ArticlePublisher preview available

The cost of recovering Australia’s threatened species

Authors:
April E Reside at The University of Queensland
April E Reside
Josie Carwardine at The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Josie Carwardine
Michelle Ward at The University of Queensland
Michelle Ward
Chuanji Yong at The University of Western Australia
Chuanji Yong
Show all 13 authorsHide
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

Accounting for the cost of repairing the degradation of Earth’s biosphere is critical to guide conservation and sustainable development decisions. Yet the costs of repairing nature through the recovery of a continental suite of threatened species across their range have never been calculated. We estimated the cost of in situ recovery of nationally listed terrestrial and freshwater threatened species (n = 1,657) across the megadiverse continent of Australia by combining the spatially explicit costs of all strategies required to address species-specific threats. Individual species recovery required up to 12 strategies (mean 2.3), predominantly habitat retention and restoration, and the management of fire and invasive species. The estimated costs of maximizing threatened species recovery across Australia varied from AU0–12,626 per ha, depending on the species, threats and context of each location. The total cost of implementing all strategies to recover threatened species in their in situ habitat across Australia summed to an estimated AU$583 billion per year, with management of invasive weeds making up 81% of the total cost. This figure, at 25% of Australia’s GDP, does not represent a realistic biodiversity conservation budget, but needs to be accounted for when weighing up decisions that lead to further costly degradation of Australia’s natural heritage.
Threats and TAS for Australia’s threatened species The number of threatened species impacted by threat categories¹⁰ (left) and requiring TAS¹³ assigned to address each threat (right). Horizontal bar heights indicate the relative number of species in each category. Threats ‘Other: 1–6’ are problematic native species, invasive animals (not otherwise stated), invasive fish, biological resource use (fisheries, forestry), small/restricted population, and invasive/problematic birds and bees. TAS in the ‘Other: A–E’ category are disease management and biosecurity, native herbivore management, invasive/problematic bird and bee management, invasive fish management, and aquatic connectivity. Note that the strategy ‘intensive/ex situ’ was not considered further in analyses, and non-spatial policy-based TAS are not included in this figure but are detailed in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, and in ref. ¹³.
Threats and TAS for Australia’s threatened species The number of threatened species impacted by threat categories¹⁰ (left) and requiring TAS¹³ assigned to address each threat (right). Horizontal bar heights indicate the relative number of species in each category. Threats ‘Other: 1–6’ are problematic native species, invasive animals (not otherwise stated), invasive fish, biological resource use (fisheries, forestry), small/restricted population, and invasive/problematic birds and bees. TAS in the ‘Other: A–E’ category are disease management and biosecurity, native herbivore management, invasive/problematic bird and bee management, invasive fish management, and aquatic connectivity. Note that the strategy ‘intensive/ex situ’ was not considered further in analyses, and non-spatial policy-based TAS are not included in this figure but are detailed in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2, and in ref. ¹³.
… 
The number of TAS required by individual species and across taxonomic groups Left: the number of species (y axis) requiring each sum of TAS (x axis), out of a total of 17 TAS (Supplementary Table 1). Right: the number of TAS required per species compared across taxonomic groups. In boxplots, the centre line indicates the median, the box limits indicate the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers show the minimum (1) and maximum (up to 12) TAS.
The number of TAS required by individual species and across taxonomic groups Left: the number of species (y axis) requiring each sum of TAS (x axis), out of a total of 17 TAS (Supplementary Table 1). Right: the number of TAS required per species compared across taxonomic groups. In boxplots, the centre line indicates the median, the box limits indicate the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers show the minimum (1) and maximum (up to 12) TAS.
… 
Average cost per year per km² of each of the spatially costed TAS compared with the total area requiring the strategy Labels in blue indicate strategies for freshwater species, green for terrestrial species and orange for both terrestrial and freshwater species. The size of each point indicates the relative number of species each strategy was costed for. For context, total land area of Australia is 7,688,287 km². The codes are outlined in Supplementary Table 1. Inv, invasive.
Average cost per year per km² of each of the spatially costed TAS compared with the total area requiring the strategy Labels in blue indicate strategies for freshwater species, green for terrestrial species and orange for both terrestrial and freshwater species. The size of each point indicates the relative number of species each strategy was costed for. For context, total land area of Australia is 7,688,287 km². The codes are outlined in Supplementary Table 1. Inv, invasive.
