Download 2015 Annual Report - Threatened Species Recovery Hub

NESP THREATENED SPECIES RECOVERY
HUB
ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT #1
1 January 2015 – 31 December 2015
Section 1. Hub information
Hub Name (full activity title): Threatened Species Recovery Hub
Host organisation: The University of Queensland
Key Contact: Professor Hugh Possingham, Director
Contact telephone number: (07) 3365 2527
Contact email address: [email protected]
Other consortium partners/subcontractors/research organisations:
The Australian National University, University of Melbourne, Charles Darwin University, RMIT
University, Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Monash University, University of Western Australia,
University of Tasmania, University of New South Wales and University of Sydney
There are no sub-contractors commencing activities in 2015, although we have received approval
for CSIRO to be a sub-contractor for Project 6.2 which is approved under the Research Plan (Version
2) and will commence in early 2016.
______________________________________________________________________________
This annual progress report comprises three parts:
A. Certification by the hub leadership that, in all material respects, the report is complete and
accurate and that funding conditions have been met and that risks to research delivery have
been notified to the Department;
B. Performance information – describing in qualitative and quantitative terms progress against
the Research Plan; and
C. Financial information - demonstrating that funds have been used for the purpose for which they
were provided.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 1 of 39
A: HUB CERTIFICATION
Section 2. Certification by hub Leadership
Hub Leader Certification
As hub Leader, I certify that I have taken adequate steps to reasonably assure myself that:

each required report component is attached;

the contents of each component of the report is complete and accurate in all material respects;

funds have been used for the purpose for which they were provided and all funding conditions
have been met, including that appropriate oversight has been maintained of hub projects, their
progress, performance and budgets during the reporting period;

all relevant risks to project delivery have been notified to the Department in this and previous
reports and that appropriate steps are being taken to manage those risks;

any carryover of project funds have been allocated to projects in the next reporting period or
financial year in accordance with the Research Plan, or that alternative projects have been
identified if necessary, or funds identified for refund to the Department of the Environment; and

full payment for this milestone by the Department is recommended on the basis that the
milestone has been successfully achieved.
Signed:
Hub Leader Name: Hugh Possingham
Date: 3 June 2016
Hub Steering Committee Chair Certification:
As steering committee chair, I certify that any issues of concern or matters raised during steering
committee meetings where the draft progress report was discussed have been adequately
resolved, amended or incorporated into the final report submitted to the department.
Signed:
Hub Steering Committee Chair Name: Stephen Morton
Date: 3 June 2016
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 2 of 39
B: PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Section 2. Performance against Project and Departmental
Milestones
Have
all
milestones
for
the
reporting
period
and
to
date
been
met?
No
The Hub has met all of the Departmental milestones, however, for some project milestones there
have been some delays due to various factors including late approvals and/or delays in the
appointment of research staff. These are outlined in the table below.
It is expected that with the approval of the Research Plan (Version 2) and the staffing appointments
now taking place, the rate of progress will increase in 2016.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 3 of 39
Table 1: Identification of milestones not met within the reporting period
PROJECT
MILESTONE
DUE DATE
PROGRESS UPDATE
Project 1.1:
Developing evidencebased management
tools and protocols to
reduce impacts of
introduced predators
on threatened
mammals
Milestone 4
Establish and activate a
representative steering
committee that helps
further detail project
components (including
more specific milestones
for sub-projects), roles
and responsibilities, and
ensures coherence for
those components.
December 2015
Whilst this milestone is on track, there has been a change in approach to the
establishment of a representative steering committee. Rather than establishing
a large steering committee for the whole project, given the large size of the project
team in 1.1, and the large number of sub-projects that have formed under its
umbrella, the Project Leaders have instead formed smaller steering committees
for each of the sub-projects.
Project 1.2:
Conserving critical
and threatened
habitats
Milestone 3
Commencement of new
sub-projects on
threatened woodland
and other communities
November 2015
Project 1.3: Managing
fire regimes with
thresholds to save
threatened flora and
fauna
Milestone 4
Recruitment of research
staff
There will be no detrimental effect on the project – rather the smaller sub-project
committee are more functional and useful variation to forming a project-level
steering committee.
There is a slight delay due to the research staff leaving the project to take up
employment opportunities elsewhere. The sub-projects will now commence in
early 2016. To minimise the impact of the departure of research staff, the project
leader is appointing a 0.7FTE postdoctoral fellow to focus on the project. This
slight delay will not impact on the project in the longer term at this stage with
future milestones still being expected to be met within the timeframes.
The recruitment of staff for the project is in progress at the time of this report,
however, it is envisaged all project staff will be appointed by early 2016.
There will be no delays to the delivery of the final project.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 4 of 39
Project 2.2: Tackling
threats to endangered
hollow nesting birds in
Tasmania
Milestone 1
Meeting/s and
communication with
DPIPWE staff and other
key stakeholders (FT,
FPA)
4 August 2015
There were initial delays in the commencement of Project 2.2 due to the
conditions placed on approval by DoTE. This included greater engagement and
collaboration with DPIPWE staff. The initial meeting with DPIPWE, FT and FPA
was delayed until August 2015. In principle verbal agreement was reached and
written endorsement was provided immediately by FPA. However in spite of a
further telephone meeting between all parties in October, written approval was
not obtained from FT and DPIPWE until December 2015, leading to an inability
to commence on-ground components in 2015. There are also ongoing permit
issues, with DPIPWE not yet agreeing to give permits concerning our research
on orange-bellied parrots. A further meeting with partners in March is aimed at
sorting out remaining permit issues.
The delay should not impact on the overall project timelines.
Project 2.3: Enhancing
threatened species
outcomes for
Christmas Island
Milestone 2
August 2015
Meeting of lead
researchers and staff
from ERIN to discuss
data management and
provision of datasets.
The final plan will be
developed as part of the
Hub’s overarching Data
and Information
Management Plan. This
may be facilitated by the
Information and Data
workshop to be
coordinated by the
Department in June.
Milestone 3
May 2016
Revision of milestones has taken place under Research Plan (V2) largely based
on (i) advice from Parks Australia to delay consideration of a major component
of this project (strategic conservation assessment) to allow for longer lead-in time
for stakeholder consultation; and (ii) the emergence of a new priority (reptile
disease).
The timing and resourcing of this project changed significantly from V1 to V2 of
the Research Plan, rendering the reporting schedule initially proposed in V1
largely redundant. Version 2 of the Research Plan included only $5000
resourcing from NESP in 2015 and no milestones for the 2015 calendar year.
September
2015
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 5 of 39
Develop a
communications and
knowledge-brokering
plan, aimed particularly
at informing, and seeking
constructive engagement
of, relevant stakeholders
in the spatial planning
analysis. The plan will
be incorporated into the
Hub’s overarching KB &
Communication plan
Milestone 4
PhDs and post-docs
appointed
Milestone 5
Project 3.2: Action
evaluation and onground monitoring of
threatened species
Workshop with CI Parks
NRM staff, WA DPaW
researchers and others
to identify key research,
monitoring and
management priorities in
relation to biodiversity
responses to feral cat
control, and hence to
hone and detail research
program, and implement
immediate actions (e.g.
baseline monitoring,
response predictions).
Milestone 3
Appointment of UM and
ANU post-doctoral
researchers
May 2016
October 2015
December 2015
Personnel recruited, but appointment deferred into 2016, because of delayed
approval and start of this project. This will not impact on the overall delivery of
the project.
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 6 of 39
Milestone 4
Sign research agreement
with TNC in relation to
Martu bilby project
Project 4.1:
Translocation,
reintroduction and
conservation fencing
for threatened fauna
Milestone 4
First year research
priority PhDs and RAs
and post-docs appointed
Deferred into 2016, because of delayed approval and start of this project. The
agreement is currently being negotiated and close to finalisation.
December 2015
This milestone has progressed, however at the time of the report, it is not
completed. Some recruitment occurred in 2015 e.g post-doc based at UWA
(Jana Colletti, 0.6 FTE) and PhD student Sophie Arnall (completion funding).
Otherwise, arrangements for recruitment made during 2015, but appointments to
take place mostly in 2016, are: post-doc based at UQ (0.5 FTE, Tracy Rout);
post-doc at UWA (0.5 FTE, Leonie Valentine); second UWA post-doc recruited
(0.5 FTE for 3 months, Jeremy Ringma) and a third UWA post-doc to be recruited
in April 2016 (likely to be Stewart McDonald); post-doc based at ANU (0.67 FTE,
Will Baston).
The overall delivery of the project will not be impacted by the small delays.
Project 6.1:
Quantifying benefits of
threatened-species
management in rural
and regional
economies
Milestone 5
Draft synthesis of
existing valuation studies
on threatened species
and/or threatened
ecological communities
(research this research
has been explicitly
requested by the Office
of Environmental
Science & Economics)
May 2016
30 November
2015
The report was delivered in early January – a month behind schedule. Some of
the delays were caused to the Christmas period.
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 7 of 39
Section 3. Description of work undertaken during the reporting
period
Overview
The Hub’s identified outcomes include:

