress against the specific and

measurable target of “four collaborative continental-scale linkages

established and managed to improve ecological connectivity” must be

allocated a red alert.


The pressures of landscape fragmentation and the need to enhance capacity to adapt to

climate change are major factors in the ongoing decline of Australia’s biodiversity. It is

therefore recommended:

32. That the Australian Government provide leadership in re-establishing

a national landscape-scale program supporting collaborative

establishment and ongoing management of continental-scale linkages

to improve ecological connectivity.

33. That enduring institutional arrangements be established to support

the development of collaborative large-scale connectivity projects.

34. That high quality remnant habitat within recognised large-scale

connectivity corridors be given priority in Australian Government

funding programs.

35. That priorities for the landscape connectivity program be guided by

science, noting the available information on project design, climate

refugia, habitat fragmentation, and ‘biodiversity hotspots’.

36. That the National Reserve System, and its expansion to a more

comprehensive, adequate and representative system for Australian

biodiversity conservation, provide a core of these projects.

37. That those large-scale connectivity projects that have already made

significant progress be supported to progress their achievements to

date.

38. That in reviewing this National Target, greater account be taken of those

aspects of Aichi target 11 which addresses “well connected systems of


19

protected areas”.

Australia’s Target 6 should also have regard to:

o Aichi target 4, addressing sustainable production and keeping use of

natural resources well within safe ecological limits,

o Aichi target 5 relating to rate of loss of all natural habitats; and

o Aichi target 7 relating to sustainable management of agriculture,

aquaculture and forestry ensuring conservation of biodiversity.

New National Target 7: By 2020, at least four collaborative large-scale

linkages are established and managed to improve ecological connectivity,

the areas of focus being determined by science-based assessment of the

capacity of sites to provide landscape-scale connectivity between strictly

protected areas, climate refugia and other sites of high biodiversity

significance. (Relates most directly to Aichi Targets 4, 7, 11 and 15)


20

Review of progress against Target 7: By 2015, reduce by at least 10%

the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and ecological

communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments.

Summary of HSI assessment: Throughout the past decade, weeds have repeatedly been

identified as a major problem for agriculture, biodiversity and ecosystems in Australia. In

2006 Coutts-Smith and Downey17 identified weeds as second only to land clearing as a

threat to Australia’s biodiversity. Despite substantial investment in weed and pest animal

control by successive national and state governments, the impacts of invasive species on

threatened species and ecological communities are growing rather than being reduced.

As the Invasive Species Council identifies in its September 2014 primary submission18 to the

Senate Inquiry into ‘the adequacy of arrangements to prevent the entry and establishment

of invasive species likely to harm Australia’s natural environment’:

“Although there have been many improvements in biosecurity,

approaches to environmental biosecurity tend to be tacked onto existing

biosecurity structures that prioritise industry interests. Although there are

many overlaps with industry biosecurity, environmental biosecurity is

more challenging, with a greater scale and complexity of threats, fewer,

management options and more limited resources”.

Relevant to this National Target are Aichi target 9, in which identified alien species and

pathways are identified and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and

measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and

establishment; Aichi target 10 relating to anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs and other

vulnerable ecosystems, and Aichi target 12, relating to prevention of extinction of known

threatened species are also relevant to Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Target 7.

Performance rating: Failure to make substantial progress in preventing

and managing the impacts of invasive species on threatened species and

ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments,

means that progress against this national Target must be rated a red

alert.


While much has been done in recent years to improve Australia’s approach to biosecurity

and to begin to build a more coordinated national system effective across all jurisdictions,

much remains to be done if the impacts of exotic species on biodiversity and ecosystem

services are to be reduced. HSI therefore recommends:

17

Coutts-Smith AJ and Downey PO (2006). The impact of weeds on threatened biodiversity in New South Wales; CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide. 18

Invasive Species Council (Sept 2014). Stopping new invasive species: Primary Submission. Submission to Senate Inquiry, Invasive Species Council, Fairfield Vic.


21

39. That the threats posed by invasive species to threatened species,

ecological communities and ecosystems be elevated to a status

equivalent to that given to species impacting on agricultural and other

industries and that programs recognising this need be established and

properly resourced.