… 
TAS costed spatially (excluding policy, regulation and education strategies) and their relative total cost per year across all species affected by that threat Sequentially, the full titles of the strategies are Map and protect refugia, Aquatic connectivity, Restrict access to critical sites, Invasive/problematic birds and bee management, Invasive grazer management, Ecological fire regime management, Invasive predator management, Native herbivore management, Invasive rabbit management, Grazing management, Disease management, Habitat restoration and retention, Invasive fish management, and Invasive weed management (Supplementary Table 1).
TAS costed spatially (excluding policy, regulation and education strategies) and their relative total cost per year across all species affected by that threat Sequentially, the full titles of the strategies are Map and protect refugia, Aquatic connectivity, Restrict access to critical sites, Invasive/problematic birds and bee management, Invasive grazer management, Ecological fire regime management, Invasive predator management, Native herbivore management, Invasive rabbit management, Grazing management, Disease management, Habitat restoration and retention, Invasive fish management, and Invasive weed management (Supplementary Table 1).
… 
Spatial variation in the cost of all TAS and threatened species ranges Left: costs of implementing all TAS per 1 × 1 km per year across their relevant extent in Australia (legend shows amount in Australian dollars); black indicates no cost, because no threatened species occur there; colours represent costs. Right: implementation costs compared with the number of threatened species occurring across Australia. Paler areas denote lower cost and fewer species, dark purple denotes high cost and a greater number of species.
Spatial variation in the cost of all TAS and threatened species ranges Left: costs of implementing all TAS per 1 × 1 km per year across their relevant extent in Australia (legend shows amount in Australian dollars); black indicates no cost, because no threatened species occur there; colours represent costs. Right: implementation costs compared with the number of threatened species occurring across Australia. Paler areas denote lower cost and fewer species, dark purple denotes high cost and a greater number of species.
… 
Figures - available from: Nature Ecology & Evolution
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Learn more
Content available from Nature Ecology & Evolution
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Nature Ecology & Evolution | Volume 9 | March 2025 | 425–435 425
nature ecology & evolution
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02617-z
Article
The cost of recovering Australia’s threatened
species
April E. Reside 1,2 , Josie Carwardine3, Michelle Ward 1,2,4, Chuanji Yong1,2,5,
Ruben Venegas Li1,2, Andrew Rogers1,2, Brendan A. Wintle6, Jennifer Silcock1,2,
John Woinarski7, Mark Lintermans8,9, Gary Taylor10, Anna F. V. Pintor11 &
James E. M. Watson 1,2
Accounting for the cost of repairing the degradation of Earth’s biosphere
is critical to guide conservation and sustainable development decisions.
Yet the costs of repairing nature through the recovery of a continental
suite of threatened species across their range have never been calculated.
We estimated the cost of in situ recovery of nationally listed terrestrial and
freshwater threatened species (n = 1,657) across the megadiverse continent
of Australia by combining the spatially explicit costs of all strategies required
to address species-specic threats. Individual species recovery required up
to 12 strategies (mean 2.3), predominantly habitat retention and restoration,
and the management of re and invasive species. The estimated costs of
maximizing threatened species recovery across Australia varied from AU$0–
$12,626 per ha, depending on the species, threats and context of each location.
The total cost of implementing all strategies to recover threatened species in
their in situ habitat across Australia summed to an estimated AU$583 billion
per year, with management of invasive weeds making up 81% of the total cost.
This gure, at 25% of Australia’s GDP, does not represent a realistic biodiversity
conservation budget, but needs to be accounted for when weighing up
decisions that lead to further costly degradation of Australia’s natural heritage.
Halting biodiversity loss and achieving the recovery of threat-
ened species are central goals of international conservation1 and a
core tenet (Goal A and Target 4) of the recently ratified Kunming–
Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework2. The repair of historic
decline is also required to build resilience to ongoing and future threats
such as climate change
3
. Yet robust estimates of the budget needed to
achieve the recovery of threatened species on continental scales are
unavailable, with recent costing efforts focusing on protected area
expansion4 or based on broad assumptions4–6. Cost estimates for the
reparation of species decline are needed to understand the scale of
biodiversity impacts that have occurred, and to recognize the true
cost of ongoing biosphere degradation and loss. Importantly, this
information can enable effective future decision-making that contrasts
the costs of preventing further loss with those of restoring nature and
recovering threatened species.