Significantly enhanced outlook for Australia’s threatened terrestrial plant and animal species
and ecological communities;

Reduction in the rate of species that are not currently threatened becoming eligible for listing
as threatened;

Enhanced regional and national monitoring of the status of threatened species and ecological
communities, and increased use and application of such monitoring in broader national
reporting;

Enhanced management of threats and threatened species and ecological communities, to
deliver more significant beneficial outcomes more cost-effectively;

Increased community knowledge of, engagement and investment in threatened species
conservation; and

Enhanced policy, management and process for recovery planning.
Given that 2015 has been very much a start-up year in terms of the development of the Research
Plan (Versions 1 and 2), and other plans and strategies, as well as recruitment of research staff – it
is not to be expected that significant progress has been made to deliver on this outcomes.
However, some early highlights in working towards these outcomes have included:
1. Work from Hub researchers has formed an important part of the Minister for the
Environment’s Threatened Species Strategy, and supported the listing of 20 threatened birds
and 20 threatened mammals as targets for priority conservation actions.
2. Hub researchers are involved in the provision of expertise and advice to a number of national
advisory groups including the Feral Cat Taskforce, the Christmas Island Cat Eradication
Project and the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.
3. A priority emerging issue (Leadbeater’s Possum) is now incorporated into the Hub’s research
plan under Project 3.3 Practical adaptive management for significantly improving threatened
species conservation and recovery programs
4. TSR Hub researchers are involved in providing advice on a range of issues linking to the
enhanced management of threats and threatened species. For example, researchers have
been involved in compiling site-based estimates of feral cat density under Project 1.1, with
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 8 of 39
this information being used to model the total population of feral cats in Australia. It is
expected the report will be released post-April 2016.
5. The work on translocation, reintroduction and conservation fencing for threatened fauna
(Project 4.1) has made early progress, with Australia soon to have a framework for designing
a national network of ‘safe havens’ for threatened mammals, following a recent workshop
with 24 leading conservation specialists from federal and state governments, NGOs and
academia, hosted by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. Researchers under this project
are also working closely with the ACT Parks Service to establish fox control programs in the
ACT region, and AWC have carried out the first release of woylies into a 7800 ha fenced area
at Mt Gibson Wildlife Sanctuary (WA), in a wild-to-wild translocation. AWC staff are following
the fate of released animals closely with the information to contribute to a broader
understanding of reintroduction practices.
In summary, the last six months has been productive in establishing the early projects and setting
up the Hub for future years with the approval of the Research Plan (Version 2) in early 2016. Work
has also been undertaken on developing the Hub’s strategies and operating frameworks for
communication, knowledge brokering and outreach; Indigenous engagement and participation, and;
data and information management, to name a few. It is expected that the Hub will be fully operational
in early 2016 with progress expected to accelerate with initial analyses and findings from projects
expected to flow during the late part of 2016.
Hub Impact Case Studies from previous 12 months
Below are four case studies identifying key research highlights over the preceding 12 months.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 9 of 39
NESP TSR Hub: Case Study #1
Threatened Species Recovery Hub contributes to National
Feral Cat Taskforce
1. Research hub:
Threatened Species Recovery Hub
2. Project number and title:
Project 1.1: Developing evidence-based management tools and protocols to reduce
impacts of introduced predators on threatened mammals
3. Title of Case Study:
Threatened Species Recovery Hub contributes to National Feral Cat Taskforce
4. Context/Problem Statement:
Feral cats and foxes, sometimes interacting with other threats, such as mismanaged fire and
introduced herbivores, have already caused many species’ extinctions and remain a serious
threat to Australia’s vertebrate species, especially its mammals. Because of their critical role
in depleting Australia’s biodiversity, the control of feral cats is a major focus in the recent
Threatened Species Strategy. Research under Project 1.1 aims to support implementation of
that strategy, particularly through evidence about which management actions work best (most
cost-effectively and enduringly) in different contexts to reduce the impacts of feral predators,
and thus help to recover threatened species, and other native animals.
5. Summary of the Case Study Impact
The project includes many case studies of management of introduced predators and
threatened species recovery and seeks to collate findings spanning a range of sites across
Australia and involving a wide range of agencies.
This project is also informing the new National Feral Cat Taskforce through the involvement
of TSR Hub deputy directors, Sarah Legge and John Woinarski. This is a clear example of
the Hub contributing significantly to threatened species policy and management across
Australia.
6. Details of the Impact
This project will provide critical evidence about the impacts of introduced predators
(particularly feral cats), and the best options available for managers to control those impacts.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 10 of 39
Its outputs will be used to inform the Threatened Species Strategy’s targets, to all state and
territory conservation agencies and other land management groups, with some of this uptake
collated through the Feral Cat Taskforce.
This Taskforce is made up of representatives from every state and territory government, as
well as Natural Resource Management organisations, the Department of Agriculture and
Water Resources, the RSPCA, the National Environmental Science Programme and
Threatened Species Scientific Committee representatives, the Invasive Species Council and
Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre.
The taskforce will help consolidate and strengthen actions by states and territories and natural
resource management organisations to reduce the impacts of feral cats.
One of the Hub’s key contributions to this Taskforce for the next six months is to assess the
size of the feral cat population in Australia, and interpret this in the context of the feral cat
management targets.
Hub personnel will also support the Australian Department of the Environment to develop
measurement tools to monitor the culling of feral cats across Australia. The feral cat taskforce
is a great forum for the Hub to identify research gaps, and to scope opportunities to collaborate
with agencies responsible for managing feral cats. The Hub places a strong emphasis on