40. That, consistent with the recommendations of the Hawke review

(2009)19 of the EPBC Act 1999, invasive species posing a risk to

significant environmental aspects of Australia’s biodiversity, be

specifically addressed under the provisions of the Act, including

triggers to conduct an environmental import risk assessment of both

existing permitted imports and those proposed in the future.

41. That funding to address weed and feral animal control be allocated at

the time of listing of Threatened Ecological Communities under the

provisions of the EPBC Act 1999.

42. That risk assessment processes determining permissible entry of new

species to Australia be science-based, taking account of likely

environmental impacts as well as impacts on industry, and that they

be conducted through transparent processes open to public input.

43. That the capacity of local landholders and others in the community to

recognise and report unusual plant and animal species is

strengthened and that such community-based surveillance be

supported by an enhanced network of NRM professionals trained in

the biosecurity pathway.

44. That, as has repeatedly been called for in reviews of invasive species

management and control, the Australian, State and Territory

governments make every effort to better harmonise and build

consistency between their various laws and programs governing

invasive species.

45. That, as part of increasing the flow of information about biosecurity,

national datasets be made available in the Atlas of Living Australia20 or

another readily accessible repository, on the occurrence, detection

and new incursions of weeds.

46. That, as the impacts of climate change bring increased likelihood of

relocation and new establishment of some weed species, science and

practice of weed management be more closely aligned by making

relevant members of the scientific community, the NRM sector, rural

landholders and others in the community aware of likely weed spread

and alerting them to the need for renewed vigilance.

47. That governments at all levels collaborate to ensure that Threat

Abatement Plans are developed and implemented for all invasive-

19

Hawke A (Oct 2009). The Australian Environment Act. Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Report to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. 20

Atlas of Living Australia. www.ala.org.au

http://www.ala.org.au/


22

species related Key Threatening Processes recognised nationally

under the provisions of the EPBC Act 1999.

48. That, as part of a risk-based approach to invasive species control, the

impact of proposed control measures on native species be considered

prior to implementation of any particular control action.

49. That the Australian Government develop a National Dingo

Conservation Strategy, in recognition of the important role dingoes

play in suppressing populations of foxes and feral cats and therefore

the conservation of numerous threatened species. The Strategy

should include a dingo rewilding program and trial introductions of

maremma guard dogs to replace baiting control in Northern

Australian cattle country.

50. In addressing recommendations to reduce the impacts of invasive

species on threatened species and ecological communities in

terrestrial, aquatic and marine environments, HSI supports the full

suite of recommendations made by the Invasive Species Council in its

September 2014 submission67 to the Senate Inquiry into invasive

species.

51. In reviewing this national Target, full account should be taken of:

o Aichi target 9, in which alien species and pathways are identified

and prioritised, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and

measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their

introduction and establishment.

o Aichi target 10 relating to anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs

and other vulnerable ecosystems; and

o Aichi target 12, relating to prevention of extinction of known

threatened species are also relevant to Australia’s Biodiversity

Conservation Strategy Target 7.

New National Target 8: By 2020, coordinated, well-funded efforts are in

place to prevent the arrival of new potentially harmful species and have

achieved a net reduction in the impacts of existing invasive species on

threatened species and ecological communities in terrestrial, aquatic and

marine environments through prevention of entry, early detection and risk-

based management of control and eradication. (Relates most directly to

Aichi Target 9)


23

Review of progress against Target 8: By 2015, nationally agreed

science and knowledge priorities for biodiversity conservation are

guiding research activities.

Summary of HSI assessment: As Morton and Sheppard (2014)21 conclude in their recent

book on science and solutions for Australia’s biodiversity:

“Science has a strong place in management, yet the scale and complexity

of the challenge are such that biodiversity science is only just beginning to

quantify ecological and social benefits and their interdependencies; and

In Australia, and globally, effective policy responses from governments to

the inter-linked social and ecological aspects of biodiversity are still in the

process of maturing”.

The Atlas of Living Australia, funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure

Strategy and the Super Science Initiative that ran from 2009 to 2013, was designed to

“create a national database of all of Australia’s flora and fauna that could be accessed

through a single, easy to use web site”. Freely open to public access the intent of the Atlas

was threefold:

To improve our understanding of Australian biodiversity

To assist researchers to build a more detailed picture of Australia’s biodiversity;

and

To assist environmental managers and policy makers develop more effective

means of managing and sustaining Australia’s biodiversity.

