10 – The value of assessing species recovery: towards a national framework^141report to the community has been carried out by a non-government organisation
(BirdLife Australia 2015), using national datasets on bird occurrences reported by a
large network of volunteers (http://birdlife.org.au/projects/atlas-and-birdata). In
addition, a new project established under the Australian Government’s National
Environmental Science Programme (Threatened Species Recovery Hub) is
attempting to develop a national Threatened Species Index, based on aggregating
disparate datasets on population trends (http://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/
projects/national-and-regional-monitoring-for-threatened-species).
Nevertheless, it is fair to say that there are limited nation-wide data on the
status and trajectories of most threatened species and ecological communities.
There is no system for consolidating knowledge about management effectiveness in
a way that it is readily available to threatened species managers. It is difficult
therefore to report to the Australian and international communities on whether
investments aimed at conserving species are effective. It is also difficult to assess
the overall effectiveness of conservation planning responses such as recovery plans
(Bottrill et al. 2 011).
In the absence of national datasets, reports on biodiversity trends have been
limited to the use of indirect measures, such as changes in the numbers of listed
threatened species (DEWHA 2009; Australian Government Department of
Environment 2014; Cresswell and Murphy 2017). Maintaining and assessing
changes in such lists are important for statutory and other reporting and serve as
an important communication tool, such as communicating the significance of
biodiversity loss. However, these lists have limited value as indicators in tracking
overall trends and the extent to which conservation management is adequate
(Walsh et al. 2013).
Towards a more strategic monitoring response
In response to ongoing concerns about the state of threatened species, and
acknowledging that a more strategic response was needed, the Australian
Government established a new policy approach with the appointment of a
Threatened Species Commissioner and implementation of a Threatened Species
Strategy (Australian Government 2015). The Strategy establishes, for the first time,
a mechanism under which national priority action areas and targets are established
against which the Government is to report. For example, the identified 70 priority
species are to have improved population trajectories by 2020.
The importance of monitoring, evaluation and reporting as an important part
of any recovery effort is identified in the Strategy, and an associated key target is
to improve recovery planning practices. Recovery plans and conservation advices
are recognised as critical national planning processes to facilitate national action
on threatened species and ecological communities, to engage communities, to