connecting research with land managers and delivery agencies and the Taskforce helps us
strengthen these connections, and work with the Government to support the delivery of the
Threatened Species Strategy.
All the work being carried out in Project 1.1 involves collaborations with land management
agencies, and some work also involves NGOs like the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, as
well as the private sector. For example, the Western Australian Government is working with
Rio Tinto to deliver a large-scale feral cat control program in the Pilbara, and the Hub is adding
to that effort with some focussed research on the effects of feral cat control on threatened
northern quolls.
This emphasis on partnerships between researchers and management agencies is designed
to make the Hub’s research on feral predators as strategic, relevant and effective as possible.
7. Research Underpinning Impact
Much of the research will be integrated with co-contributors’ programs that seek to increase
populations of threatened species as a result of intensive feral predator management. These
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 11 of 39
populations can be in situ, translocated, inside and outside fenced areas. More broadly, this
project will provide the evidence base to allow for the application of high priority, cost-efficient
and effective management of introduced predators and other interacting factors that currently
are major drivers of the decline of native mammal (and other) species across most of Australia.
It will also design and implement monitoring programs that allow the measurement (and
refinement) of such management interventions. The application of this knowledge will help
reverse the current decline of many native species across large areas of Australia.
Progress to-date under Project 1.1 has focused upon:
 Clarifying the specific objectives, project teams, and personnel recruitment for each of the
seven sub-projects that fall under the umbrella of Project 1.1.
 Beginning the priority compilation, synthesis and reviews tasks including:
o
An estimate of the size of the cat population in Australia
o
An estimate of the area of land in Australia that is free of feral cats
o
A register of applied research projects on feral cats
o
A review of the impacts of, and current management options for, feral cats
The project team has also provided information and advice on feral cats to the Threatened
Species Commissioner office for their communications program, and both project co-leaders
are members of the newly formed Feral Cat Taskforce (see above).
8. Research Outputs from Research Underpinning Impact
Over the period October to December 2015, the project has collated site-based estimates of
feral cat density, with this information being used to model the total population of feral cats in
Australia, and this research component will be written up by April 2016. Most research
components began to be implemented in 2015.
9. Additional Information
A) VALIDATION OF THE IMPACT
Not applicable at this time
B) PEOPLE (RESEARCHERS, INSTITUTIONS)
Please see below for a listing of people involved.
I. STAFF
Name/Organisation
Project Role
John Woinarski, CDU
Project leader
Sarah Legge, CDU, ANU, UQ
Project leader
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 12 of 39
Chris Johnson, UTAS
Habitat manipulation; cat-dingo interactions; Guardian
dogs; integrated management of feral herbivores and
cats
Menna Jones, UTAS
Predator interactions
Sam Banks, ANU
Research on source of peri-urban cats, genetic analysis
David Roshier, AWC
Predator control to support mammal translocations
John Kanowski, AWC
Predator control to support mammal translocations
Andrew Carter, AWC
Predator control to support mammal translocations
Chris Dickman, USYD
Mike Lawes, CDU
Predator relationships; responses to baiting; Post-doc
and PhD student supervisor
Cat control trials; Habitat manipulation and cats
Brett Murphy, CDU
Analysis of large datasets
Diana Fisher, UQ
Cat baiting trial in Qld
Hugh McGregor, UTAS
Leigh-Ann Woolley, CDU
Integrated management of introduced herbivores and
predators
Analysis of large datasets
Aaron Greenville, USYD
Analysis of large datasets
Billy Ross, CDU
Cat-baiting trial, Pilbara
II. OTHERS
Researchers from organisations other than the funded nodes
Keith Morris, WA DPaW
Predator control sub-projects
Graeme Gillespie, NT DLRM
Kakadu fire and feral sub-project
Alaric Fisher, NT DLRM
Kakadu fire and feral sub-project
Tony Pople, Biosecurity Qld
Cat baiting trial for TS recovery in Qld
Matthew Gentle, Biosecurity Qld
Cat baiting trial for TS recovery in Qld
James Speed, Biosecurity Qld
Cat baiting trial for TS recovery in Qld
John Augusteyn, Qld NPSR
Cat baiting trial for TS recovery in Qld
Rhonda Melzer, QLD NPSR
Cat baiting trial for TS recovery in Qld
Grahem Hemson, QLD NPSR
Cat baiting trial for TS recovery in Qld
Geoff Lundie-Jenkins, QLD
Cat baiting trial for TS recovery in Qld
NPSR
John Read Ecological Horizons
Cat control; integrated feral herbivore and predator
control
Katherine Moseby, Ecological
Cat control; integrated feral herbivore and predator
Horizons
control
Katherine Tuft, Arid Recovery
Integrated feral herbivore and predator control
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 13 of 39
Dan Rogers, SA DEWNR
Predator interactions and integrated control
Rob Brandle, SA DEWNR
Predator interactions and integrated control
Peter Copley, SA DEWNR
Predator interactions and integrated control
III.
END USERS of the research include:
 Threatened Species Commissioner
 Environmental Biosecurity Section, DotE
 National Biodiversity Section, DotE
 National Feral Cat Taskforce
 Parks Australia
 State/Territory conservation agencies
 Indigenous ranger groups and IPAs
 Private conservation groups (AWC, BHA, etc.)
 Land managers (private, NRM bodies, etc.)
 Threatened Species Scientific Committee
C) RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT INCOME
The project is funded for three years (1 September 2015 – 31 December 2018) with total
funding including NESP funds, partner cash contributions and in-kind contributions.
The Hub partners undertaking the research activities include:
 Charles Darwin University (project lead)
 Australian National University
 University of Tasmania
 Australian Wildlife Conservancy
 University of Sydney
 The University of Queensland
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 14 of 39
NESP TSR Hub: Case Study #2
2020 target set for more threatened species
1. Research hub:
Threatened Species Recovery Hub
2. Project number and title:
Project 2.1: Emergency care – identifying and prioritising actions to save fauna
species at acute risk of extinction
3. Title of Case Study:
2020 target set for more threatened species
4. Context/Problem Statement:
Over the last decade, three Australian endemic vertebrate species have become extinct,
notwithstanding their recognition (through EPBC Act list) as threatened, and the existence of
specific recovery plans for two of them. In all three cases, the likelihood of imminent extinction
was relatively predictable, but simple recovery actions that may have prevented extinction
were not implemented (or were implemented too late in the process), and proposals
addressing their conservation were not funded. In part, this management inaction or oversight