Costing the recovery of threatened species requires accounting
for individual species’ current and likely distributions, the threats and
recovery actions needed, and robust estimates of the necessary extent
Received: 22 December 2023
Accepted: 27 November 2024
Published online: 23 December 2024
Check for updates
1School of the Environment, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 2Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University
of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 3CSIRO, Land and Water, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 4Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security,
School of Environment and Science, Grifith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia. 5School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western
Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 6Melbourne Biodiversity Institute, School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne,
Victoria, Australia. 7Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia. 8Centre for Applied
Water Science, Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia. 9Fish Fondler Pty Ltd, Bungendore, New South Wales, Australia.
10Australian Centre for Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity, and School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia. 11Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia. e-mail: a.reside@uq.edu.au
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The costs of managing key threats to Australia's biodiversity
Article
Full-text available
Budgeting for biodiversity conservation requires realistic estimates of threat abatement costs. However, data on threat management costs are often unavailable or unable to be extrapolated across relevant locations and scales. Conservation expenditure largely occurs without a priori cost estimates of management activities and is not recorded in ways that can inform future budgets or cost‐effective management decisions. We provided transparent, broadly applicable cost models for 18 Threat Abatement Strategies aimed at managing the processes threatening Australia's biodiversity. We defined the actions required to implement each strategy and used a consistent structure to classify costs of labour, travel, consumables and equipment. We drew upon expert knowledge and published literature to parameterise each model, estimating the implementation cost of each strategy across the Australian continent, accounting for spatial variables such as threat presence, terrain, and travel distance. Estimated annualised costs for the threat abatement strategies varied considerably between strategies and across Australia, ranging from 24to24 to 879,985 per km² (0.24–8880 per ha). On average, labour was the largest cost component (49%), followed by consumables (37%), travel (13%) and equipment (2%). Based on national scale variables and assumptions, cost estimates across Australia for each threat abatement strategy ranged from +44% and −33% of the most common cost estimate. Policy implications. We provide a consistent and transparent approach to budgeting for threat abatement strategies, aiming to improve conservation planning processes, outcomes, and reporting across Australia. In addition, understanding the budget required to achieve threat management outcomes can aid revenue‐raising and target setting. The models, cost layers and estimates we generate provide the basis for a nationally consistent approach for estimating and recording the cost of biodiversity management strategies, which should be continually updated and improved with local‐scale information over time.
View
Fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages reveal extensive degradation of the world's rivers
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2022
Rivers suffer from multiple stressors acting simultaneously on their biota, but the consequences are poorly quantified at the global scale. We evaluated the biological condition of rivers globally, including the largest proportion of countries from the Global South published to date. We gathered macroinvertebrate‐ and fish‐based assessments from 72,275 and 37,676 sites, respectively, from 64 study regions across six continents and 45 nations. Because assessments were based on differing methods, different systems were consolidated into a 3‐class system: Good, Impaired, or Severely Impaired, following common guidelines. The proportion of sites in each class by study area was calculated and each region was assigned a Köppen‐Geiger climate type, Human Footprint score (addressing landscape alterations), Human Development score (addressing social welfare), % rivers with good ambient water quality, % protected freshwater key biodiversity areas; and % of forest area net change rate. We found that 50% of macroinvertebrate sites and 42% of fish sites were in Good condition, whereas 21% and 29% were Severely Impaired, respectively. Poorest biological conditions occurred in Arid and Equatorial climates and the best conditions occurred in Snow climates. Severely Impaired conditions were associated (Pearson correlation coefficient) with higher Human Development Index scores, poorer physico‐chemical water quality, and lower proportions of protected freshwater areas. Good biological conditions were associated with good water quality and increased forested areas. It is essential to implement statutory bioassessment programs in Asian, African and South American countries, and continue them in Oceania, Europe and North America. There is a need to invest in assessments based on fish, as there is less information globally and fish were strong indicators of degradation. Our study highlights a need to increase the extent and number of protected river catchments, preserve and restore natural forested areas in the catchments, treat wastewater discharges, and improve river connectivity.
