PreprintPDF Available

A report card methodology to showcase progress towards threatened species recovery

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

Among the conservation community, it is well known that Earth’s mass species extinction crisis is getting worse. Yet, an often neglected problem is the need for effectively communicating the species extinction crisis to diverse audiences in ways that catalyse immediate action. Here we generated a streamlined threatened species recovery report card methodology, which combined two input indicators including planning and funding, one output indicator capturing habitat protection, and one outcome indicator which highlights threatened species trajectories, to provide simple scores for all Australian threatened species. We show that just 41 (2.3%) of species achieved an A grade for the input indicator (i.e., recovery plans and federal funding), 240 (13.3%) achieved a C grade, and 1,521 (84.4%) achieved an F. Five hundred and twenty nine (29.3%) species achieved an A for the output indicator (i.e, habitat protection), 130 (7.2%) achieved a B, 158 (8.8%) achieved a C, 189 (10.5%) achieved a D, 212 (11.8%) achieved an E, and 584 (32.4%) achieved a F. While five (0.3%) species achieved an A for the output indicator (i.e., threat status improvement), every other species (99.7%) achieved an F. We provide a method to combine scores to test how individual jurisdictions are tracking and show that Australia is achieving an F for the input and outcome indicators, and a D for the output indicator. While the threatened species recovery report card highlighted a clear failure in many federal environmental legislation responsibilities, it provides a baseline from which different governments can track policy progress and outlines clear direction for immediate improvement including developing adequate recovery plans, funding the actions in the recovery plans, protecting habitat from further destruction, verifying recovery through monitoring and evaluation of species trajectories, and supporting transparency and collaboration on the execution on the plans through an improved data infrastructure. Without an immediate step change in how Australia communicates and faces its species crisis, we will leave a tragic legacy of extinction and fail our obligations to future generations of Australians, and the international community.
1
A report card methodology to showcase progress towards threatened
1
species recovery
2
3
Authors:
Michelle Ward1,2, Tracy Rout1, Romola Stewart1, Hugh P. Possingham2, Eve
4
McDonald-Madden2, Thomas G. Clark1, Gareth S. Kindler2, Leonie Valentine1, Ellen
5
Macmillan1, James E.M. Watson2
6
Affiliations:
7
1. WWF-Australia, Level 4B, 340 Adelaide Street, Brisbane QLD 4000
8
2. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia,
9
Queensland, Australia
10
11
Abstract:
12
Among the conservation community, it is well known that Earth’s mass species extinction
13
crisis is getting worse. Yet, an often neglected problem is the need for effectively
14
communicating the species extinction crisis to diverse audiences in ways that catalyse
15
immediate action. Here we generated a streamlined threatened species recovery report
16
card methodology, which combined two input indicators including planning and funding,
17
one output indicator capturing habitat protection, and one outcome indicator which
18
highlights threatened species trajectories, to provide simple scores for all Australian
19
threatened species. We show that just 41 (2.3%) of species achieved an A grade for the
20
input indicator (i.e., recovery plans and federal funding), 240 (13.3%) achieved a C grade,
21
2
and 1,521 (84.4%) achieved an F. Five hundred and twenty nine (29.3%) species achieved an
22
A for the output indicator (i.e, habitat protection), 130 (7.2%) achieved a B, 158 (8.8%)
23
achieved a C, 189 (10.5%) achieved a D, 212 (11.8%) achieved an E, and 584 (32.4%)
24
achieved a F. While five (0.3%) species achieved an A for the output indicator (i.e., threat
25
status improvement), every other species (99.7%) achieved an F. We provide a method to
26
combine scores to test how individual jurisdictions are tracking and show that Australia is
27
achieving an F for the input and outcome indicators, and a D for the output indicator. While
28
the threatened species recovery report card highlighted a clear failure in many federal
29
environmental legislation responsibilities, it provides a baseline from which different
30
governments can track policy progress and outlines clear direction for immediate
31
improvement including developing adequate recovery plans, funding the actions in the
32
recovery plans, protecting habitat from further destruction, verifying recovery through
33
monitoring and evaluation of species trajectories, and supporting transparency and
34
collaboration on the execution on the plans through an improved data infrastructure.
35
Without an immediate step change in how Australia communicates and faces its species
36
crisis, we will leave a tragic legacy of extinction and fail our obligations to future generations
37
of Australians, and the international community.
38
39
Key words:
40
Australia; biodiversity; conservation; policy; reporting; extinction
41
3
42
Introduction
43
Earth is currently experiencing a sixth mass species extinction event driven by human
44
activities (Johnson et al. 2017). It has been estimated that millions of species are now well
45
on the pathway to extinction, affecting the functioning of all ecosystems and the essential
46
services they provide to humanity (IPBES 2019). Biodiversity loss is now considered a serious
47
threat to humanities’ long-term well-being (Díaz et al. 2019) and nations have responded by
48
setting ambitious conservation targets to reverse loss through various mechanisms,
49
including the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Convention on
50
Biological Diversity (CBD) (United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 2015; Secretariat
51
of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2021).
52
53
It is well established that abating species extinction and achieving species recovery in-situ is
54
often complicated and multifaceted (Akçakaya et al. 2018; Stephenson et al. 2020). For
55
success to occur, it often needs proactive action, at different spatial scales, by numerous
56
actors, including scientists, practitioners, governments, and landholders who may have to
57
embrace activities they have not done in the past or are not in their best financial interest
58
(Watson et al. 2022). But beyond the practicalities of achieving a positive outcome, an often
59
under-appreciated, but increasingly important part of securing threatened species is
60
communicating the extent of the problem to mobilise action (Novacek 2008b). Crucially, this
61
communication (on what is needed to secure species) needs to be done in ways that the
62
4
wider community understands and relates to, thus galvanising the support needed to
63
catalyse action.
64
65
While significant exemplary efforts have been made to document the size of the threatened
66
species problem in global and nation reports (Convention on Biological Diversity 2011; IPBES
67
2019; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2020; WWF 2020), the limited
68
public knowledge of the growing extent of the biodiversity crisis globally (beyond concerned
69
citizens and experts) is a recognised problem (Novacek 2008a; Natural History Museum
70
2020). It is argued that the Anthropocene continues to be a period of “unprecedented
71
looking away” by people when considering their impact on the environment (Haraway
72
2016). With millions of species declining at ever faster rates (Ceballos et al. 2015), it is
73
evident that clearer communication on the extent of the global species extinction crisis is
74
required. Communication of the biodiversity crisis must be engaging and localised for
75
greater impact (Gobby et al. 2021), as well as provide opportunities for stronger
76
stewardship when relevant (Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles 2020).
77
78
Here, we develop a broad methodology to generate a scalable threatened species recovery
79
report card with the aim that it can be used to communicate the state of any threatened
80
species to the wider community in an easy-to-understand format. It can be aggregated to
81
report across any scale of jurisdiction (i.e., from a single protected area, local government
82
area, electorate, state, to a nation or continent) to provide an easy reporting tool across
83
time to assess progress. The report card goes beyond providing information on the actual
84
state of individual species (such as those efforts provided by IUCN Red List of Threatened
85
5
Species, (IUCN 2018)) as it utilises a input-output-outcome framework (Margoluis et al.