contributed to extinction. DotE, the Minister and other stakeholders urgently need a list of
fauna that are at imminent risk of extinction, and robust advice on the management actions to
prevent those extinctions.
5. Summary of the Case Study Impact
The project led by Professor John Woinarski and Professor Stephen Garnett from Charles
Darwin University, seeks to avoid similar further extinctions of terrestrial vertebrates. It can be
summarised as ‘No Surprise, No Regrets’, in that it will alert relevant agencies to high risks of
imminent extinction, and identify priority actions that can be implemented to reduce that risk.
Research outputs from Project 2.1 have already formed an important part of the Minister for
the Environment’s Threatened Species Strategy, and supported the listing of 20 threatened
birds and 20 threatened mammals as targets for priority conservation actions.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 15 of 39
6. Details of the Impact
As mentioned above, research outputs have formed an important part of the Minister’s
Threatened Species Strategy, and supported the listing of 20 threatened birds and 20
threatened mammals as targets for priority conservation actions.
In January 2016, the Minister announced that the mahogany glider, eastern quoll, western
ringtail possum, woylie, black-footed rock-wallaby, Gilbert’s potoroo, northern hopping-mouse
and Christmas Island flying-fox had joined the list of 20 mammal species prioritised for action
under Australia’s first Threatened Species Strategy.
The cassowary, swift parrot, eastern curlew, Australasian bittern, malleefowl, south-eastern
red-tailed black cockatoo, white-throated grasswren and golden-shouldered parrot were
included in the list of 20 priority bird species.
These additions completed priority lists started six months earlier, when the first tranche of
eight bird and eight mammal species targeted for action were named at Australia’s first
Threatened Species Summit.
The species were added to the lists by the Office of the Threatened Species Commissioner
after expert input from and consultation with the scientific community, and assessment against
the prioritisation principles in the Threatened Species Strategy.
7. Research Underpinning Impact
The consultation process for the listings included representatives from the TSR Hub, the
Threatened Species Commissioner’s advisors, state and territory governments, key
environmental non-government organisations and the Threatened Species Scientific
Committee.
The main objective of Project 2.1 is to alert the Department and the Minister to those species
that are most at risk of extinction and to produce advice on what to do about them. The project
team has undertaken assessments of those threatened bird and mammal species that are in
the most urgent need of attention because of their high extinction risk.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 16 of 39
The species on these priority lists include many of Australia’s most critically endangered
species. The Threatened Species Commissioner is working to prioritise conservation action
for the species that really need it most urgently and to make sure that those management
actions lead to their recovery.
The project team was able to provide an evidence base for the Commissioner to make his
choices, alongside other factors that must be considered such as geographic representation
and public awareness and interest.
8. Research Outputs from Research Underpinning Impact
Research outputs have included: (i) draft estimates of extinction-risk for all endangered and
critically endangered Australian bird and mammal species developed; (ii) advice provided to
information the listing of 20 mammal and 20 bird priority species associated with the
Threatened Species Strategy, and (iii) provision of substantial advice to DotE on the
conservation management of some highly-imperilled species, most notably through co-writing
the draft Recovery Plan for the Critically Endangered Leadbeater’s possum (released in
February 2016).
9. Additional Information
A) VALIDATION OF THE IMPACT
Threatened Species Commissioner Gregory Andrews said the priority lists had focused
attention on threatened species like never before, would have umbrella benefits for many more
species and had benefitted greatly from the input of the TSR Hub.
“In threatened species recovery, we need to make every conservation dollar count and this
requires access to high quality scientific research. I’m glad to see the TSR Hub putting science
centre stage in the fight against extinction of the unique animals and plants that define us as
a nation.”
B) PEOPLE (RESEARCHERS, INSTITUTIONS)
Please see below for a listing of people involved.
I. STAFF
Name/Organisation
Project Role
John Woinarski, CDU
Co-leader of project
Stephen Garnett, CDU
Co-leader of project
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 17 of 39
Diana Fisher, UQ
Development of elicitation options for estimating likelihood
of extinction
Development of elicitation options for estimating likelihood
of extinction
Mike Lawes, CDU
Brett Murphy, CDU
Development of elicitation options for estimating likelihood
of extinction
Hugh Possingham, UQ
Expertise in prioritisation of on-ground actions
Reid Tingley, UM
Development of elicitation options for estimating likelihood
of extinction; inputs to amphibian and reptile assessment
II. OTHERS
Birdlife Australia threatened This committee has had an ongoing role in working with
species committee
Garnett to undertake conservation assessment of Australia’s
bird species, and of identifying bird species with highest
extinction risk
III.
END USERS of the research include:
 Threatened Species Commissioner
 DotE species listing and recovery planning units National Biodiversity Section, DotE
 ANHAT (ERIN)
 All state/territory conservation agencies
 Threatened Species Scientific Committee
 IUCN Red List
 Conservation NGOs (e.g. FAME)
 Major Zoos involved in captive breeding and extinction-prevention programs
C) RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT INCOME
The project is funded for three years (1 October 2015 – 31 December 2018) with total funding
including NESP funds, partner cash contributions and in-kind contributions.
The Hub partners undertaking the research activities include:
 Charles Darwin University (project lead)
 University of Melbourne
 The University of Queensland
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 18 of 39
NESP TSR Hub: Case Study #3
Design for a national safe haven network
1. Research hub:
Threatened Species Recovery Hub
2. Project number and title:
Project 4.1: Translocation, reintroduction and conservation fencing for threatened
fauna
3. Title of Case Study:
Design for a national safe haven network
4. Context/Problem Statement:
Introduced predators (foxes, cats) are a major driver of mammal extinctions in Australia,
mainly via the direct impacts from predation (although competition, and disease transmission
can also play a role). The impacts of predation have, in many cases, been enabled by
interactions with other threatening processes, such as introduced herbivores, habitat change,
etc. Intensive management of predator density, and also of interacting threats (such as
managing fire regimes, controlling rabbits and introduced rodents) may reduce cat and fox
