Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study

Global mismatches between threat mapping research effort and the potential of threat abatement actions to reduce extinction risk

Threat mapping is a necessary tool for identifying and abating direct threats to species in the ongoing extinction crisis. There are known gaps in the threat mapping literature for particular threats and geographic locations, and it remains unclear if the distribution of research effort is appropriately targeted relative to conservation need. We aimed to determine the drivers of threat mapping research effort and to quantify gaps that, if filled, could inform actions with the highest potential to reduce species' extinction risk. We used a negative binomial generalized linear model to analyze research effort as a function of threat abatement potential (quantified as the potential reduction in species extinction risk from abating threats), species richness, land area, and human pressure. The model showed that threat mapping research effort increased by 1.1 to 1.2 times per standardized unit change in threat abatement potential. However, species richness and land area were stronger predictors of research effort overall. The greatest areas of mismatch between research effort and threat abatement potential, receiving disproportionately low research effort, were related to the threats to species of agriculture, aquaculture, and biological resource use across the tropical regions of the Americas, Asia, and Madagascar. Conversely, the threat of linear infrastructure (e.g., roads and rails) across regions, the threat of biological resource use (e.g., hunting or collection) in sub-Saharan Africa, and overall threats in North America and Europe all received disproportionately high research effort. We discuss the range of methodological and sociopolitical factors that may be behind the overall trends and specific areas of mismatch we found. We urge a stronger emphasis on targeting research effort toward those threats and geographic locations where threat abatement activities could make the greatest contribution to reducing global species extinction risk.

Social valuation of biodiversity relative to other types of assets at risk in wildfire

Environmental crises, such as wildfires, can cause major losses of human life, infrastructure, biodiversity, and cultural values. In many such situations, incident controllers must make fateful choices about what to protect-and hence what to abandon. With an online representative survey of >2000 adult Australians, we investigated social attitudes to this dilemma. We used best-worst scaling to assess preferences across a set of 11 assets representing human life, infrastructure, biodiversity, and cultural values. Survey respondents overwhelmingly prioritized a single human life (best-worst score of 6647 out of possible score ranging from -10695 to 10695), even if that choice resulted in extinction of other species. Inanimate (replaceable) objects were accorded lowest priority (best-worst scores of -4655 for a shed and -3242 for a house). Among biodiversity assets, respondents prioritized protecting a population of the iconic koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) (best-worst score of 1913) ahead of preventing the extinction of a snail (score -329) and a plant species (-226). These results variably support current policy in that they emphasize the importance the community places on protection of human life, but results diverged from conventional practice in rating some biodiversity assets ahead of infrastructure. The preference for protecting a population of koalas ahead of action taken to prevent the extinction of an invertebrate and plant species corroborates previous research reporting biases in the way people value nature. If noncharismatic species are not to be treated as expendable, then the case for preventing their extinction needs to be better made to the community. Given the increasing global incidence of high-severity wildfires, further sampling of societal preferences among diverse asset types is needed to inform planning, policy, and practice relating to wildfire. Other preemptive targeted management actions (such as translocations) are needed to conserve biodiversity, especially noniconic species, likely to be imperiled by catastrophic events.

Ecological Considerations When Designing Mitigation Translocations: An Australian Reptile Case Study

Translocation science has made considerable progress over the last two decades; however, reptile translocations still frequently fail around the world. Major knowledge gaps surround the basic ecology of reptile species, including basic factors such as habitat preference, which have a critical influence on translocation success. The western spiny-tailed skink (Egernia stokesii badia) is used here as a case study to exemplify how empirical research can directly inform on-ground management and future translocation planning. A combination of studies, including LiDAR scanning of microhabitat structures, camera trapping, plasticine replica model experiments and unbounded point count surveys to assess predation risk, and visual and DNA analysis of dietary requirements, were all used to better understand the ecological requirements of E. s. badia. We found that the skinks have specific log pile requirements, both native and non-native predator management requirements, and a largely herbivorous, broad diet, which all influence translocation site selection and management planning. The use of E. s. badia as an Australian case study provides a clear strategic framework for the targeted research of meaningful ecological factors that influence translocation decision-making. Similar approaches applied to other reptile species are likely to fundamentally increase the capacity for effective management, and the likelihood of future successful translocations.