86
2013) to highlight information on conservation progress. The report card contains known
87
information on levels of planning, funding, and protection, and recent trajectories for each
88
species, which when combined, provides a simple communication tool the state of each
89
species. It builds on efforts of the IUCN Green List of Species (Akçakaya et al. 2018) by being
90
a communication tool for conservation progress rather than a planning and reporting
91
apparatus for species’ ecological recovery.
92
93
We showcase this reporting method by utilising data on threatened species in Australia. As
94
one of just 17 mega-biodiverse nations (Commonwealth of Australia, 2022), Australia has
95
one of the worst records for recent species extinctions (Ritchie et al. 2013), and it is likely
96
many more will go extinct without significant investment in proactive actions (Garnett et al.
97
2022; Kearney et al. 2022), making it a good case study. Australia is also a signatory to the
98
Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD)and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs;
99
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020) and has clear obligations under
100
national environmental legislation for protecting threatened species (e.g., Environment
101
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act; EPBC Act, (Commonwealth of Australia 1999)).
102
We showcase the use of the report card over different scales by disaggregating threatened
103
species data by national, electorate, state and territory, and local government areas (LGA),
104
of which jurisdictions play different, but important roles in securing Australian threatened
105
species.
106
107
108
6
Method
109
The threatened species report card utilises the input-output-outcome framework to help
110
visualise the relationship between resources used (inputs), activities undertaken (outputs),
111
and the results (outcomes). This logic model is used because of its generality and easy to
112
understand theory of change (Margoluis et al. 2013). While results chains are more specific
113
and show direct relationships between inputs, outputs, and outcomes (Margoluis et al.
114
2013), the type of data needed for result chains is not available for most threatened species
115
and while critical for recovery planning, is not needed as a communication tool, thus a
116
simpler logic model was used.
117
118
The report card comprises of four indicators (two inputs, one outcome, and one output),
119
covering the major building blocks needed to recover threatened species. The four
120
indicators include known information on planning, funding, levels of protection, and recent
121
trajectories for each species. These indicators are assessed against the desired state which is
122
to ensure that all species have recovery plans (input), all species have dedicated funding to
123
secure their management needs (input), habitat for all species has adequate protection
124
(outcome), and species are improving in extinction risk trajectories (output). We chose
125
these indicators not only because they are critical to recovering threatened species, but
126
because they are measurable, data is often updated by the Australian government to ensure
127
repeatability in future years and can be combined to provide a simple communication tool
128
for species, and if needed, for any jurisdiction of interest (Table 1).
129
130
7
Table 1. Summary of the four indicators within the threatened species recovery report card
131
for species and jurisdictional reporting
132
Indicators
Indicator
for species
reporting
Indicator for
jurisdictional
reporting
Method
for species
reporting
Method for
jurisdictional
reporting
Benchmark
Action
Input:
Recovery
plans
Species has
a recovery
plan.
Proportion
of species
with
recovery
plan.
Identify if
species
has a
recovery
plan made
or updated
in the last
10 years.
Number of
species with
recovery
plan made or
updated in
the last 10
years divided
by total
number of
species.
1 = Species (or
all species in
the
jurisdiction)
has a recovery
plan
made/updated
within the last
10 years.
Ensure the
timely
development
and review of
recovery plans.
Input:
Funding
recovery
Species has
had
dedicated
federal
government
funding in
the last 5
years.
Proportion
of species
with
dedicated
federal
government
funding in
the last 5
years.
Identify
species
with
dedicated
funding.
Number of
species with
funding
divided by
total number
of species.
1 = Species (or
all species in
the
jurisdiction)
has received
some
dedicated
funding in the
last 5 years.
Fund actions in
species'
recovery plans.
Output:
Species-
specific
habitat
protection
Species
habitat has
enough
protection
to meet
species-
specific
protection
target.
Proportion
of the
species-
specific
protection
target that
has been
achieved in
threatened
species
habitat.
Spatially
intersect
all
threatened
species
habitats
with
protected
area
estate.
The average
of the
species-
specific
protection
target that
has been
achieved in
threatened
species
habitat
within the
jurisdication.
1 = Species (or
all species in
the
jurisdiction)
has more than
or equal to
their species-
specific
habitat
protection
target.
Commit and
implement
adequate
habitat
protection for
each species
habitat.
Outcome:
Species
extinction
risk
trajectories
Species has
improved in
threat
status over
the last 10
years.
Proportion
of species
that have
improved in
threat status
over the last
10 years.
Identify if
species
threat
status has
improved.
Number of
species
whose
threat status
has
improved
divided by
the total
1 = Species (or
all species in
the
jurisdiction)
has improved
in threat
status in the
last 10 years.
Evidence that
species are
recovering.
8
number of
species
133
134
Input indicator: Recovery plans
135
Once a species has been listed as threatened with extinction, recovery plans are critical as
136
they provide a roadmap to stopping the decline, and supporting the recovery of species
137
(Department of the Interior 1973; Commonwealth of Australia 1999). Well-funded recovery
138
plans ensure transparency and accountability through clear documentation of species
139
threats, actions, and expenditure needed, along with monitoring and evaluation of
140
conservation outcomes (Bottrill et al. 2011; McDonald et al. 2015; Wintle et al. 2019). A
141
recent global analysis of threatened species found that more than half of species required
142
species-specific recovery actions to prevent extinction, in addition to area-based
143
conservation and threat management (Bolam et al. 2022). Without recovery plans for each
144
species, necessary species-specific recovery actions may remain unidentified and recovery
145
efforts ineffective.
146
147
Input indicator: Funding recovery
148
Earth’s ongoing species loss and growing threatened species list is a direct result of
149
inadequate funding for environmental protection and targeted species recovery. Research
150
shows that the more a country spends on conservation, the fewer species extinctions
151
9
(Waldron et al. 2017). In the United States, strong investment in threatened species
152
recovery has resulted in 39 species being de-listed due to recovery efforts (Wintle et al.
153
2019). The critical need for adequate financial resources is exemplified in international
154
commitments, such as the CBD where Goal D demands that the gap between available
155
financial and other means of implementation, and those necessary to achieve the 2050
156
Vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’, is closed (Secretariat of the Convention on
157
Biological Diversity 2021). To recover threatened species, there must be adequate
158
investment in appropriate conservation actions.
159
160
Output indicator: Protection of threatened species habitats
161
Protected areas are the cornerstone in biodiversity conservation (Watson et al. 2014a;
162
Dudley & Stolton 2016; Maxwell et al. 2020). With threatened species habitat continually
163
being destroyed and successive climate-driven conservation disasters, such as droughts,
164
bushfires, and floods also taking a devastating toll (Ward et al. 2019, 2020; Legge et al.
165
2021), protected areas will continue to play a key role in protecting habitat and recovering
166
threatened species (Watson et al. 2014b). When protected areas are connected,
167
representative, and well managed, they offer a simple solution that safeguards habitat,
168
builds resilience to climate change, and facilitates fundamental ecological processes such as
169
migration and dispersal (Thomas & Gillingham 2015; Barr et al. 2016; Tucker et al. 2018).
170
171
172
173
Outcome indicator: Species extinction risk trajectories
174
Under the IUCN Red List there are seven categories to classify extinction risk: least concern,
175
near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, extinct in the wild, and
176
extinct (IUCN 2015). These categories are generally consistent across countries with some
177
variations. For example, under Australian federal listings, there is no least concern or near
178
threatened category. This classification changes if a species becomes more or less
179
threatened over time (Monroe et al. 2019). There is now extensive research that shows
180
when conservation actions are well-planned, funded, and implemented, they can stop
181
species extinction, slow the extinction rate, and halt and reverse species extinction risk
182
trajectories (Mace et al. 2018; Monroe et al. 2019; Bolam et al. 2021). Thus, species
183
extinction risk trajectories are important to capture and highlight successful recovery
184
efforts.