impacts sufficiently to ensure persistence for some threatened native mammal species. In
many other cases these types of interventions are inadequate for preventing population
decline and extinction, and total removal of the introduced predator(s) is required.
In recent decades, the conservation benefit of translocating threatened mammal species to
areas free of introduced predators (i.e. offshore islands and fenced exclosures on the
mainland) has been demonstrated convincingly; these actions have saved a number of
species from likely extinction. The national portfolio of feral predator-free areas, especially of
mainland fenced exclosures, has expanded rapidly, but relatively non-strategically from a
national perspective. Further expansion of the network of feral-predator free areas is a major
priority in the Commonwealth Government’s Threatened Species Strategy (“Creating safe
havens”). However, finite funding and variation in conservation need among species means
that optimised process for selecting areas within which to create new havens would improve
the conservation outcome for a greater number of native mammal species. This project aims
to provide a rational process for designing a national network of fenced areas that would
improve the security for the greatest number of threatened mammal species.
5. Summary of the Case Study Impact
Australia will soon have a framework for designing a national network of ‘safe havens’ for
threatened mammals, following a recent workshop with 24 leading conservation specialists
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 19 of 39
from federal and state governments, NGOs and academia, hosted by the Threatened Species
Recovery Hub.
The TSR Hub research will provide important context for the Commonwealth Government’s
Threatened Species Strategy (“Creating safe havens”), by identifying the areas where new
safe havens will achieve the greatest population increases for the largest number of
threatened mammal species, and reduce the chance of further extinctions.
6. Details of the Impact
The approach will be useful for state governments, NGOs and conservation groups, working
at varying scales (national, state or regional levels) by providing another tool to use in their
existing or planned translocation programs.
7. Research Underpinning Impact
The approach under by the TSR Hub through Project 4.1 is based on a framework developed
by Jeremy Ringma (University of Queensland), Brendan Wintle (University of Melbourne) and
Michael Bode (University of Melbourne). Jim Radford (BHA), Sarah Legge (UQ) and John
Woinarski (CDU) are helping to deliver various aspects of this sub-project.
The group first reviewed all threatened mammal species in terms of their vulnerability to feral
predators. From this, they determined which species need to be translocated into predatorproof fenced sanctuaries or predator-free islands, and which species are suitable for
reintroduction into appropriately managed ‘open’ landscapes. Workshop participants also
carried out a stocktake of all threatened mammal populations.
The next step is to overlay the potential distributions of all mammal species that depend on a
safe haven, and then to find the combination of safe haven locations that return the largest
population increases for these species.
The approach will also be useful for state governments, NGOs and conservation groups,
working at varying scales (national, state or regional levels) by providing another tool to use
in their existing or planned translocation programs.
Predator-free islands and fenced areas are important for native mammal species that are
highly susceptible to predation from cats and foxes. However, being able to recover threatened
species in the broader landscape is also critical.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 20 of 39
This research project will also identify those areas where appropriate environmental
management (i.e. fire, cats and foxes) will benefit native species that do not require complete
protection from cats and foxes.
The Australian Department of Environment, Threatened Species Commissioner’s Office,
Threatened Species Recovery Hub, State and Territory environment departments,
Environmental Resources Information Network, Parks Australia, Australian Wildlife
Conservancy, Bush Heritage and Arid Recovery were all represented at the workshop.
The workshop formed a key part of the Threatened Species Recovery Hub’s Project 4.1, led
by Nicki Mitchell (UWA) and Sarah Legge (UQ), which will examine the most cost-effective
and feasible strategies for creating, increasing and maintaining wild populations of threatened
animal species – focussing on translocation.
8. Research Outputs from Research Underpinning Impact
Outputs at this early stage have included:
 Workshop to develop and progress an approach to be taken in the analysis
9. Additional Information
A) VALIDATION OF THE IMPACT
Not applicable at this stage
B) PEOPLE (RESEARCHERS, INSTITUTIONS)
Please see below for a listing of people involved.
I. STAFF
Name
Organisation
Adrian Manning
ANU, Woodlands Trust
Annika Everaardt
Tasmania DPIWI
Brendan Wintle
UM
Brydie Hill
Northern Territory DLRM
Casey Harris
TSC Office
Chris Johnson
UTAS
David Pannell
UWA
Graeme Gillespie
Northern Territory DLRM
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 21 of 39
Jeremy Ringma
UQ
Jim Radford
Bush Heritage
John Kanowski
Australian Wildlife Conservancy
John Woinarski
CDU
Joss Bentley
NSW OEH
Katherine Moseby
Ecological Horizons / Arid Recovery
Keith Morris
Western Australia DPaW
Manda Page
Western Australia DPaW
Marcus Baseler
ERIN
Michael Bode
UM
Mike Letnic
UNSW
Nick Dexter
Parks Australia
Nicki Mitchell
UWA
Peter Copley
South Australia DEWNR
Peter Menkhorst
Mammal expert
Sarah Legge
UQ
Peter Latch
DotE
Katherine Tuft
Arid Recovery
Andrew Burbidge
Mammal expert
Chris Dickman
USYD
II. OTHERS
Leah Kemp, AWC
Optimising translocations (Mt Gibson, WA)
Richard Hobbs, UWA
Ecosystem restoration via mammal translocation (WA)
Rahul Rane, UM
Postdoctoral Fellow - Bioinformatic analyses of gene pool
widening in mountain pygmy-possums and eastern barred
bandicoots (Vic)
Jana Colletti, UWA
Postdoctoral Fellow (Ecohydrology to inform translocation site
selection for wetland-dependent species (WA))
Leonie Valentine, UWA
Postdoctoral Fellow - Ecosystem restoration
Sophie Arnall, UWA
PhD Student - Assisted colonisation of the western swamp turtle
(WA)
Tabitha Bitterli-Rudin,
PhD Student - Genetic translocations for frogs in drying
UWA
climates (WA)
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 22 of 39
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 23 of 39
NESP TSR Hub: Case Study #4
Putting a value on threatened species
1. Research hub:
Threatened Species Recovery Hub
2. Project number and title:
Project 6.1: Quantifying benefits of threatened-species management in rural and
regional economies
3. Title of Case Study:
Putting a value on threatened species
4. Context/Problem Statement:
Threatened species conservation often has to compete for funds with other societal priorities,
such as commercial development. Because it is not easy to quantify how important threatened
species are to the community, there is a risk that they are under-valued when policy trade-offs
are made.