Effects of different management strategies on long-term trends of Australian threatened and near-threatened mammals

Monitoring is critical to assess management effectiveness, but broadscale systematic assessments of monitoring to evaluate and improve recovery efforts are lacking. We compiled 1808 time series from 71 threatened and near-threatened terrestrial and volant mammal species and subspecies in Australia (48% of all threatened mammal taxa) to compare relative trends of populations subject to different management strategies. We adapted the Living Planet Index to develop the Threatened Species Index for Australian Mammals and track aggregate trends for all sampled threatened mammal populations and for small (<35 g), medium (35-5500 g), and large mammals (>5500 g) from 2000 to 2017. Unmanaged populations (42 taxa) declined by 63% on average; unmanaged small mammals exhibited the greatest declines (96%). Populations of 17 taxa in havens (islands and fenced areas that excluded or eliminated introduced red foxes [Vulpes vulpes] and domestic cats [Felis catus]) increased by 680%. Outside havens, populations undergoing sustained predator baiting initially declined by 75% but subsequently increased to 47% of their abundance in 2000. At sites where predators were not excluded or baited but other actions (e.g., fire management, introduced herbivore control) occurred, populations of small and medium mammals declined faster, but large mammals declined more slowly, than unmanaged populations. Only 13% of taxa had data for both unmanaged and managed populations; index comparisons for this subset showed that taxa with populations increasing inside havens declined outside havens but taxa with populations subject to predator baiting outside havens declined more slowly than populations with no management and then increased, whereas unmanaged populations continued to decline. More comprehensive and improved monitoring (particularly encompassing poorly represented management actions and taxonomic groups like bats and small mammals) is required to understand whether and where management has worked. Improved implementation of management for threats other than predation is critical to recover Australia's threatened mammals.

Ten bridges on the road to recovering Canada’s endangered species

Wildlife is declining around the world. Many developed nations have enacted legislation on endangered species protection and provide funding for wildlife recovery. Protecting endangered species is also supported by the public and judiciary. Yet, despite what appear as enabling conditions, wild species continue to decline. Our paper explores pathways to endangered species recovery by analyzing the barriers that have been identified in Canada, the United States, and Australia. We summarize these findings based on Canada’s Species at Risk Conservation Cycle (assessment, protection, recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation) and then identify 10 “bridges” that could help overcome these barriers and bend our current trajectory of wildlife loss to recovery. These bridges include ecosystem approaches to recovery, building capacity for community co-governance, linking wildlife recovery to ecosystem services, and improving our storytelling about the loss and recovery of wildlife. The focus of our conclusions is the Canadian setting, but our findings can be applied in other national and subnational settings to reverse the decline of wildlife and halt extinction.

Stakeholder engagement in the governance of marine migratory species: barriers and building blocks

Meaningful stakeholder engagement is important to collaborative decision-making and to effective polycentric governance, particularly when managing cross-scale environmental issues like those involving marine migratory species. In this paper, we explore the barriers to, and opportunities for, stakeholder involvement in the governance of threats to marine migratory species in eastern Australia, using semi-structured qualitative interviews and a focus group, as an example of the generic problem of managing migratory species within a large range state with multiple jurisdictions. Respondents identified several barriers to, and opportunities for, improved stakeholder involvement in the governance of marine migratory species, corresponding to 4 main themes: decision-making processes, information sharing, institutional structures, and participation processes. Respondents indicated that the governance system protecting marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and non-threatened migratory shorebirds in eastern Australia would benefit from the introduction of new information pathways, reformed institutional structures (including environmental legislation), and improved participatory pathways for non-government stakeholders. Such changes could help harmonise the process of managing these species, leading to more effective conservation management throughout their range.