185
186
All four indicators can be used to produce threatened species grades (Fig. 1). These grades
187
can be utilised to communicate the state of any threatened species at any point in time. The
188
indicators can also be aggregated to report across any scale of jurisdiction. These
189
jurisdictions could include site scale, protected areas, local government areas, electorates,
190
states, or even used for national reporting. Scores were converted to grades where an F
191
grade is less than 0.16, an E grade is from 0.17-0.32, a D grade is 0.33 – 0.49, a C grade is 0.5
192
– 0.66, a B grade is 0.67 – 0.82, and an A grade is greater than 0.83.
193
194
195
Figure 1. Method figure outlining the four indicators and how each were scored across
196
multiple jurisdictions.
197
198
Australia as a case study
199
As of 7th March, under the EPBC Act, 1,948 species threatened with extinction were placed
200
into one of six threat categories: Conservation dependent, Vulnerable, Endangered,
201
Critically Endangered, Extinct in the wild, or Extinct. Except for Extinct species (n=105), most
202
are mapped within the Australian Government’s publicly available Species of National
203
Environmental Significance (SNES) spatial dataset (Commonwealth Government 2022) last
204
updated March 2022. The SNES maps are modelled distributions of each threatened species
205
that include known and likely areas of occurrence. The maps have two categories: areas
206
where the species or species habitat is ‘likely to occur’, and areas where the species or
207
species habitat ‘may occur. The SNES maps are generalised to a 1km2 grid resolution, or a
208
10km2 resolution for sensitive species, therefore may overestimate where species occur
209
INPUT OUTPUT OUTCOME
Planning Funding Protection Traj ec tor y
Species 1
1 0 1 0
Species 2
0 0 1 0
Species 3
1 0 1 0
S
pecies 4 1 1 1 1
Species 5
0 0 1 0
Species 6
0 1 1 0
Species 7
0 1 1 0
LGA 1
A D A F
LGA 2
D E A F
LGA 3
E C A F
LGA 4
A F A F
State 1
D D A F
State 2
A F A F
National
D D A F
(Commonwealth Government 2022). To refine this, we used only areas where the species or
210
species habitat is ‘likely to occur’, as ‘may occur’ areas are too broad for this analysis. As we
211
focus on threatened terrestrial and freshwater species, we removed 27 threatened marine
212
species from the SNES spatial dataset; however, retained some semi-aquatic marine species,
213
such as sea turtles, pinnipeds, and sea birds. To determine the occurrence of the remaining
214
1,816 threatened species in each state and territory, and local government area, we overlaid
215
the SNES spatial dataset (Commonwealth Government 2022) with the State and Territory
216
boundaries and local government areas to create species spatial matrices.
217
218
For species that have been delisted (n=5) in the last 10 years or were missing from the SNES
219
spatial dataset (n=7), we sourced occurrence records using Atlas of Living Australia. These
220
occurrence records were overlaid with the 2021 Federal Electoral Division maps (Australian
221
Electoral Commission 2022). Capricorn Rabbit-rat (Conilurus capricornensis), Blue-grey
222
Mouse (Pseudomys glaucus), Thalassarche bulleri platei, Diomedea antipodensis gibsoni,
223
Leucocarbo atriceps nivalis, Leucocarbo atriceps purpurascens, Lomatia tasmanica, and
224
South-eastern Striped Bandicoot (Perameles notina) had no occurrence records in the Atlas
225
of Living Australia and were not included in the analysis.
226
227
Recovery plans
228
When a species is listed under the EPBC Act, a Conservation Advice is developed which
229
commonly details the species taxonomy, threat category listing advice, threats, and actions.
230
Some species also have a recovery plan, which sets out the research and management
231
needed to protect and recover species, as well as how to manage and reduce threatening
232
processes. Recovery plans sometimes also outline the costs of expected actions and a plan
233
for implementation including co-ordination of government agencies and stakeholders.
234
While both are important conservation tools, the Minister for Environment is legally bound
235
to act consistently with a recovery plan, while conservation advice documents are not
236
legally enforceable.
237
238
For our assessment, we use recovery plans as the legally binding instrument as the best
239
indicator for tracking federal government planning and action for recovery. This does not
240
mean previously developed recovery plans are perfect. Rather, they have been criticised for
241
taking too long to implement, vague wording, and not including key information such as
242
costs or actions to mitigate threats such as habitat loss (Bottrill et al. 2011). Effective
243
recovery plans must be concise and time-bound, include return on investment principles,
244
and must include a plan for monitoring and evaluation of conservation outcomes (Bottrill et
245
al. 2011). Most importantly, the actions outlined in recovery plans must be funded and
246
implemented, preferably through long-term and flexible funding arrangements (Wintle et al.
247
2019).
248
249
Legally, recovery plans remain in force until their legislated sunsetting date, unless the
250
species is de-listed. The legislated sunsetting date is the 1 April or the 1 October, 10 years
251
after the recovery plan was made or adopted, although this date can be deferred by the
252
minister (Commonwealth of Australia 2022a). We used publicly available data downloaded
253
from the Australian Governments’ Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) database
254
(Commonwealth of Australia 2022a) to assess whether each threatened species has a
255
current recovery plan, defined as a plan adopted after the 2nd October 2011 through to 7th
256
March 2022, to align with mapping dataset. For the nation, and for each electorate, state
257
and territory, and LGA we summed the number of species with a current recovery plan,
258
divided by the total number of species in the nation, electorate, state and territory, and
259
LGA.
260
261
Funding recovery
262
Currently, there is no centralised system for tracking the funding provided to each federally
263
listed threatened species, nor is there any systematic way to track whether the actions
264
identified and costed in recovery plans have been funded or implemented. Ideally, there
265
would be costed recovery plans whereby one could report on adequate funding. In the
266
absence of a properly managed funding data tracking system, to assess which threatened
267
species have received funding for their recovery, we collated all publicly available
268
information on Australian Government funded conservation projects in the last 5 years and
269
included all projects regardless of amount or appropriateness to recovering species. This
270
included projects funded through the Threatened Species Recovery Fund, the Environment
271
Restoration Fund, the National Landcare Program Regional Land Partnerships, the Bushfire
272
Recovery Fund Phase 1 and Phase 2, and the Koala Conservation Package (Supplementary
273
Table 1). For each of these projects we identified threatened species that were named in the
274
title or description of the project, and then consolidated these to compile a list of all
275
threatened species that have received dedicated Australian Government funding in the last
276
5 years.
277
278
In addition to the sources mentioned above, we investigated yearly Portfolio budget
279
statements but found these did not identify funding down to the project-level and so did
280
not include information about targeted species. Similarly, currently available information on
281
the Oceans Leadership Package and the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan did not
282
identify targeted species. We calculated the indicator for the nation, and each electorate,
283
state and territory, and LGA by summing the number of species that received dedicated
284
funding in the last 5 years, divided by the total number of species in the nation and each
285
electorate, state and territory, and LGA.
