132 Monitoring Threatened Species and Ecological Communities
monitoring than taxa listed with a lower threat category. Whether better monitoring
enhances the probability of a taxon being eligible for listing, or whether the listing
promotes improved monitoring, is hard to tease apart. Nevertheless, the pattern
suggests a meaningful relationship between policy and monitoring data. In a similar
vein, vertebrate taxa with recovery plans made or adopted under the EPBC Act have
generally better quality monitoring programs than taxa without plans. This
suggests that some of the key functions of recovery plans are being realised
(strategic approach to monitoring, better coordination, improved data management,
reporting, and links to management) despite the progressive knee-capping in
funding and policy support they have experienced over the last 10 or more years.
Within vertebrate groups, high profile taxa often enjoy better quality
monitoring (e.g. Tasmanian devils, marine turtles, migratory shorebirds, parrots).
Taxa that are more difficult to work on may be more poorly monitored (e.g. bats,
birds on continental islands, birds at inaccessible sites). Finally, taxa whose
monitoring requires greater levels of coordination (i.e. those with large or multi-
jurisdictional distributions) appear to be more poorly monitored. Taken together,
these results suggest that logistics and resources are key limitations for monitoring
programs, because taxa with few individuals and small ranges (which will tend to
be listed at higher threat categories) and high detectability are probably cheaper
and simpler to monitor. However, charismatic taxa with high levels of community
engagement are exceptions to this pattern (e.g. Chapters 11, 14, 26, 31).
Across all vertebrate groups and the ecological communities, governments are
responsible for most of the existing monitoring (Table 9.1). State governments
shoulder most of the load, with the Australian Government and CSIRO
contributing minimally. University researchers and non-government organisations
(especially for birds and mammals) are the next biggest contributors, followed by
Indigenous groups, natural resource management groups, independent consultants
and zoos. Characteristics of these groups affect their monitoring (see Chapter 34
for a survey of organisational perspectives). For example, most university
researchers engaged in monitoring typically derive monitoring data as a by-
product of a research program that is funded for a relatively short period.
Indigenous groups may have cultural and IP-related sensitivities about sharing
data publicly. Environmental consultants often claim to be working as commercial-
in-confidence (particularly relevant to ecological communities, where monitoring
is often carried out by consultants to fulfil development approval conditions, but
where there is no regulatory requirement to make data publicly available; Chapter
8). Non-government organisations may be compelled to prioritise monitoring that
serves their own reporting and fundraising purposes over monitoring with a more
collective, national function. State governments are subject to the politically driven
vagaries of budget changes and reprioritisation, and are often juggling complex
portfolios of competing objectives. Each of these stakeholders engage in