Use of surrogate species to cost-effectively prioritize conservation actions

Conservation efforts often focus on umbrella species whose distributions overlap with many other flora and fauna. However, because biodiversity is affected by different threats that are spatially variable, focusing only on the geographic range overlap of species may not be sufficient in allocating the necessary actions needed to efficiently abate threats. We developed a problem-based method for prioritizing conservation actions for umbrella species that maximizes the total number of flora and fauna benefiting from management while considering threats, actions, and costs. We tested our new method by assessing the performance of the Australian federal government's umbrella prioritization list, which identifies 73 umbrella species as priorities for conservation attention. Our results show that the federal government priority list benefits only 6% of all Australia's threatened terrestrial species. This could be increased to benefit nearly half (or 46%) of all threatened terrestrial species for the same budget of AU$550 million/year if more suitable umbrella species were chosen. This results in a 7-fold increase in management efficiency. We believe nations around the world can markedly improve the selection of prioritized umbrella species for conservation action with this transparent, quantitative, and objective prioritization approach.

The Recovery Illusion: What Is Delaying the Rescue of Imperiled Species?

With unprecedented losses in biodiversity, the need for stronger environmental policy has emerged as a conservation priority. Yet recovery planning for imperiled species remains a cumbersome, slow legislative process. In the present article, we examine features of recovery planning for species listed under Canada's Species at Risk Act to determine those influencing recovery planning duration. We found that the time to completion of recovery strategies increases with the number of jurisdictions concurrently listing the species, greater land tenure diversity, species population size, and road density. Species at risk in Canada with no listing status in the United States also suffered longer delays. To achieve a more efficient, timely, and defensible implementation of recovery planning, we recommend that governments prioritize recovery planning on the basis of risk level, promote transjurisdictional collaboration among listing agencies, anticipate and mitigate conservation challenges associated with multitenured and developed landscapes, and adopt procedures that enhance compliance with legislated timelines for recovery planning.

Climate readiness of recovery plans for threatened Australian species

The rapidly changing climate is posing growing threats for all species, but particularly for those already considered threatened. We reviewed 100 recovery plans for Australian terrestrial threatened species (50 fauna and 50 flora plans) written from 1997 to 2017. We recorded the number of plans that acknowledged climate change as a threat and of these how many proposed specific actions to ameliorate the threat. We classified these actions along a continuum from passive or incremental to active or interventionist. Overall, just under 60% of the sampled recovery plans listed climate change as a current or potential threat to the threatened taxa, and the likelihood of this acknowledgment increased over time. A far smaller proportion of the plans, however, identified specific actions associated with ameliorating climate risk (22%) and even fewer (9%) recommended any interventionist action in response to a climate-change-associated threat. Our results point to a disconnect between the knowledge generated on climate-change-related risk and potential adaptation strategies and the extent to which this knowledge has been incorporated into an important instrument of conservation action.

The threats to Australia’s imperilled species and implications for a national conservation response

Since European occupation of Australia, human activities have caused the dramatic decline and sometimes extinction of many of the continent’s unique species. Here we provide a comprehensive review of threats to species listed as threatened under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Following accepted global categories of threat, we find that invasive species affect the largest number of listed species (1257 species, or 82% of all threatened species); ecosystem modifications (e.g. fire) (74% of listed species) and agricultural activity (57%) are also important. The ranking of threats was largely consistent across taxonomic groups and the degree of species’ endangerment. These results were significantly different (P&lt;0.01) from recent analyses of threats to threatened species globally, which highlighted overexploitation, agriculture and urban development as major causes of decline. Australia is distinct not only in the biodiversity it contains but also in the extent and mixture of processes that threaten the survival of these species. Notably, the IUCN threat classification scheme separates the numerous threats (e.g. urban development, agriculture, mining) that cause habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, hence further research is required to quantify the net impact of these types of habitat change. We provide feasible suggestions for a more coordinated national approach to threatened species conservation, which could provide decision makers and managers at all levels with improved resources and information on threats and management. Adequate policy, legislative support and funding are critical for ensuring that on-ground management is successful in halting the decline of Australia’s threatened species.

