Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Ecological fitting wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
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