To varying degrees, these three outcomes (all of which contribute to attaining Target 8 of

the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy) are all progressing under the

collaborative effort of museums and other scientific institutions around the country, and

with input from the wider community.

The application of available science to better policy-making is a weak link in this process.

The long-term plan for Australia’s ecosystem science proposed by the Ecosystem Science

Long-term Plan Steering Committee (2014)22 sets out a roadmap for achievement of Target

8. However, it is unrealistic to expect that the Target will be achieved within the timeline

proposed in Target 8.

The vision guiding the Long-term Plan has a 20 year timeline, namely:

“In twenty years’ time the status of Australia’s ecosystems and how they

change will be widely reported and understood, and the prosperity and

wellbeing they provide will be secure. To enable this, Australia’s national

21

Morton S and Sheppard A (2014). Conclusions. In: Morton S, Sheppard A and Lonsdale WM (eds). Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 22

Ecosystem Science Long-term Plan Steering Committee (2014). Foundations for the Future: A long-term plan for Australian ecosystem science. www.ecosystemscienceplan.org.au

http://www.ecosystemscienceplan.org.au/


24

ecosystem science will be well coordinated, collaborative, and connected.

Knowledge from ecosystem science will be available and essential to

government, industry, the general public, and for research and

educational institutions”.

The Aichi Targets identified as relevant to Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Target 8, are Aichi targets 18 and 19. Aichi target 18 relates to the integration of

Indigenous knowledge into conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (an area in

which some progress has been made). Aichi target 19 relates more directly to Australia’s

Strategy Target 8, addressing the role of knowledge, science base and technologies into

biodiversity conservation and management. Notably, this is not an Aichi target against

which the Australian Government reports having made significant progress at the time of

its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Performance rating: While this is an area in which scientists involved in

the sciences most relevant to biodiversity conservation do appear to be

making significant progress, two issues raise caution. The first of these is

the severe cuts to environmental sciences budgets by government,

combined with an apparent reluctance of the current Australian

Government to accept science-based evidence as a basis from which to

formulate policy. The second is the complexity of the challenge and the

need for a realistic timeframe for inclusion in the Target.


The need for sound, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities to guide not only

research activities, but also policy and programs for biodiversity conservation, is widely

recognised. In reviewing national Target 8, HSI therefore recommends:

52. That the six priority directions for the future of Australian ecosystem

science outlined in the Ecosystem Science Long-Term Plan (2014)23 be

supported by governments, research scientists and the community.

53. That mechanisms to enhance collaboration between ecosystem

scientists from different disciplines and between ecosystem scientists

and end-users (at policy, program and on-ground levels) be

developed, implemented and supported.

54. That, recognising the long-term nature of many ecological changes,

dedicated long-term funding be committed for ecosystem research.

55. That systematic, continental-scale monitoring essential for ecosystem

variables be established and maintained to identify trends in the

health of our ecosystems.

23

Six ‘priority directions’: Enhancing relationships between scientists and end-users; Supporting long-term research; Enabling ecosystem surveillance; Making the most of data sources; Empowering the public with knowledge and opportunities; and Facilitating coordination, collaboration and leadership. From: Ecosystem Science Long-term Plan Steering Committee (2014). Foundations for the Future. A long-term plan for Australia’s ecosystem science. www.ecosystemscienceplan.org.au

http://www.ecosystemscienceplan.org.au/


25

56. That ecosystem science datasets be professionally archived and made

easily accessible to the broad range of potential end-users who will

benefit from that information.

57. That the science and datasets that underpinned the national

Biodiversity Hotspots program be reviewed and updated as an

important source of information on which to build conservation

programs.

58. That processes be put in place to ensure that ecosystem science is

provided to school students and the wider community in ways that

inspire their knowledge and appreciation of Australia’s ecosystems.

59. That governments, the Ecosystem Science Council and others provide

leadership in ensuring greater collaboration and coordination of

ecosystem science.

60. That government funding programs are established in ways that not

only enable, but also facilitate the formation of partnerships and

collaborations, rather than the current competitively-based funding

models.

61. That community-based research and knowledge initiatives such as the

Atlas of Living Australia, continue to be supported and promoted to

potential users.