How to improve threatened species management: An Australian perspective

Targeted threatened species management is a central component of efforts to prevent species extinction. Despite the development of a range of management frameworks to improve conservation outcomes over the past decade, threatened species management is still commonly characterised as ad hoc. Although there are notable successes, many management programs are ineffective, with relatively few species experiencing improvements in their conservation status. We identify underlying factors that commonly lead to ineffective and inefficient management. Drawing attention to some of the key challenges, and suggesting ways forward, may lead to improved management effectiveness and better conservation outcomes. We highlight six key areas where improvements are needed: 1) stakeholder engagement and communication; 2) fostering strong leadership and the development of achievable long-term goals; 3) knowledge of target species' biology and threats, particularly focusing on filling knowledge gaps that impede management, while noting that in many cases there will be a need for conservation management to proceed initially despite knowledge gaps; 4) setting objectives with measurable outcomes; 5) strategic monitoring to evaluate management effectiveness; and 6) greater accountability for species declines and failure to recover species to ensure timely action and guard against complacency. We demonstrate the importance of these six key areas by providing examples of innovative approaches leading to successful species management. We also discuss overarching factors outside the realm of management influence that can help or impede conservation success. Clear recognition of factors that make species' management more straightforward - or more challenging - is important for setting realistic management objectives, outlining strategic action, and prioritising resources. We also highlight the need to more clearly demonstrate the benefit of current investment, and communicate that the risk of under-investment is species extinctions. Together, improvements in conservation practice, along with increased resource allocation and re-evaluation of the prioritisation of competing interests that threaten species, will help enhance conservation outcomes for threatened species.

A large-scale application of project prioritization to threatened species investment by a government agency

In a global environment of increasing species extinctions and decreasing availability of funds with which to combat the causes of biodiversity loss, maximising the efficiency of conservation efforts is crucial. The only way to ensure maximum return on conservation investment is to incorporate the cost, benefit and likelihood of success of conservation actions into decision-making in a systematic and objective way. Here we report on the application of a Project Prioritization Protocol (PPP), first implemented by the New Zealand Government, to target and prioritize investment in threatened species in New South Wales, Australia, under the state's new Saving our Species program. Detailed management prescriptions for 368 threatened species were developed via an expert elicitation process, and were then prioritized using quantitative data on benefit, likelihood of success and implementation cost, and a simple cost-efficiency equation. We discuss the outcomes that have been realized even in the early stages of the program; including the efficient development of planning resources made available to all potential threatened species investors and the demonstration of a transparent and objective approach to threatened species management that will significantly increase the probability of meeting an objective to secure the greatest number of threatened species from extinction.

Estimating the benefit of well-managed protected areas for threatened species conservation

Protected areas are central to global efforts to prevent species extinctions, with many countries investing heavily in their establishment. Yet the designation of protected areas alone can only abate certain threats to biodiversity. Targeted management within protected areas is often required to achieve fully effective conservation within their boundaries. It remains unclear what combination of protected area designation and management is needed to remove the suite of processes that imperil species. Here, using Australia as a case study, we use a dataset on the pressures facing threatened species to determine the role of protected areas and management in conserving imperilled species. We found that protected areas that are not resourced for threat management could remove one or more threats to 1,185 (76%) species and all threats to very few (n = 51, 3%) species. In contrast, a protected area network that is adequately resourced to manage threatening processes within their boundary could remove one or more threats to almost all species (n = 1,551; c. 100%) and all threats to almost half (n = 740, 48%). However, 815 (52%) species face one or more threats that require coordinated conservation actions that protected areas alone could not remove. This research shows that investing in the continued expansion of Australia's protected area network without providing adequate funding for threat management within and beyond the existing protected area network will benefit few threatened species. These findings highlight that as the international community expands the global protected area network in accordance with the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, a greater emphasis on the effectiveness of threat management is needed.