Part of this project is about using economic principles and methods to express the value of
threatened species in dollar terms (providing so-called “non-market values”), reflecting the
relative importance placed on threatened species compared with other things that people care
about. These values are only part of what is needed to make good decisions about threatened
species management, but they are an important part because they truly reflects the views of
society.
Non-market values need to be combined with ecological values and other information to make
good decisions. This is the focus of the other part of the project. One reason that non-market
values have not been more widely used to inform decisions about threatened species is that
managers are not aware of how to bring this information into the decision process. We will
demonstrate how valuations by the community can be combined with information about
ecology, management options, policy options, human behaviour, risks, time frames and costs
to make strong, defensible, evidence-based decisions about threatened species. This will be
done for particular important case studies.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 24 of 39
5. Summary of the Case Study Impact
Project 6.1 synthesised research studies on monetising the non-market benefits resulting from
threatened species management. These are studies that take the environmental benefits that
result from threatened species management and convert them into dollar values reflecting
how important the community as a whole views them, relative to other types of benefits.
Expressing these benefits in dollar terms facilitates comparisons and powerful communication.
This project investigated approaches that have quantified benefits of threatened-species
management to the broader society.
The findings include: (i) Strong evidence that the broader community supports and is willing
to pay for, protection and recovery of threatened species, and; (ii) In many cases, the
estimated non-market values are far in excess of the costs that would be required to protect
or recover the species.
6. Details of the Impact
Unlike household items such as bread and butter, there isn’t a market for Leadbeater's
possums or orange-bellied parrots, so it’s hard to establish how much people are willing to
pay for them.
For these situations, economists have developed a variety of techniques for determining the
values of objects not traded on markets (non-market valuations).
These include finding out how much people are willing to pay to travel to see a threatened
species or asking people how much they might be prepared to pay to save a threatened
species.
As part of TSR Hub’s Project 6.1, researchers conducted a systematic desktop study to
document non-market valuation studies of threatened species and ecological communities,
and their application in policy and practice.
Assistant Professor Ram Pandit from the University of Western Australia explains that there
can be sensitivities around economists putting a dollar value on a species. “Many people feel
it discounts the other values of a species that can’t be priced, like the species’ right to exist,
sometimes referred to as intrinsic values”.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 25 of 39
The team’s review of the literature on non-market valuation revealed strong evidence that the
broader community does support and is willing to pay for the protection and recovery of
threatened species. In many cases, the estimated non-market values far exceed the
expenditure that would be required to protect or recover the species.
The researchers also found that non-market valuations in other parts of the world have played
critical roles in campaigns to save threatened species, including the conservation of wolves in
Minnesota and efforts to obtain extra funding, as well as to support international agreements
between the USA, Mexico and Canada, to conserve monarch butterflies.
These cases are of value for Australian policy makers and managers in appraising whether
non-market valuations should be applied for our threatened species.
The project team identified many cases where non-market valuations have had a notable
impact on the management or funding of threatened species, however the overall use of these
techniques is low. The review revealed there is great potential for larger benefits if the use of
non-market valuations were more widespread.
Barriers to such an increase include lack of awareness of economics, lack of capacity, time
and resources to undertake economic analysis in the relevant organisations and the limited
volume of existing evidence about non-market valuations for threatened species and
ecological communities.
As part of their report, researchers, including Assistant Professor Pandit, David Pannell and
Vandana Subroy from University of Western Australia, and Kerstin Zander and Stephen
Garnett from Charles Darwin University, made suggestions on future research in this area and
the capacity building necessary for increased use of non-market valuations.
7. Research Underpinning Impact
Project 6.1 synthesised research studies on monetising the non-market benefits resulting from
threatened species management. These are studies that take the environmental benefits that
result from threatened species management and convert them into dollar values reflecting
how important the community as a whole views them, relative to other types of benefits.
Expressing these benefits in dollar terms facilitates comparisons and powerful communication.
This project investigated approaches that have quantified benefits of threatened-species
management to the broader society.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 26 of 39
The project team reviewed 76 papers, of which seven were from Australia. There is strong
evidence that the broader community does support and is willing to pay for protection and
recovery of threatened species. In many cases, the estimated non-market values are far in
excess of the costs that would be required to protect or recover the species. There are
significant gaps in the literature, particularly for threatened reptiles, plants, insects and noncharismatic species. There are no non-market value (NMV) studies of threatened ecological
communities. The project team identified cases where evidence about non-market values has
had a notable impact on the management or funding of threatened species.
There are many such cases. However, overall utilisation of NMVs in decision-making about
threatened species is low and there is great potential for benefits if its utilisation is increased.
Inhibiting such an increase are various barriers. These include lack of awareness of
economics in relevant organisations, lack of existing economics capacity in those
organisations, the limited volume of existing evidence about NMVs for threatened species and
ecological communities, and a lack of time and resources to undertake economic analysis. In
the final report, the team makes suggestions for future directions for research and capacity
building.
8. Research Outputs from Research Underpinning Impact
The first phase of this project under the Research Plan (Version 1) is now complete with the
final report submitted to DotE and made available on the TSR Hub website (see attached
report). As a result of positive feedback on the project report from Phase 1, the project team