62. In reviewing national Target 8, full account be taken of Aichi target 19,

which relates directly to Australia’s Strategy Target 8, addressing the

role of knowledge, science base and technologies into biodiversity

conservation and management.

Aichi target 18, which relates to the integration of Indigenous

knowledge into conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (an

area in which some progress has been made) is also relevant.

New National Target 9: By 2020, the six priority areas for action identified

within the Long-term Plan for Australia’s Ecosystem Science have been

accepted as nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for

biodiversity conservation and are guiding collaborative research activities,

policy and programs to conserve Australia’s ecosystems. (Relates primarily

to Aichi targets 18 and 19)


26

Review of progress against Target 9: By 2015, all jurisdictions will

review relevant legislation, policies and programs to maximise alignment

with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.

Summary of HSI assessment: A downward trend in legislative protection of Australia’s

biodiversity began with the major amendments to the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act in 2006.

While Queensland has recently reviewed its legislation, policies and programs relevant to

biodiversity conservation and the outcomes of a New South Wales review are currently

under consideration, the changes made have largely been counter-productive to

conservation outcomes. For instance Taylor (2015)24 recently identified, using satellite data

and government sources:

“94 locations where over the last three years native vegetation has been

cleared or approved for clearing since the previous Queensland

Government watered down restrictions on tree clearing”, going on to

conclude that “The law was weakened to a point where it is no longer able

to meet its own objectives to conserve native vegetation and biodiversity”.

Furthermore, Taylor reports “a major increase in the areas cleared back to

levels not seen in nearly a decade. Areas of mature or remnant bushland

cleared nearly doubled after the changes in the laws”.

In Western Australia biodiversity conservation is heavily reliant on an outdated Wildlife

Conservation Act introduced in 1950 – a piece of legislation that the EDOs of Australia25

describe as providing “a very basic level of protection to plants and animals in WA” and

lacking in powers to “regulate the most common types of activities which are likely to have

a significant impact on plants and animals, such as development resulting in the clearing or

alternation of habitat, land use change, the pollution of waterways or reduction of

groundwater availability”.

That same report by the EDOs of Australia clearly indicates that in no State or Territory do

the planning laws explicitly incorporate core EPBC Act standards

With devolution of environmental powers of the Commonwealth to States and Territories

proceeding apace, these changes are all contrary to increasing biodiversity conservation by

maximising alignment with Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy.

The current Australian Government’s policy of devolving its legislative powers to protect

the environment under provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 is perhaps one of the single most important impediments not only to

achieving Target 9 of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and relevant Aichi

24

Taylor M (2015). Bushland destruction rapidly increasing in Queensland. WWF Australia. http://www.wwf.org.au/news_resources/resource_library/?14640/Bushland-destruction-rapidly-increasing-in-Queensland 25

EDOs of Australia (July 2014). Assessment of the adequacy of threatened species & planning laws. Report prepared for the Places You Love Alliance. EDO NSW, Sydney.

http://www.wwf.org.au/news_resources/resource_library/?14640/Bushland-destruction-rapidly-increasing-in-Queensland

http://www.wwf.org.au/news_resources/resource_library/?14640/Bushland-destruction-rapidly-increasing-in-Queensland


27

targets, but also to ever achieving long-term ecological sustainability in Australia.

Combined with moves by state and territory governments to weaken environmental

protections across the board, the Commonwealth’s planned abrogation of responsibilities

to protect all Matters of National Environmental Significance is likely to set the evolution of

environmental law in Australia back some 30 years – Target 9 will never be achieved.

Alignment of legislation, policy and programs to maximise alignment with Australia’s

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, and through that, to increase protection of Australia’s

biodiversity, will not come easily. However there is little evidence to date of efforts to even

begin that task.

This is a Target that the Australian Government identifies as aligning in part with Aichi

target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into development, poverty reduction and

planning processes), Aichi target 4 (implementation of plans for sustainable production and

consumption, keeping NRM use well within safe ecological limits), and Aichi target 17

(implementation of an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy

and action plan).

Performance rating: Although the Australian Government rates

performance against Aichi target 17 highly, there is substantial evidence

indicating that at the national level devolution of powers is downgrading

commitment and capacity to protect Australia’s biodiversity, and at State

and Territory levels any reviews of legislation are leading to outcomes

contrary to the objectives of the Australian Biodiversity Conservation

Strategy. Progress against Target 9 must therefore be rated as a red alert.