Gbm.auto: A software tool to simplify spatial modelling and Marine Protected Area planning

Boosted Regression Trees. Excellent for data-poor spatial management but hard to use

Marine resource managers and scientists often advocate spatial approaches to manage data-poor species. Existing spatial prediction and management techniques are either insufficiently robust, struggle with sparse input data, or make suboptimal use of multiple explanatory variables. Boosted Regression Trees feature excellent performance and are well suited to modelling the distribution of data-limited species, but are extremely complicated and time-consuming to learn and use, hindering access for a wide potential user base and therefore limiting uptake and usage.

BRTs automated and simplified for accessible general use with rich feature set

We have built a software suite in R which integrates pre-existing functions with new tailor-made functions to automate the processing and predictive mapping of species abundance data: by automating and greatly simplifying Boosted Regression Tree spatial modelling, the gbm.auto R package suite makes this powerful statistical modelling technique more accessible to potential users in the ecological and modelling communities. The package and its documentation allow the user to generate maps of predicted abundance, visualise the representativeness of those abundance maps and to plot the relative influence of explanatory variables and their relationship to the response variables. Databases of the processed model objects and a report explaining all the steps taken within the model are also generated. The package includes a previously unavailable Decision Support Tool which combines estimated escapement biomass (the percentage of an exploited population which must be retained each year to conserve it) with the predicted abundance maps to generate maps showing the location and size of habitat that should be protected to conserve the target stocks (candidate MPAs), based on stakeholder priorities, such as the minimisation of fishing effort displacement.

Gbm.auto for management in various settings

By bridging the gap between advanced statistical methods for species distribution modelling and conservation science, management and policy, these tools can allow improved spatial abundance predictions, and therefore better management, decision-making, and conservation. Although this package was built to support spatial management of a data-limited marine elasmobranch fishery, it should be equally applicable to spatial abundance modelling, area protection, and stakeholder engagement in various scenarios.

Toward reassessing data-deficient species

One in 6 species (13,465 species) on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is classified as data deficient due to lack of information on their taxonomy, population status, or impact of threats. Despite the chance that many are at high risk of extinction, data-deficient species are typically excluded from global and local conservation priorities, as well as funding schemes. The number of data-deficient species will greatly increase as the IUCN Red List becomes more inclusive of poorly known and speciose groups. A strategic approach is urgently needed to enhance the conservation value of data-deficient assessments. To develop this, we reviewed 2879 data-deficient assessments in 6 animal groups and identified 8 main justifications for assigning data-deficient status (type series, few records, old records, uncertain provenance, uncertain population status or distribution, uncertain threats, taxonomic uncertainty, and new species). Assigning a consistent set of justification tags (i.e., consistent assignment to assessment justifications) to species classified as data deficient is a simple way to achieve more strategic assessments. Such tags would clarify the causes of data deficiency; facilitate the prediction of extinction risk; facilitate comparisons of data deficiency among taxonomic groups; and help prioritize species for reassessment. With renewed efforts, it could be straightforward to prevent thousands of data-deficient species slipping unnoticed toward extinction.