will develop a revised proposal for Phase 2 of this project for submission under the Research
Plan (Version 3) following further consultation with the Department.
9. Additional Information
A) VALIDATION OF THE IMPACT
The project team is working with DotE to develop a revised proposal for submission under the
Research Plan (Version 3)
B) PEOPLE (RESEARCHERS, INSTITUTIONS)
Please see below for a listing of people involved.
I. STAFF
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 27 of 39
David Pannell, UWA
Joint Project leader
Kerstin Zander, CDU
Joint Project leader
Stephen Garnett, CDU
Project participant. Ensure linkage to other Theme 6 projects,
CDU
Richard Fuller, UQ
Project participant. Ensure linkage to Project 6.5
Duan Biggs, UQ
Project participant
Dr Ram Pandit, UWA
Post-doctoral fellow Phase 1
Vandana Subroy, UWA
PhD student Phase 1, and Phase 2 if approved
II. OTHERS
III.
END USERS of the research include:
 Department of the Environment
C) RESEARCH AND INVESTMENT INCOME
The project was funded for six months (1 July 2015 – 31 December 2015) with total funding
including NESP funds, partner cash contributions and in-kind contributions.
The Hub partners undertaking the research activities include:
 University of Western Australia (project lead)
 Charles Darwin University
 The University of Queensland
 RMIT University
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 28 of 39
Upcoming highlights over the next 6 months
The Threatened Species Recovery Hub will commence full implementation of the Research Plan
(Version 2) in 2016. This will include 21 projects coming on line fully and their workplans can be
viewed in the Research Plan. Specific highlights over the next six months from this year’s reported
projects from the TSR Hub will include:
Project 1.1: (i) Completion of a manuscript that provides a reasonably accurate estimate for the
overall population size of feral cats in Australia. This estimate is based on about 60 point estimates
(often unpublished data) for cat density from around the country, provided by a wide range of
researchers. The estimate will represent a very large cooperative effort by people working on feral
cats in Australia.
Timing: the timing of the manuscript is unknown at this stage as it is dependent on many factors
including stakeholder sign-off.
Project 2.1: (i) Completion of a manuscript describing assessment of extinction-risk for Australian
bird and mammal species over the next 6 months. In this period, the team also anticipates making
comparable assessments for Australian reptile and frog species, but recognises that information
constraints may make this task more challenging, and; (ii) continued engagement in the finalisation
of the recovery plan for Leadbeater’s possum - expecting a completion within the next 6 months.
Timing: timing of the draft manuscript and the finalisation of the recovery plan for the Leadbeater’s
possum is expected to be by June 2016.
Project 4.1: (First release of eastern bettongs outside a fenced area on the mainland expected to
take place mid-year, subject to controlling fox density adequately under the sub-project: Benefits of
feral predator control in the absence of fencing.
Timing: June - July 2016
AWC expect to carry out a Numbat translocation to Mt Gibson Wildlife Sanctuary in January, and
then begin research and monitoring of the success of that release, in the sub-project: Optimising
translocations to fenced areas sub-project
Timing: January 2016
Project 5.1: First research output, a paper entitled Taming a Wicked Problem: Resolving
Controversies in Biodiversity Offsetting is submitted for publication.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 29 of 39
Timing: April 2016
Project 6.2: (i) Surveys undertaken of existing and potential Indigenous engagement in threatened
species management across Australia; (ii) Survey of biodiversity and cultural resource conservation
threatened species issues and priorities for Indigenous land and sea management organisations,
and; (iii) identification of up to 2 case-study areas where 1) Indigenous communities are engaged in
the protection and recovery of threatened species issues identified as a priority in Australia's
threatened species recovery plan 2) Indigenous communities wish to collaborate with the research
team and project.
Timing: June 2016
Project 6.4: A workshop conducted jointly with the Department of the Environment that distils the
knowledge of successful practitioners of threatened species conservation into a form that can be
used to guide recovery teams in the future.
Timing: May 2016
Section 4. Progress against the Research Plan and risks to delivery
Does the hub confirm that hub project progress and performance is in accordance with the
approved Research Plan, including timing and milestones? No
Whilst most projects are now established and progressing satisfactorily, there have been some
delays in meeting initial milestones (refer Section 3) due to delays caused by multiple factors
including conditions placed on approval for projects under the Research Plan (Version 1), delays in
appointment of research staff and time constraints placed on project leaders who were required to
fulfil responsibilities for the development and submission of the Research Plan (Version 2).
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 30 of 39
Has a mechanism been established to ensure ongoing discoverability and accessibility of
NESP research outputs? Yes
Please describe the arrangements in place for your hub:
The TSR Hub’s Communication & Knowledge Brokering Strategy and the Data Information Plan all
outline the mechanisms for the discoverability and accessibility of the research outputs from the
Hub’s activities.
In particular, a Hub website (www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au) has been established which will
accommodate all of the research outputs from projects and other Hub-related activities. The Hub
has also established a social media platform in which to inform stakeholders of Hub materials and
information.
Furthermore, on completion of any research output, a copy is provided to the Science Partnerships
team in the Department of the Environment for its records and placement on the NESP website or
portal if appropriate. Reports and publications are also circulated to interested parties.
Please identify any known risks to future delivery against the agreed Research Plan (not
previously advised by the Department), or where previously identified risks have been
realised, or moved to a higher risk rating.
There are no new risks or movements to higher risk ratings identified outside of those already tabled
under the Research Plan (Version 1 and 2).
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 31 of 39
Section 5. Key Performance Indicators
Note: Figures in black denote total number for the key performance indicator. Figures in orange denote the sub-totals against the sub-measures.
Key Performance Indicator
Hub Result
Reference for further explanation (if any)
for 12month
Period
1. Total
number
of
stakeholder
57
workshops/formal meetings:
meeting) with DotE staff to discuss the planning and implementation of projects. Projects
have also held workshops involving representatives from State and Territory agencies,
Sub-measures:

