34 – Organisational perspectives on threatened species monitoring^423all organisations, there were some instances where management changed directly
as a result of monitoring. For example, one practitioner explained that they
‘changed fire management regimes from patch-burning the habitat to a more
strategic system of fire breaks’.
Management agencies are more effective at integrating monitoring data with
management because of their level of inf luence and connection to management
decisions. Conversely, non-management agencies identified their external position
as a constraint. Integration is also restricted by a lack of clear process linking
monitoring with management, and uncertainty about the effects of management,
in some instances due to restrictions of being able to experimentally manipulate
management regimes. As one practitioner stated, a lack of ‘structured question-
based monitoring ... [means that they] simply conduct trend monitoring and make
assumptions about effectiveness of management based on results chains’.
Decision triggers are considered an essential component of monitoring
programs by all practitioners, but this ideal was rarely realised; across all
organisations, less than a third of programs currently have decision triggers (Fig.
34.4), however, another two programs have triggers being developed. Common
sentiments were that ‘ideally decision triggers would be included, but they often
are not’ or that they ‘are in the too hard basket’. Constraints for not implementing
triggers include having insufficient knowledge to set decision triggers, inadequate
resources to collect the required data (beyond species data) and resistance from the
management body because triggers might compromise other objectives (e.g. ‘there
would be huge resistance to agreement on triggers with the potential to disrupt an
ongoing development’). Even in well-studied systems, the ability to set triggers was
undermined by ecological surprises, or as one practitioner revealed, ‘sometimes
things catch us by surprise’. A failure to act on pre-determined decision triggers
was further raised as an issue by a practitioner external to management who
explained that, ‘where we have had them, they have largely been ignored’.
Program development and implementation
Most practitioners know what is needed to make a good monitoring program (Fig.
34.5). Practitioners individually identified the five principles highlighted in
Chapter 35 as essential monitoring components, these being: (1) engage with
people; (2) integrate with management; (3) good design and methods; (4) effective
data management and analysis; and (5) good communication. Practitioners further
identified resources, agency support, leadership, and highly skilled and
experienced staff as important enablers in program development. However,
knowing what is required does not necessarily translate into actions or outcomes.
Components that were identified as essential to effective monitoring programs
(e.g. good design, rigorous methods, adequate resources) were often similarly cited
as barriers to effective monitoring (e.g. limitations in design and methods, resource