View
Creating past habitat maps to quantify local extirpation of Australian threatened birds
Article
Full-text available
Habitat loss is driving the extirpation of fauna across Earth. Many species are now absent from vast areas where they once occurred in inhabited continents, yet we do not have a good understanding of the extent to which different species have been extirpated, nor the degree to which range contractions and habitat loss has contributed to this local extirpation. Here, for the first time, we use a combination of scientific literature, historical sources, spatial data, and expert elicitation to map the past extent of potential habitats, and changes thereto, of 72 of Australia’s most imperilled terrestrial birds. By comparing the area of potential habitat within the past and current ranges of these taxa, we quantify the extent over which each of Australia’s threatened terrestrial birds have likely been extirpated and assess the amount and configuration of potential habitat that remains. Our results show that since 1750 (before European colonization), at least one extant taxon of threatened bird has disappeared from over 530 million hectares (69%) of Australia, through both range contractions and loss of potentially suitable habitat (noting these are not mutually exclusive phenomena). Ten taxa (14%) have likely been extirpated from >99% of their past potential habitat. For 56 taxa (78%), remaining habitat within their current potential habitats has become fragmented. This research paints a sobering picture of the extent of local extirpation of threatened birds from much of Australia over a 250-year time period. By mapping and quantifying this loss, these findings will help refine scientific understanding about the impact of habitat removal and other pervasive threats that are driving this observed extirpation.
View
Rapid assessment of the biodiversity impacts of the 2019–2020 Australian megafires to guide urgent management intervention and recovery and lessons for other regions
Article
Full-text available
Aim The incidence of major fires is increasing globally, creating extraordinary challenges for governments, managers and conservation scientists. In 2019–2020, Australia experienced precedent‐setting fires that burned over several months, affecting seven states and territories and causing massive biodiversity loss. Whilst the fires were still burning, the Australian Government convened a biodiversity Expert Panel to guide its bushfire response. A pressing need was to target emergency investment and management to reduce the chance of extinctions and maximise the chances of longer‐term recovery. We describe the approach taken to rapidly prioritise fire‐affected animal species. We use the experience to consider the organisational and data requirements for evidence‐based responses to future ecological disasters. Location Forested biomes of subtropical and temperate Australia, with lessons for other regions. Methods We developed assessment frameworks to screen fire‐affected species based on their pre‐fire conservation status, the proportion of their distribution overlapping with fires, and their behavioural/ecological traits relating to fire vulnerability. Using formal and informal networks of scientists, government and non‐government staff and managers, we collated expert input and data from multiple sources, undertook the analyses, and completed the assessments in 3 weeks for vertebrates and 8 weeks for invertebrates. Results The assessments prioritised 92 vertebrate and 213 invertebrate species for urgent management response; another 147 invertebrate species were placed on a watchlist requiring further information. Conclusions The priority species lists helped focus government and non‐government investment, management and research effort, and communication to the public. Using multiple expert networks allowed the assessments to be completed rapidly using the best information available. However, the assessments highlighted substantial gaps in data availability and access, deficiencies in statutory threatened species listings, and the need for capacity‐building across the conservation science and management sectors. We outline a flexible template for using evidence effectively in emergency responses for future ecological disasters.
View
Evaluating the evidence of culling a native species for conservation benefits
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2021
Abstract Controlling problem species for conservation can be fraught, particularly when native species are subject to lethal control. The noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala), has been the target of numerous lethal control efforts. Outcomes of these noisy miner removals have varied substantially, so identifying the circumstances under which they are effective is essential for ethical and effective management. We compiled data for all identified noisy miner removals (n = 45), including both permit‐based and unofficial removals. We investigated whether methodological and ecological factors explained the effectiveness of removals in reducing noisy miner density or increasing woodland bird richness and abundance. The only predictor of any measure of success was time between first and final culls which was positively related to reduction in noisy miner density. Surprisingly, despite removals mainly failing to reduce noisy miner density to below a threshold above which noisy miners impact smaller birds, woodland birds usually still increased. Disrupted social structure as noisy miners recolonized may have led to less effective aggressive exclusion of small birds. Further removals may not need to reduce noisy miner density to below this threshold to benefit woodland birds, but consistent monitoring and reporting would support better evaluation of effectiveness and correlates of success.