286
287
This indicator captures only conservation funding that targets threatened species and
288
mentions those species by name. The Australian federal government and state governments
289
also fund threat abatement actions, such as fox (Vulpes vulpes) or cat (Felis Catus) control,
290
which likely benefit a suite of threatened species. However, if recovery plans for each
291
threatened species were costed, funded, implemented, and monitored, then there would by
292
necessity be dedicated reported funding for every threatened species. Therefore, while this
293
indicator will underestimate the number of threatened species benefiting from conservation
294
action funded by the Australian government, it is an accurate measure of how well the
295
government is systematically funding, tracking, and reporting progress in recovering species.
296
297
Habitat protection
298
To ensure persistence and recovery, species conservation plans often state a requirement to
299
have a measurable target threshold to be conserved by protecting remnant habitat and/or
300
restoring degraded sites (Andren 1994; Maron et al. 2012; Simmonds et al. 2019). This
301
target-based approach is often based on the mathematical relationship between habitat
302
area and the number of species an area can support, generally referred to as the “species–
303
area curve” (e.g., MacArthur & Wilson 1967). In recognising that setting meaningful targets
304
should be species-specific, we used methods developed by Watson et al. 2010 (based on
305
(Rodrigues et al. 2004) where we set a target for protection of either 1,000 km2 or 100% of
306
the range of the species range, whichever value was smaller for species with a geographic
307
range of <10,000km2. For all species with a geographic range of >10,000 km2, the target
308
was at 10% of the range. We note that many species distributions have substantially
309
contracted since pre-European colonisation, so these targets are likely an underestimate of
310
how much is actually needed to delist species from the EPBC Act threatened species list.
311
312
Following the methodology by Sutcliffe et al. 2015, we calculated the proportion of the
313
protection target that has been achieved by dividing the percentage protected by the
314
species-specific protection target. Then for the nation, electorates, states and territories,
315
and LGAs, we calculated the mean proportion of the protection target that has been
316
achieved across the intersecting species.
317
318
While we recognise that the degree of connectivity, size of habitat patches, and effective
319
management is of crucial importance to the viability of some species recovery and
320
persistence, due to the lack of species-specific data, these elements are not captured in this
321
analysis.
322
323
Species threat status trajectories
324
To calculate species threat status trajectories, we analysed publicly available data from the
325
Species Profiles and Threats database (Commonwealth of Australia 2022a) on threatened
326
species delistings or transfers between threat categories (e.g., Vulnerable, Endangered, or
327
Critically endangered) since commencement of the EPBC Act. We categorised each
328
downlisting transfer and verified a genuine recovery by referring to Conservation Advices.
329
330
To find species whose status has recently improved, we looked at species that have been
331
downlisted in the last 10 years (on or after 1 January 2012). We calculated the indicator for
332
the nation, and each electorate, state and territory, and LGA by summing the number of
333
species whose status has recently improved divided by the total number of species in the
334
nation, and each electorate, state and territory, and LGA. This data calculates the proportion
335
of species that have improved over the last 10 years in the nation and per electorate, state
336
and territory, and LGA.
337
338
339
340
The final grades of the threatened species recovery report card
341
The indicators were averaged across input indicators (i.e., recovery plans and funding),
342
output indicator (i.e., protection), and the outcome indicator (i.e., species threat
343
trajectories) to provide overall species scores. We also calculated input, output, outcome,
344
grades for national, electorate, state and territory, and local government area reporting. As
345
delisted species do not have recovery plans, funding, or maps to quantify protection, these
346
species were removed in the average input and output indicator scores.
347
348
Results
349
Ideally, every threatened species would have a recovery plan, dedicated funding, adequate
350
species-specific protection, which would then improve threat status. Using our new method
351
for calculating a threatened species report card, our analysis showed that only 173 species
352
(9.6%) have up-to-date recovery plans (54 = Vulnerable, 69 = Endangered, 50 = Critically
353
endangered) and 151 (8.3%) with dedicated funding (36 = Vulnerable, 75 = Endangered, 38 =
354
Critically endangered; Fig 2). Of the 151 species that were identified as receiving funding,
355
more than half of these (88) were mentioned in a single project (Supplementary Table 1).
356
Eleven species were named in more than 10 conservation projects, and one species (koala)
357
was named in 38 projects (Supplementary information 1). While 1,702 have some
358
protection, only 385 have adequate protection according to their species-specific target. In
359
the last 10 years, there have only been five genuine improvements of species threat status
360
(excluding humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) which was not analysed here as it’s a
361
marine species).
362
363
Figure 2. Summed scores of all threatened species in the analysis. The funding, recovery
364
plans, and threat status improvement indicators are either 0 (no) or 1 (yes) for each species.
365
Protection is a proportion of the species-specific target. The dotted line represents the
366
benchmark target, highlighting the need for every species to have a recovery plan, funding,
367
adequate protection, and threat status improvement. Critically Endangered species are
368
highlighted maroon, Endangered species are highlighted orange, Vulnerable species are
369
highlighted yellow, and Not listed species are highlighted grey.
370
371
When we averaged the two input indicators across every threatened species, we found that
372
41 species (2.3%) received an A grade, including spotted-tail quoll (Dasyurus maculatus
373
maculatus (SE mainland population)), growling grass frog (Litoria raniformis), and regent
374
honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia), all of which have a recovery plan and dedicated funding
375
(Fig. 3A). Two hundred and forty species (13.3%) received a C grade, and 1,521 species
376
(84.3%) received a F grade. When we analysed the output indicator (i.e., protection), we
377
found that 532 species (29.5%) received an A grade, 130 (7.2%) received a B grade, 156
378
(8.6%) received a C grade, 192 (10.6%) received a D grade, 218 (12.0%) received an E grade,
379
and 574 (31.8%) received a F grade (Fig. 3B). Only five species (0.3%) received an A for the
380
outcome indicator, all other species received an F (99.7%; Fig. 3AC). There were 122 (6.8%)
381
species which did not have a recovery plan, funding, protection, and no threat status
382
improvement. This included species such as Rottnest bee (Hesperocolletes douglasi), Tiwi
383
masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae melvillensis), and Mount Cooper striped skink (Lerista
384
vittata).
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
Figure 3. Input indicators (A), output indicator (B), and outcome indicator (C) across every
397
threatened species (Y-axis) to provide an overall grade (X-axis). Critically Endangered species
398
are highlighted maroon, Endangered species are highlighted orange, Vulnerable species are
399
highlighted yellow, and Not listed species highlighted as grey.
400
C)
A)
A)
A)
B)
A)
401
Australia is failing in the recovery of threatened species. Australia scored an F grade on the
402
input indicators (i.e., average of proportional recovery plans, and federal funding; Fig 4). For
403
the output indicator, Australia scored a D (or a score of 0.48), indicating that on average
404
48% of species are meeting their species-specific protection target. Australia scored a F
405
grade (or a score of 0.003) for the outcome indicator (i.e., threat status improvement).
406
When we analyse individual indicators, Australia scored particularly low in recovery plans (F
407
or 0.10) and dedicated funding (F or 0.08).
408
409
Figure 4. Threatened species recovery report card highlighting the results for the individual
410
input indicators (top row), output indicator (centre row), and the outcome indicator
411
(bottom row). The report card is broken up into six grades, F (dark red), E (red), D (orange),
412
C (yellow), B (green), and A (dark green).