Number of those interactions that
include
with
43
Environment
DotE staff, TSC staff and University researchers.
Furthermore, Hub researchers are also involved in taskforces e.g TSC’s Feral Cat
Department or Portfolio staff;

All research projects have held at least one meeting each (in many cases, more than one
Taskforce and have attended meetings for these.
Number of those interactions that
The Hub was also involved in the Threatened Species Summit, launched by the Minister.
14
include senior executives, the
Various Hub-level meetings have also been held with DotE staff throughout 2015 to
Commonwealth Minister for the
discuss the Hub’s direction, research and other matters.
Environment
or
ministerial
advisers
2. Total
number
workshops/formal
of
stakeholder
meetings
with
State and local Government
21
Hub researchers have been involved in workshops and meetings throughout the year
involving collaborating State and Territory agencies. For example, Project 1.1 met with
NT government staff to plan work in Kakadu in August, and with Biosecurity Qld and Qld
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 32 of 39
Key Performance Indicator
Hub Result
Reference for further explanation (if any)
for 12month
Period
Sub-measure:

NPSR staff to plan the project at Taunton NP; Project 2.1 was involved in working with
Number of those interactions that
21
senior staff of the Victorian Environment Department regarding the drafting of the
include state/local government
Recovery Plan for the Critically Endangered Leadbeater’s Possum; Project 2.3
senior
researchers have held various meetings with CSIRO staff and Taronga Zoo staff
Minister
executives,
or
local
a
State
mayor
regarding the flying fox project at CI.
or
councillor or their advisers
3. Number
of
workshops/formal
stakeholder
meetings
18
with
All projects have held formal meetings or workshops with external collaborators regarding
the research projects.
parties external to Government
4. Number
of
workshops/formal
4
These include: inception workshop, data management and information workshop;
meetings with other NESP hubs to
Indigenous engagement and participation workshop, and; individual projects have meet
further hub objectives
with various Hubs to discuss collaborative projects.
5. Number
meetings
of
cross-disciplinary
held
between
9
Various
2
This includes the final report for Project 6.1 and the draft recovery plan for Leadbeater’s
hub
consortium members to further hub
objectives
6. Number of research outputs provided
to end users on time and as identified
possum (co-authored by project 2.1 co-leader)
in the Research Plan
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 33 of 39
Key Performance Indicator
Hub Result
Reference for further explanation (if any)
for 12month
Period
7. Proportion
of
research
outputs
100%
All research outputs have been made available to end users
provided to end users on time and as
identified in the Research Plan
8. Number of instances of where the hub
has
used
0
Not applicable at this early stage
0
Not applicable at this early stage
0
Not applicable at this early stage
NESP-generated
information from another NESP hub.
9. Number of peer reviewed NESPfunded
publications
during
the
reporting period
10. Number of NESP research citations in
other researchers’ publications during
the reporting period
11. Number of researchers, including
15.60
PhD and Post-Doc positions engaged
This is the FTE total of postdoctoral fellows and PhD students currently appointed to initial
projects. The appointment process is continuing in early 2016.
as a result of NESP (total, Full-time
equivalent)
during
the
reporting
NESP
research
period
12. Percentage
of
100%
All research outputs have been made available on the TSR Hub website
outputs (including publications, data
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 34 of 39
Key Performance Indicator
Hub Result
Reference for further explanation (if any)
for 12month
Period
and metadata) that are discoverable
and accessible in accordance with
NESP data accessibility requirements
and the funding agreement.
13. Co-benefits arising from Indigenous
1
engagement and participation - with
reference to Appendix E of the NESP
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Plan,
please report against all relevant
indicators to quantify:
1. The extent to which Indigenous
engagement
has
positively
NESP
to
contributed
research
1
Indigenous involvement has just begun in Project 4.2 and has contributed substantially to
the development of the project, mainly with Quandamooka people on Stradbroke Island,
QLD.
activity;
2. The
extent
supported
to
which
NESP
Indigenous
communities to work on, and care
for, Country;
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 35 of 39
Key Performance Indicator
Hub Result
Reference for further explanation (if any)
for 12month
Period
3. The extent to which Indigenous
people have derived professional
development
and
knowledge
sharing from engagement and
participation in NESP;
4. The extent to which NESP has
delivered outcomes that supports
Indigenous
land
managers/owners
and
sea
to care
for
which
hub
Country;
5. The
extent
to
Knowledge and Communication
Broker
Strategies
effectively
address Indigenous knowledge
sharing
and
communication
needs; and
6. The
extent
understanding
to
of
which
Australia’s
environment has been improved
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 36 of 39
Key Performance Indicator
Hub Result
Reference for further explanation (if any)
for 12month
Period
through a collaborative approach
that delivers accessible results
and informs decisions;
7. The extent to which hubs and
Indigenous
developed
communities
have
partnerships
to
undertake NESP research.
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 37 of 39
Section 6. Key changes to Research plan to better meet the needs
of end-users and respond to emerging needs
The TSR Hub has incorporated additional research on the Leadbeater’s Possum into Project 3.3
following a Ministerial request under the emerging priorities. Further discussions have also taken
place with the Threatened Species Commissioner regarding the Christmas Island frigate bird.
Section 7. Other information
N/A
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 38 of 39
May 2016
Threatened Species Recovery Hub Annual Progress Report #1
Page 39 of 39