View
The costs and benefits of restoring a continent's terrestrial ecosystems
Article
Full-text available
The rise in global commitments to restore habitat underlines its importance to halt biodiversity loss and abate climate change. To effectively plan for landscape‐scale restoration efforts, decision makers need to prioritise where restoration should occur and have a method to estimate its cost. Here, we describe a systematic approach to determine where cost‐effective restoration actions should be located to achieve targeted levels of ecosystem coverage across Australia without compromising agricultural production. We find that spending approximately AU2billion(0.12 billion (0.1% of Australia's 2019 Gross Domestic Product) annually for 30 years could restore 13 million ha of degraded land without affecting intensive agriculture and urban areas. This initiative would result in almost all (99.8%) of Australia's degraded terrestrial ecosystems reaching 30% vegetation coverage, enabling a trajectory to recover critical ecological functions, abate almost one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and produce AU12–46 billion net present value in carbon offset revenue. The carbon market revenue is estimated to cover up to 111% of the investment required for the restoration. Our research shows that the recovery of degraded ecosystems in Australia is both attainable and affordable. Synthesis and applications. With growing international restoration commitments, governments and environmental organisations need methods to plan and budget their commitments. Here, we present a systematic approach to determine where restoration actions should be located in Australia to achieve targeted vegetation coverage and quantify the expected costs, carbon abatement and revenue. This study is an important advance that will aid governments and environmental organisations by providing financial and spatial planning methods to progress their restoration commitments.
View
A national‐scale dataset for threats impacting Australia’s imperiled flora and fauna
Article
Full-text available
  • Aug 2021
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.
View
Transformation beyond conservation: how critical social science can contribute to a radical new agenda in biodiversity conservation
Article
Full-text available
  • Apr 2021
Multiple proposals for transforming biodiversity conservation have been put forward, yet critical exploration of how transformative change is conceptualised in this context is lacking. Drawing on transformations to sustainability scholarship, we review recent proposals for transformative change in biodiversity conservation, considering the suggested goals and means of transformation. We outline the crucial role for critical social scientific inquiry in transformative change by highlighting two core contributions. First, critical social science is an analytical device that politicises and pluralises debates and second, it can help facililitate the identification of transformative alternatives. We then show how such a critical social science approach is operationalised within the CONVIVA (Towards Convivial Conservation: Governing Human-Wildlife Interactions in the Anthropocene) project to pursue transformative change in biodiversity conservation.
View
Combating ecosystem collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2021
Globally, collapse of ecosystems—potentially irreversible change to ecosystem structure, composition and function—imperils biodiversity, human health and well‐being. We examine the current state and recent trajectories of 19 ecosystems, spanning 58° of latitude across 7.7 M km2, from Australia's coral reefs to terrestrial Antarctica. Pressures from global climate change and regional human impacts, occurring as chronic ‘presses’ and/or acute ‘pulses’, drive ecosystem collapse. Ecosystem responses to 5–17 pressures were categorised as four collapse profiles—abrupt, smooth, stepped and fluctuating. The manifestation of widespread ecosystem collapse is a stark warning of the necessity to take action. We present a three‐step assessment and management framework (3As Pathway Awareness, Anticipation and Action) to aid strategic and effective mitigation to alleviate further degradation to help secure our future. Global climate pressures and regional human impacts are causing increasing collapse of ecosystems across Australia and reaching to Antarctica. Ecosystems are experiencing multiple pressures simultaneously, either chronically (e.g. increasing air temperatures) and/or as extreme, short events (e.g. storms, fires), with their deterioration exhibiting a range of patterns. Knowing these patterns can alert conservation managers to impending collapse. We provide a new framework (the 3As) to use in conservation that focuses on preventing collapse (Awareness of ecosystem values; Anticipation of the range of pressure; Action to stop pressures), as well as guidance as to the types of conservation options available.
View
Agricultural intensification and climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity
Article
  • Jan 2021
Major declines in insect biomass and diversity, reviewed here, have become obvious and well documented since the end of World War II. Here, we conclude that the spread and intensification of agriculture during the past half century is directly related to these losses. In addition, many areas, including tropical mountains, are suffering serious losses because of climate change as well. Crops currently occupy about 11% of the world’s land surface, with active grazing taking place over an additional 30%. The industrialization of agriculture during the second half of the 20th century involved farming on greatly expanded scales, monoculturing, the application of increasing amounts of pesticides and fertilizers, and the elimination of interspersed hedgerows and other wildlife habitat fragments, all practices that are destructive to insect and other biodiversity in and near the fields. Some of the insects that we are destroying, including pollinators and predators of crop pests, are directly beneficial to the crops. In the tropics generally, natural vegetation is being destroyed rapidly and often replaced with export crops such as oil palm and soybeans. To mitigate the effects of the Sixth Mass Extinction event that we have caused and are experiencing now, the following will be necessary: a stable (and almost certainly lower) human population, sustainable levels of consumption, and social justice that empowers the less wealthy people and nations of the world, where the vast majority of us live, will be necessary.
View