413
414
When we averaged the two input indicators evenly across electorates, our analysis shows
415
that all electorates are failing, whereby one electorate achieved a D grade, 121 electorates
416
achieved an E grade, and 29 achieved a F grade (Fig. 5). The electorates with the highest
417
proportion of species with recovery plans were Braddon, Lyons, and Franklin, all of which
418
are in Tasmania. The electorates with the highest proportion of species with funding were
419
McMahon, Fowler, and Macarthur, all of which are in New South Wales. When we analysed
420
electorates across the output indicator (i.e., protection), we found that 74 electorates
421
achieved an A, 61 achieved a B, 15 achieved a C, and one achieved a D grade. The
422
electorates with these high proportions of species with adequate protection were Lilley
423
(Queensland), Petrie (Queensland), and Solomon (Northern Territory). When we analysed
424
electorates across the outcome indicator, we found that all electorates are achieving a F
425
grade, however the electorate with the highest proportion of species with improved threat
426
status was Leichardt (Queensland). Durack (Western Australia) contains the species with the
427
lowest proportions of species habitat protection, only one improvement in any species
428
threat status, and the lowest proportion of species with any dedicated funding (averaging
429
6% of species).
430
431
432
Figure 5. Maps of electorates highlighting both the input indicator grades (left), output
433
indicator grades (centre), and the outcome indicator grades (right). There are six grades, F
434
(dark red), E (red), D (orange), C (yellow), B (green), and A (dark green).
435
436
When we analysed the average grades of the input and output indicators across the
437
different states and territories, we found that the Australian Capital Territory scored the
438
highest in both (E grade and B grade, respectively). Queensland had the highest outcome
439
indicator (F grade with a score of 0.008) as it had the most species that had improved in
440
threat status (n=4 of the 5 species). When we analysed the average scores across all
441
individual indicators, we found that the Australian Capital Territory contained species with
442
the highest proportional dedicated funding (Fig. 6). Tasmania contained the species with the
443
highest proportion of species with recovery plans. Western Australia had the least
444
proportional species funding and habitat protection than all other states and territories.
445
446
447
Figure 6. Bar chart showing the average proportion of indicators across Australia’s states
448
and territories whereby funding is shown in green, habitat protection is shown in blue,
449
recovery plans is shown in purple, and threat status improvement is shown in yellow.
450
451
Across the 547 local government areas (LGAs), 14 are achieving a D grade (including
452
Ngaanyatjarraku (Western Australia), Karoonda East Murray (South Australia), and Albury
453
(New South Wales)), 356 are achieving a E grade, and 177 are achieving a F grade for the
454
averaged input indicator. When we analysed LGAs across the output indicator, we found
455
241 achieved an A grade, 230 achieved an B grade, 60 achieved a C grade, 14 achieved an D,
456
and 2 achieved a E grade. The local government areas with the highest proportion of species
457
with adequate habitat protection was Mount Magnet, Roxby Downs, Sandstone, Maralinga
458
Tjarutja, Ngaanyatjarraku, Katherine, and Croydon (all received the highest score of 1). All
459
LGAs achieved an F grade for the averaged outcome indicator, however the local
460
government areas with the highest proportion of species with threat status improvement
461
was Lockhart River (n=0.04). The local government areas with the highest proportion of
462
species with recovery plans was Cocos Islands (n=0.67; Fig. 7). The local government areas
463
with the highest proportion of species with funding was Ngaanyatjarraku (n=0.71 with 5 of 7
464
species with funding).
465
466
Figure 7. Box plots highlighting the variation between local government areas for recovery
467
plans (shown in purple), habitat protection (shown in blue), funding (shown in green), and
468
threat status improvement (shown in yellow).
469
470
Discussion
471
Our threatened species recovery report card indicators were chosen to measure the current
472
state of threatened species protection and recovery, in a systematic and repeatable way,
473
given the information currently available. When implemented to Australia, it highlights the
474
power of the result as it shows how poorly the nation is performing with just five species
475
(0.3%) getting an A grade for outcomes, when compared to 1,521 species getting an F.
476
When averaged across the nation, Australia gets an F grade for outcomes, as do all states
477
and territories. Our results are potentially not surprising given the many recent reviews
478
showcasing how nature laws are failing to protect Australian threatened species from
479
extinction (Ward et al. 2019; Samuel 2020) but the nature of the report card highlights the
480
dramatic shortfall in conservation attention threatened species are receiving.
481
482
While Australia is somewhat unique in that it holds an unusually high number of threatened
483
species, we believe the broader methods used in this report card could be used in any
484
country or site. The enormous increase in effort within the IUCN databases has meant that
485
species and conservation information is increasingly available and national reporting efforts,
486
often fostered through requirements like the SDGs and CBD, mean that nations are
487
generating databases that can be utilised to populate the methods of a report card
488
methodology (IPBES 2018; IUCN 2018; United Nations Environment Programme 2021).
489
490
We do note there are many indicators that could be added in the future to give a more
491
complete picture of threatened species recovery. This comprehensive report card requires
492
the Australian government to not only invest in more data collection but develop a national
493
data infrastructure to support transparent reporting. One key missing indicator is habitat
494
loss, which would be a key output measure. Habitat loss is not just the number one threat
495
impacting the most threatened species in Australia (Ward et al. 2021) but across Earth
496
(Maxwell et al. 2016). While there is an Australian legislative requirement to demonstrate
497
the clearing of habitat will not have a ‘significant impact’ on the species recovery
498
(Commonwealth of Australia 1999), we argue that all threatened species habitat is
499
important to retain considering the downward trajectory towards extinction of these
500
species (Ward et al. 2019). Unfortunately, there is currently no accurate data on vegetation
501
loss at the continental scale.
502
503
As noted in the methods section, the accuracy of the funding recovery indicator is currently
504
limited by a lack of data on federally funded threatened species conservation projects.
505
Current publicly available data (Supplementary Table 1) does not specify the funding
506
amount for all approved conservation projects. We could therefore only assess in a binary
507
way whether a species was mentioned as receiving federal government funding or was not.
508
Ideally this indicator should instead measure whether a species has received enough
509
funding to ensure their recovery. Yong et al. (2022) developed cost models for threat
510
abatement strategies across Australia, providing a framework that can account for spatial
511
variables such as terrain and travel distance (Yong et al. 2022). Future report card analyses
512
could use these models to estimate the approximate costs of threat abatement for each
513
threatened species, and then assess the adequacy of provided funding using a similar metric
514
to the habitat protection indicator. While this would provide a more realistic indicator of
515
funding adequacy, it does not account for species-specific actions, e.g., translocation and ex-
516
situ management, which are required to recover many threatened species (Bolam et al.
517
2022). Ideally, recommended improvements in monitoring, evaluation, and reporting under
518
the EPBC Act (Samuel et al. 2021) should include a transparent system where recovery
519
actions are identified for every threatened species, funded, implemented, and the outcomes
520
monitored to ensure actions are effective and funding is sufficient.
521
522
Critical habitat conservation is another important consideration in recovering species.
523
Critical habitat recognises threatened species’ requirements for high quality and well-
524
managed habitat that, if lost or degraded, would likely result in the decline and/or
525
extinction of the species (Camaclang et al. 2015). In Australia, under the EPBC Act, it is an
526
offence to damage critical habitat that has been listed on the Register of Critical Habitat.
527
However, critical habitat listing has only been listed for five species in the last 22 years.