There is widespread agreement that, despite whatever efforts might be currently being

made by national, state and territory governments, biodiversity conservation and effective

legislative protection in Australia is going backwards. More concerted effort, through

collaborative action by all stakeholders, is required. In reviewing progress against this

national Target, HSI recommends:

63. That the Australian Government retain its powers to address all

Matters of National Environmental Significance under the EPBC Act,

recognising that:

o Only the Australian Government can deliver on Australia’s

international environmental obligations

o States have an inherent conflict of interest in assessing the

environmental impacts of development proposals in the national

interest, while also seeking to reap short-term economic benefits

from such developments.

o National environmental issues often cross jurisdictional

boundaries and thus need national leadership in determining their

appropriateness.


28

o States and Territories have already demonstrated a lack of

capacity to appropriately assess major projects.

64. That the Australian Government take a lead in coordinating a review

of existing biodiversity legislation in all jurisdictions, with a view to

better coordinating and harmonising efforts to conserve biodiversity

and ecosystem functions, including the listing of threatened species

and ecological communities, strengthening government obligations,

increasing access to courts for public enforcement, and doing so while

maintaining Commonwealth national legislative oversight.

65. That a revised and updated set of national Targets within the

Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy provide the framework

for a more consistent approach, and that the Aichi targets provide a

basis for this update.

66. That in undertaking this review, all jurisdictions commit to new

generation legislation, directed to improving legislative protection of

biodiversity based on best available science, taking account of the

likely impacts of climate change on Australia’s biodiversity, and

addressing the cumulative impacts and other systemic failures of

current legislation.

67. That in undertaking this alignment process, greater consideration be

given to sustainable agricultural, fisheries and forestry production in

those areas of the landscape that are not reserved for biodiversity

conservation outcomes.

68. That in seeking to improve the national Targets for biodiversity

conservation, the Australian, State and Territory Governments take

account of:

o Aichi target 2 (integration of biodiversity values into

development, poverty reduction and planning processes),

o Aichi target 4 (implementation of plans for sustainable production

and consumption, keeping NRM use well within safe ecological

limits); and

o Aichi target 17 (implementation of an effective, participatory and

updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan).

New National Target 10: By 2020, all jurisdictions will have reviewed

relevant legislation, policies and programs and adopted and commenced

implementation of an effective, participatory and updated biodiversity

strategy, action plan and laws to maximise alignment with Australia’s

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy within a context of retention of

Australian Government approvals powers. (Relates primarily to Aichi target

17)


29

Review of progress against Target 10: By 2015, establish a national

long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system.

Summary of HSI assessment: As Lindenmayer et al. (2012)26 identify:

“Biodiversity monitoring is critically important for fore-warning of

impending species declines and/or extinctions, creating triggers for

management intervention, quantifying the effectiveness of management

practices designed to conserve biodiversity, and accumulating the data to

underpin metrics reflecting the status of biodiversity.

National long-term monitoring and reporting are essential to achieve these outcomes. Yet,

as Lindenmayer et al. also highlight “biodiversity monitoring has a chequered history in

environmental management and conservation practice both in Australia and elsewhere”.

Yeates et al. (2014)27, assert that, with a small number of notable exceptions “little effective

ecological monitoring is conducted in Australia”. This they identified as a significant

contributor to “disagreement about how to manage [is] caused by disagreement about

what the poor-quality monitoring data are actually telling us”.

With funding support from the Australian Government’s National Collaborative Research

Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS), the Long-term Ecological Research Network (LTERN) has

developed a checklist of characteristics for “effective and influential long-term monitoring”

and several of its members are involved in decades-long research at sites producing

condition and trend data. LTERN goes some way towards establishing a national long-term

biodiversity monitoring and reporting system.

As long ago as 2008, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists28 highlighted the

importance and the benefits of a nationally standardised system of accounting to guide

management of our natural capital. The group provided a sound overview of the model

that might be used. However, little progress has yet been observed in achieving this

objective.

While government leadership and support is crucial to establishing and maintaining a

national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system, that system must be

informed by sound science and supported by community participation.