The User, not the Tool: Perceptions of Credibility and Relevance Affect the Uptake of Prioritisation

Prioritisation methods have been used in conservation planning for over 20 years. The scientific literature focuses on the technical aspects of prioritisation, providing limited information on factors affecting the uptake of priorities. We focused on the Back on Track species prioritisation program in Queensland, Australia, used to prioritise species conservation efforts across Queensland from 2005. The program had low uptake by intended users. Our study aimed to identify the perceived limitations in the technical-scientific quality of this species-based prioritisation process and its outcomes in terms of credibility (scientific adequacy of the technical evidence) and relevance (of information to the needs of decision-makers). These criteria have been used to understand the uptake of scientific information in policy. We interviewed 73 key informants. Perceptions of credibility were affected by concerns related to the use of expert judgement (rather than empirical evidence) to assess species, impressions that key experts were not included in the planning process, and the lack of confidence in the information supporting prioritisation. We identified several trade-offs and synergies between the credibility and relevance of priorities to potential users. The relevance of the output plans was negatively affected by the lack of clarity about who were potential users and implementers of the priorities identified. We conclude with recommendations to enhance the credibility and relevance of such initiatives.

Integrating human responses to climate change into conservation vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning

The impact of climate change on biodiversity is now evident, with the direct impacts of changing temperature and rainfall patterns and increases in the magnitude and frequency of extreme events on species distribution, populations, and overall ecosystem function being increasingly publicized. Changes in the climate system are also affecting human communities, and a range of human responses across terrestrial and marine realms have been witnessed, including altered agricultural activities, shifting fishing efforts, and human migration. Failing to account for the human responses to climate change is likely to compromise climate-smart conservation efforts. Here, we use a well-established conservation planning framework to show how integrating human responses to climate change into both species- and site-based vulnerability assessments and adaptation plans is possible. By explicitly taking into account human responses, conservation practitioners will improve their evaluation of species and ecosystem vulnerability, and will be better able to deliver win-wins for human- and biodiversity-focused climate adaptation.

Assessing the impact of the U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery planning guidelines on managing threats for listed species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States was enacted in 1973 to prevent the extinction of species. Recovery plans, required by 1988 amendments to the ESA, play an important role in organizing these efforts to protect and recover species. To improve the use of science in the recovery planning process, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) commissioned an independent review of endangered species recovery planning in 1999. From these findings, the SCB made key recommendations for how management agencies could improve the recovery planning process, after which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service redrafted their recovery planning guidelines. One important recommendation called for recovery plans to make threats a primary focus, including organizing and prioritizing recovery tasks for threat abatement. We sought to determine the extent to which results from the SCB study were incorporated into these new guidelines and whether the SCB recommendations regarding threats manifested in recovery plans written under the new guidelines. Recovery planning guidelines generally incorporated the SCB recommendations, including those for managing threats. However, although recent recovery plans have improved in their treatment of threats, many fail to adequately incorporate threat monitoring. This failure suggests that developing clear guidelines for monitoring should be an important priority in improving ESA recovery planning.

Cold-blooded indifference: a case study of the worsening status of threatened reptiles from Victoria, Australia

For the first time in the history of life, a biodiversity extinction crisis is being driven by a single species – humans. Humans also have unprecedented control over both the threats and conservation actions that influence this crisis. When prioritising conservation actions, innate human bias often favours endothermic vertebrates over other fauna. Reptiles are the least popular terrestrial vertebrate class, and consequently are particularly disadvantaged in terms of being listed as threatened and receiving conservation management. Despite 30 years of formally evaluating and listing threatened vertebrates in the Australian State of Victoria, there is a strong worsening trend in the conservation status of all faunal groups. The deteriorating status of Victorian reptiles mirrors worrying documented trends in reptile conservation status around the world. I review the history of listing threatened reptiles in Victoria, detail worsening trends in their conservation status, and suggest that, as in other parts of the world, the threats common to most listed taxa are climate change, habitat loss and degradation, and elevated rates of predation by exotic predators. I also identify poor advice and planning as a considerable threat to Victorian reptiles; this threat is rarely reported, but may be more pervasive than currently recognised. I argue that what is needed for most reptiles to have the greatest chance of persisting in the long term is prevention of habitat loss and degradation, research to underpin listing and management, improved policy so that unproven management strategies are not sanctioned, and vetting of consultant’s reports so that unproven ‘mitigation’ strategies and inadequate preimpact surveys do not mask the true cost of loss and degradation of habitat.