528
Critical habitat needs to be mapped, protected, and monitored by the Federal Government
529
to prevent further human-induced extinctions.
530
531
In addition, a recovery team should be included within the set of indicators for species
532
recovery. A recovery team is a collaboration of partners brought together by common
533
objectives to develop and/or coordinate the implementation of a recovery plan,
534
conservation advice or program for a threatened species or ecological community, or for
535
multiple species or ecological communities. In Canada, recovery teams are appointed by the
536
Minister and may focus on single species, multiple species, or whole taxonomic groups
537
(Government of Canada 2021). It is only through a collaborative approach between
538
government agencies, non-government organisations, First Nations peoples, scientists,
539
industry and the broader community that the necessary management actions are likely to
540
be effectively implemented to better protect and recover these species or communities.
541
Recovery teams are one way to achieve collaboration and coordination in threatened
542
species/ecological community management. In the future, we would like to include
543
assessment of threatened species with a recovery team. Unfortunately, no comprehensive
544
list of recovery teams exist, although the Australian government is working to create a
545
national register of recovery teams and a framework for recovery teams to monitor and
546
report on progress in achieving the objectives of recovery plans (Commonwealth of
547
Australia 2022b).
548
549
Another key consideration for threatened species recovery is effective environmental
550
legislation and policy. To ensure that federal, state and local legislation is effectively
551
meeting environmental objectives, we require timely, independent reviews. Unfortunately,
552
these reviews do not occur across all states and territories, nor at the local level, therefore,
553
have been excluded from this analysis. Future iterations of the report card require
554
quantitative analysis of not only legislation that prevent further decline but also those that
555
allow positive environmental actions to prosper.
556
557
Overall, our threatened report card methodology shows Australia is failing in its efforts to
558
recover threatened species. While progress in species habitat protection could be argued as
559
fair, recovery plans, transparency in the costing and funding of recovery actions, and
560
improving threat status are almost non-existent across the nation. The threatened species
561
recovery report card has highlighted a clear failure of federal environmental legislation and
562
international commitments to recover biodiversity. Like others, who have found threatened
563
species policy and management ineffective (McDonald et al. 2015; Scheele et al. 2019; Ward
564
et al. 2019), and that government spending is insufficient (Mccarthy et al. 2012; Wintle et al.
565
2019), we strongly encourage the Australian Government to take a critical leadership role in
566
addressing the species extinction crisis by increasing habitat and vegetation protection,
567
developing recovery plans for all threatened species, financing adequate recovery of such
568
plans, and verification of recovery through monitoring and evaluation of species
569
trajectories. Without these critical changes, we will leave a tragic legacy of extinction and
570
fail our obligations to future generations of Australians, and the international community.
571
572
Acknowledgements
573
We thank Kash Gunaretnam for their support in assisting with the design of some of the figures and
574
Josie Carwardine for her revisions on earlier drafts.
575
Literature cited
576
Akçakaya HR et al. 2018. Quantifying species recovery and conservation success to develop
577
an IUCN Green List of Species. Conservation Biology
32
:11281138.
578
Andren H. 1994. Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Birds and Mammals in Landscapes with
579
Different Proportions of Suitable Habitat : A Review. Oikos
71
:355366.
580
Australian Electoral Commission. 2022. AEC spatial data. Available from
581
https://www.aec.gov.au/Electorates/gis/index.htm (accessed March 1, 2022).
582
Barr L, Watson J, Possingham H, Iwamura T, Fuller R. 2016. Progress in improving the
583
protection of species and habitats in Australia. Biol. Conserv.
200
:184191.
584
Bolam FC et al. 2021. How many bird and mammal extinctions has recent conservation action
585
prevented? Conservation Letters
14
:111.
586
Bolam FC, Ahumada J, Akçakaya HR, Brooks TM, Elliott W, Hoban S, Mair L. 2022. Over half of
587
threatened species require targeted recovery actions to avert human- - induced
588
extinction:17.
589
Bottrill MC, Walsh JC, Watson JEM, Joseph LN, Ortega-Argueta A, Possingham HP. 2011. Does
590
recovery planning improve the status of threatened species? Biological Conservation
591
144
:1595–1601. Elsevier Ltd. Available from
592
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.008.
593
Camaclang AE, Maron M, Martin TG, Possingham HP. 2015. Current practices in the
594
identification of critical habitat for threatened species. Conservation Biology
29
:482
595
492. Available from https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.12428.
596
Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Barnosky AD, García A, Pringle RM, Palmer TM. 2015. Accelerated
597
modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science
598
advances
1
.
599
Commonwealth Government. 2022. Species of National Environmental Significance. Available
600
from http://www.environment.gov.au/science/erin/databases-maps/snes (accessed
601
February 1, 2022).
602
Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
603
Act. Department of Energy and Environment, Commonwealth of Australia.
604
Commonwealth of Australia. 2022a. Species of National Environmental Significance. Available
605
from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/environmental-information-
606
data/databases-applications/snes (accessed March 1, 2022).
607
Commonwealth of Australia. 2022b. Recovery teams. Available from
608
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/recovery-teams, last
609
accessed 3/8/22. (accessed March 1, 2022).
610
Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. Global Biodiversity Outlook 4.
611
Department of the Interior. 1973. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973. Page 44. The United
612
States of America. Available from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa.pdf.
613
Díaz S et al. 2019. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for
614
transformative change. Science
366
:eaax3100. Available from
615
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/366/6471/eaax3100.full.pdf.
616
Dudley N, Stolton S. 2016. Protected Area Diversity and Potential for Improvement. Protected
617
Areas:3448.
618
Garnett ST et al. 2022. Australia’s most imperilled vertebrates. Biological Conservation
619
270
:109561. Available from
620
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722001148.
621
Gobby B, Merewether J, Nykiel A. 2021. Extinction, education and the curious practice of
622
visiting thrombolites. Environmental Education Research
27
:217233. Routledge.
623
Available from https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1837081.
624
Government of Canada. 2021. Recovery Teams. Available from
625
https://novascotia.ca/natr/wildlife/biodiversity/Recovery-Teams.asp (accessed March 1,
626
2022).
627
Haraway D. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University
628
Press. Available from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv11cw25q (accessed August 31,
629
2022).
630
IPBES. 2018. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
631
Intergovernmental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
632
Bonn, Germany.
633
IPBES. 2019. Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
634
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Available from
635
https://www.ipbes.net/news/ipbes-global-assessment-summary-policymakers-pdf.
636
IUCN. 2015. Guidelines for the application of IUCN Red List of Ecosystems Categories and
637
Criteria, Version 1.0. Page (Bland LM, Keith DA, Murray NJ, Rodríguez JP, editors). Gland,
638
Switzerland.
639
IUCN. 2018. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. Available from
640
http://www.iucn.org/%0Dabout/work/programmes/species/red_list/ (accessed
641
December 7, 2017).
642
Johnson CN, Balmford A, Brook BW, Buettel JC, Galetti M, Guangchun L, Wilmshurst JM.
643
2017. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. Science
644
356
:270275.
645
Kearney SG, Carwardine J, Reside AE, Adams VM, Nelson R, Coggan A, Spindler R, Watson
646
JEM. 2022. Saving species beyond the protected area fence: Threats must be managed
647
across multiple land tenure types to secure Australia’s endangered species.
648
Conservation Science and Practice:115.