The Australian Government, in its Fifth National Report to the Convention on Biological

Diversity, relates this Target to Aichi targets 2 (integrating biodiversity values into

development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and their

incorporation into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting) and to Aichi target

26

Lindenmayer D, Gibbons P, Bourke M et al. (2012). Improving biodiversity monitoring. Austral Ecology 37, 285-294. 27

Yeates DK, Metcalfe DJ, Westcott DA & Butler A (2014). Australia’s biodiversity: Status and trends. In: S Morton, A Sheppard & WM Lonsdale (Editors) (2014). Biodiversity: Science and Solutions for Australia; CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. 28

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2008). Accounting for Nature: A model for building the national environmental accounts of Australia. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, Sydney.


30

19 (on use of knowledge and science base in relation to improving biodiversity status and

trends).

Performance rating: Good progress is being made towards the

challenging task of achieving of Target 10. However, a high degree of

caution is required because of lack of evidence of ongoing government

support for the scientific and community-based programs that are making

that progress.


In the absence of effective long-term monitoring and reporting of biodiversity, Australia lacks a

sound basis for determining trends in biodiversity, an informed basis for identifying spending

priorities in biodiversity conservation, an understanding of returns (both economic and ecological) on

investment, and a sound basis for the adaptive management needed to turn around our current

biodiversity crisis. In reviewing national Target 10, HSI recommends:

69. That the Australian, State and Territory Governments support the

development of science-based, nationally agreed indicators and

monitoring protocols that enable analysis of trends in key biodiversity

indicators at the species, population, ecological community,

ecosystem and threat level, and that scientists, resource managers

(including those in industry), community organisations involved in

long-term biodiversity monitoring, and policy makers all have an

opportunity to participate in the development of these indicators and

protocols.

70. That, consistent with the recommendations of the Wentworth Group

of Concerned Scientists, a national system of ‘environmental

accounts’, with parallels in accountability to those applied to the

economy, be developed and implemented in relation to the nation’s

biodiversity.

71. That private companies undertaking biodiversity monitoring be

required to contribute their data to the ‘national environmental

accounts’.

72. That funding programs be reshaped to include provision for

monitoring and reporting of outcomes beyond the funded life of a

project.

73. That data curation and maintenance of records become a national

priority accessible to all who have an interest in biodiversity.

74. That lessons learned from biodiversity monitoring be made widely

available and their application to changed outcomes documented.

75. That ongoing support be provided both for maintaining long-term

biodiversity monitoring and for community-based programs such as

the Atlas of Living Australia and the Atlas of Australian Birds.

76. That in reviewing national Target 10, full account be taken of:


31

o Aichi target 2 (integrating biodiversity values into development

and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and their

incorporation into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting);

and

o Aichi target 19 (on use of knowledge and science base in relation

to improving biodiversity status and trends).

New National Target 11: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have

been integrated into national and local development strategies and

planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as

appropriate, and reporting systems. (Relates most directly to Aichi target

2)

New National Target 12: By 2020, the science base and technologies

relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the

consequences of its loss, are improved , widely shared and transferred, and

applied, using the priority areas for action identified in the Long-term Plan

for Australia’s Ecosystem Science as a basis for shared information.

(Relates most directly to Aichi target 19)


32

CONCLUDING COMMENTS ON NEW NATIONAL TARGETS FOR THE AUSTRALIAN BIODIVERSITY

CONSERVATION STRATEGY

As outlined in HSI’s April 2015 submission to the Department of the Environment, a review

of progress towards achievement of each of the ten “interim” National Targets set in the

Australian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 provides a welcome opportunity

to revise those targets.

This submission builds on HSI’s previous work and provides recommendations for new

National Targets aimed at stopping the ongoing declines in biodiversity, so that we can

“achieve healthy and resilient biodiversity” and thus “provide a basis for living sustainably”.

While progress towards achievement of the National Targets set in the Australian

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy in 2015 has been poor, opportunities to reverse that

situation are numerous. This submission, together with our earlier evaluation submitted in

April 2015, offers guidance on how progress commensurate with Australia’s significant

place in conserving biodiversity globally can be made.

Documents

Australia’s iodiversity onservation Strategy · ABCS across jurisdictions, improved effectiveness and efficiency of programs and investments) 3.3 Implementing robust national monitoring,