649
Legge S et al. 2021. Estimates of the impacts of the 2019–20 fires on populations of native
650
animal species. Canberra, Australia.
651
MacArthur R, Wilson E. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Page Princeton University
652
Press.
653
Mace GM, Barrett M, Burgess ND, Cornell SE, Freeman R, Grooten M, Purvis A. 2018. Aiming
654
higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability
1
:448451. Springer
655
US. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0.
656
Margoluis R, Stem C, Swaminathan V, Brown M, Johnson A, Placci G, Salafsky N, Tilders I.
657
2013. Results Chains: a Tool for Conservation Action Design, Management, and
658
Evaluation. Ecology and Society
18
. The Resilience Alliance. Available from
659
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss3/art22/.
660
Maron M, Bowen M, Fuller RA, Smith GC, Eyre TJ, Mathieson M, Watson JEM, McAlpine CA.
661
2012. Spurious thresholds in the relationship between species richness and vegetation
662
cover. Global Ecology and Biogeography
21
:682692.
663
Maxwell S, Richard AF, Thomas MB, James EMW. 2016. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns,
664
nets and bulldozers. Nature
536
:143.
665
Maxwell SL et al. 2020. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature
586
:217
666
227. Springer US. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z.
667
Mccarthy DP et al. 2012. Financial costs of meeting global biodiversity conservation targets:
668
current spending and unmet needs. Science (New York, N.Y.)
338
.
669
McDonald JA, Carwardine J, Joseph LN, Klein CJ, Rout TM, Watson JEM, Garnett ST, Mccarthy
670
MA, Possingham HP. 2015. Improving policy efficiency and effectiveness to save more
671
species: A case study of the megadiverse country Australia. Biological Conservation
672
182
:102108. Elsevier Ltd.
673
Monroe MJ, Butchart SHM, Mooers AO, Bokma F. 2019. The dynamics underlying avian
674
extinction trajectories forecast a wave of extinctions. Biology Letters
15
:15.
675
Natural History Museum. 2020. The pandemic is a pivotal moment to raise awareness of
676
biodiversity loss. Available from https://naturalhistorymuseum.blog/2020/05/22/the-
677
pandemic-is-a-pivotal-moment-to-raise-awareness-of-biodiversity-loss/ (accessed
678
September 1, 2022).
679
Novacek M. 2008a. Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proceedings of the National
680
Academy of Sciences, USA
105
:11571–11578. Available from
681
http://search.proquest.com/docview/19694268/.
682
Novacek MJ. 2008b. Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proceedings of the National
683
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
105
:1157111578.
684
Ritchie EG et al. 2013. Continental-Scale Governance and the Hastening of Loss of Australia’s
685
Biodiversity. Conservation Biology
27
:11331135.
686
Rodrigues ASL et al. 2004. Global gap analysis: Priority regions for expanding the global
687
protected-area network. BioScience
54
:10921100.
688
Rousell D, Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles A. 2020. A systematic review of climate change
689
education: giving children and young people a ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing climate
690
change. Children’s Geographies
18
:191208. Routledge. Available from
691
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2019.1614532.
692
Samuel G. 2020. Independent Review of the EPBC Act – Final Report. Canberra, Australia.
693
Scheele BC et al. 2019. Continental-scale assessment reveals inadequate monitoring for
694
threatened vertebrates in a megadiverse country. Biological Conservation
235
:273278.
695
Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320718318731.
696
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2020. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5.
697
Montreal. Montréal.
698
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2021. Post-2020 Global Biodiversity
699
Framework.
700
Simmonds JS, Watson JEM, Salazar A, Maron M. 2019. A composite measure of habitat loss
701
for entire assemblages of species. Conservation Biology. Available from
702
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.13331.
703
Stephenson PJ, Workman C, Grace MK, Long B. 2020. Testing the IUCN Green List of Species.
704
Oryx
54
:1011.
705
Sutcliffe PR, Klein CJ, Pitcher CR, Possingham HP. 2015. The effectiveness of marine reserve
706
systems constructed using different surrogates of biodiversity. Conservation Biology
707
29
:657–667. Available from
708
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cobi.12506.
709
Thomas CD, Gillingham PK. 2015. The performance of protected areas for biodiversity under
710
climate change. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
115
:718–730. Available from
711
https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12510.
712
Tucker MA et al. 2018. Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial
713
mammalian movements. Science
359
:466–469. American Association for the
714
Advancement of Science. Available from
715
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6374/466.
716
United Nations Environment Programme. 2021. State of Finance for Nature 2021. Nairobi.
717
Available from file:///Users/uqmward5/Desktop/SFN.pdf.
718
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 2015. Sustainable Development Goals.
719
Available from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 (accessed April 10,
720
2020).
721
Waldron A, Miller DC, Redding D, Mooers A, Kuhn TS, Nibbelink N, Roberts JT, Tobias JA,
722
Gittleman JL. 2017. Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation
723
spending. Nature
551
:364367.
724
Ward M et al. 2020. Impact of 2019–2020 mega-fires on Australian fauna habitat. Nature
725
Ecology and Evolution
4
:13211326.
726
Ward M et al. 2021. A national-scale dataset for threats impacting Australia’s imperilled flora
727
and fauna. Ecology and Evolution.
728
Ward M, Simmonds JS, Reside AE, Watson JEM, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Trezise J, Fletcher
729
R, File L, Taylor M. 2019. Lots of loss with little scrutiny: The attrition of habitat critical
730
for threatened species in Australia. Conservation Science and Practice
1
:e117.
731
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M. 2014a. The performance and potential of
732
protected areas. Nature
515
:6773.
733
Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M. 2014b. The performance and potential of
734
protected areas. Nature
515
:6773. NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP, LONDON. Available
735
from http://jcu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV09T-
736
QwEB3xdRISggMOCB9SiiuOYtk4zsZJgdAKgaA5Gqgje8ZbUOxGm-
737
z_v7GTzYYVSBTXpIljOZ7xzDh57xlAxjfRYC0mGKUnWgqbcXUe85LK5ESRpTwmG6Py1JgeYa
738
6DQ3nsu4uUK4qDLstqSDMcjjnVcu3O-Xs4fvn7cNc7UGNx--4gpgVynboJ2xyCpUN.
739
Watson JEM, Simmonds JS, Ward M, Yong CJ, Reside AE, Possingham HP, Rogers A,
740
Carwardine J. 2022. Communicating the true challenges of saving species: response to
741
Wiedenfeld et al. Conservation Biology:13.
742
Wintle BA et al. 2019. Spending to save: What will it cost to halt Australia’s extinction crisis?
743
Conservation Letters
12
:17.
744
WWF. 2020. Living Planet Report. Gland, Switzerland.
745
Yong C et al. 2022. The costs of abating threats to Australia ’ s biodiversity. EcoEvoRxiv.
746
747
748
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The likelihood of extinction within the next 20 years was determined for 47 Australian mammal, bird, reptile, frog and freshwater fish taxa previously identified as being highly imperilled. A 14-member expert elicitation panel, consisting of a mix of taxon experts and government managers of threatened species, estimated that there was a > 50% chance that nine taxa would be extinct by 2041. The panel estimated that there was a > 50% likelihood that a further 16 taxa (considered extant under Australian legislation), for which there are no recent independently verified records, are already extinct, with four almost certainly extinct. For five of these taxa, there was a > 50% chance that they would persist for 20 more years if they are currently extant, notwithstanding the lack of recent records. Most of the taxa considered occur within conservation areas and in south-eastern Australia, where human population density is highest. All the highly imperilled taxa occur wholly or partly in conservation reserves, within a total reserved area of 1994 km2, 0.13% of the total area conserved in Australia. Highly imperilled taxa also occur on 313 km2 of non-conservation government-owned land, and 242 km2 of private land. The total area that needs management intervention to prevent extinction of Australia's most imperilled vertebrate taxa in the next 20 years represents 0.06% of the area of Australia's terrestrial and freshwater environments.
Article
Full-text available
The main effort to secure threatened species globally is to set aside land and sea for their conservation via governance arrangements such as protected areas. But not even the biggest protected area estate will cover enough area to halt most species declines. Consequently, there is a need for assessments of how species habitats are distributed across the tenure landscape, to guide policy and conservation opportunities. Using Australia as a case study, we assess the relationship between land tenure coverage and the distributions of nationally listed threatened species. We discover that on average, nearly half (48%) of Australian threatened species' distributions occur on privately owned (freehold) lands, despite this tenure covering only 29% of the continent. In contrast, leasehold lands, which cover 38% of Australia, overlap with only 6% of species' distributions while protected area lands (which cover 20%) have an average of 35% of species' distributions. We found the majority (75%; n = 1199) of species occur across multiple land tenures, and those species that are confined to a single tenure were mostly on freehold lands (13%; n = 201) and protected areas (9%; n = 139). Our findings display the opportunity to reverse the current trend of species decline with increased coordination of threat management across land tenures. We quantify the overlap of threatened species with land tenure across Australia. On average, half of threatened species' distributions occur on freehold lands and three‐quarter of the species occur across multiple land tenures.
Article
Full-text available
Australia is in the midst of an extinction crisis, having already lost 10% of terrestrial mammal fauna since European settlement and with hundreds of other species at high risk of extinction. The decline of the nation's biota is a result of an array of threatening processes; however, a comprehensive taxon-specific understanding of threats and their relative impacts remains undocumented nationally. Using expert consultation, we compile the first complete, validated, and consistent taxon-specific threat and impact dataset for all nationally listed threatened taxa in Australia. We confined our analysis to 1,795 terrestrial and aquatic taxa listed as threatened (Vulnerable, Endangered, or Critically Endangered) under Australian Commonwealth law. We engaged taxonomic experts to generate taxon-specific threat and threat impact information to consistently apply the IUCN Threat Classification Scheme and Threat Impact Scoring System, as well as eight broad-level threats and 51 subcategory threats, for all 1,795 threatened terrestrial and aquatic threatened taxa. This compilation produced 4,877 unique taxon–threat–impact combinations with the most frequently listed threats being Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation (n = 1,210 taxa), and Invasive species and disease (n = 966 taxa). Yet when only high-impact threats or medium-impact threats are considered, Invasive species and disease become the most prevalent threats. This dataset provides critical information for conservation action planning, national legislation and policy, and prioritizing investments in threatened species management and recovery.
Article
Full-text available
The Earth is in the midst of a recent acceleration in the rate of species extinction and the unravelling of ecological communities. The authors think with the emerging field of Extinction Studies to explore educational approaches to ecological endangerment and extinction. Using a notion of visiting as ‘curious practice’, we story encounters between the authors, young children and the endangered Noorook Yalgorup-Lake Clifton thrombolites and their ecological community in south-western Australia. These visits were not intended to teach about extinction or the thrombolites. Rather, our aim was to generate pedagogical insights through approaching the threatened thrombolites and their environment with curiosity, openness and attentiveness, and framed by perspectives that trouble human exceptionalism and Western dualisms. Guided by Haraway’s notion of ‘staying with the trouble’, we argue this approach to encountering extinction generates insights into learning and living with ecological crisis in our shared world. Specifically, that for educators and children to relearn the world and their place in it, educators must enable new senses, meanings, perspectives and stories to populate the Earth and for this to occur they should listen with openness to, and think with, children.
Article
Full-text available
Humanity will soon define a new era for nature-one that seeks to transform decades of underwhelming responses to the global biodiversity crisis. Area-based conservation efforts, which include both protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, are likely to extend and diversify. However, persistent shortfalls in ecological representation and management effectiveness diminish the potential role of area-based conservation in stemming biodiversity loss. Here we show how the expansion of protected areas by national governments since 2010 has had limited success in increasing the coverage across different elements of biodiversity (ecoregions, 12,056 threatened species, 'Key Biodiversity Areas' and wilderness areas) and ecosystem services (productive fisheries, and carbon services on land and sea). To be more successful after 2020, area-based conservation must contribute more effectively to meeting global biodiversity goals-ranging from preventing extinctions to retaining the most-intact ecosystems-and must better collaborate with the many Indigenous peoples, community groups and private initiatives that are central to the successful conservation of biodiversity. The long-term success of area-based conservation requires parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to secure adequate financing, plan for climate change and make biodiversity conservation a far stronger part of land, water and sea management policies.
Article
Full-text available
Aichi Target 12 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) contains the aim to ‘prevent extinctions of known threatened species’. To measure the degree to which this was achieved, we used expert elicitation to estimate the number of bird and mammal species whose extinctions were prevented by conservation action in 1993–2020 (the lifetime of the CBD) and 2010–2020 (the timing of Aichi Target 12). We found that conservation action prevented 21–32 bird and 7–16 mammal extinctions since 1993, and 9–18 bird and two to seven mammal extinctions since 2010. Many remain highly threatened and may still become extinct. Considering that 10 bird and five mammal species did go extinct (or are strongly suspected to) since 1993, extinction rates would have been 2.9–4.2 times greater without conservation action. While policy commitments have fostered significant conservation achievements, future biodiversity action needs to be scaled up to avert additional extinctions.
Article
Full-text available
Australia’s 2019–2020 mega-fires were exacerbated by drought, anthropogenic climate change and existing land-use management. Here, using a combination of remotely sensed data and species distribution models, we found these fires burnt ~97,000 km2 of vegetation across southern and eastern Australia, which is considered habitat for 832 species of native vertebrate fauna. Seventy taxa had a substantial proportion (>30%) of habitat impacted; 21 of these were already listed as threatened with extinction. To avoid further species declines, Australia must urgently reassess the extinction vulnerability of fire-impacted species and assist the recovery of populations in both burnt and unburnt areas. Population recovery requires multipronged strategies aimed at ameliorating current and fire-induced threats, including proactively protecting unburnt habitats. An assessment of the habitat of native vertebrate species burnt by the 2019–2020 Australian mega-fires shows that 70 taxa were severely affected.
Article
Full-text available
The time is now For decades, scientists have been raising calls for societal changes that will reduce our impacts on nature. Though much conservation has occurred, our natural environment continues to decline under the weight of our consumption. Humanity depends directly on the output of nature; thus, this decline will affect us, just as it does the other species with which we share this world. Díaz et al. review the findings of the largest assessment of the state of nature conducted as of yet. They report that the state of nature, and the state of the equitable distribution of nature's support, is in serious decline. Only immediate transformation of global business-as-usual economies and operations will sustain nature as we know it, and us, into the future. Science , this issue p. eaax3100
Article
Testing the IUCN Green List of Species - Volume 54 Issue 1 - P.J. Stephenson, Catherine Workman, Molly K. Grace, Barney Long