Connecting conservation policy makers, researchers and practitioners

Koalas How do they judge restoration?

Crocodiles Tracking them just got easier

Lions Is funding apportioned ‘fairly’ among threatened species?

Decision Point Decision Point is the monthly magazine of the Environmental Decisions Group (EDG). It presents news and views on environmental decision making, biodiversity, conservation planning and monitoring. See the back cover for more info on the EDG. Decision Point is available free from http://www.decision-point.com.au/

Plus

Turtles and night lightsSaving sea otters and abalone A new biodiversity offsets calculatorThe illegal trade in tiger partsSummer Scholars report back

Issue #69 / May 2013

The horns of a dilemma

Why we have to try something different to save Africa’s rhinos

ContentsIssue #69 / May 2013

Page 2 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

Decision Point is the monthly magazine of the Environmental Decision Group (EDG). The EDG is a network of conservation researchers working on the science of effective decision making to better conserve biodiversity. Our members are largely based at the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Western Australia, RMIT and CSIRO.

Decision Point is available free from: http://www.decision-point.com.au/

On the pointCrash of the icons

Highlighting the plight of charismatic mega fauna is a tried-and-true method of raising funds for conservation NGOs (and selling nature magazines) but it hasn’t featured that highly in the way we sell our work here in the Environmental Decision Group. Not till now, anyway. So, what’s the story with this issue? Rhinos, koalas, lions and crocodiles – has Decision Point gone ‘tabloid’. Is the EDG allowing sensationalism to triumph over nuanced debate?

No, we haven’t lost our bearings. We’re still all about transparent, defensible and efficient environmental decision making. But the truth is that good and effective decision making is just as important when it comes to working with charismatic mega fauna. They may be a small subset of the world’s biodiversity (and we discuss how small a subset on page 4) but this group of animals has the potential to raise significant resources and catalyse wide-spread support and action for conservation.

And, very much in keeping with EDG ‘style’, we’ve been asking some difficult questions about how we’re managing some of our icons. The global ban on rhino products, for example, is simply not working and Duan Biggs is advocating that policy has to acknowledge this (see page 6). We need to explore alternatives before we lose the rhino altogether. Is it time to consider a legal trade in rhino horn?

Restoration is an increasingly important issue. Romane Cristescu (working with EDG researcher Jonathan Rhodes) asks how do we define success. If the restoration is being done to provide habitat for koalas then surely how koalas use restored areas must be part of the definition of success. (See page 8.)

And there are stories on crocs (a suite of tools to help track them, see page 13), turtles and sea otters. And while most of these stories are using specific animals to highlight more general approaches to sound decision making, it’s not all focussed on single species. We also present an important story on how to calculate the conservation benefits of offsets (see page 10), and a new offsets assessment guide for the EPBC Act. Add to this stories on corridors, connectivity, strategic assessment and facilitation, and I think you’ll agree that this issue might look a bit tabloid but between the covers beats a true EDG heart.

David Salt Editor, Decision Point David.Salt@anu.edu.au

Research briefs 3 Turtles and night lights Sea otters and abalone Profiting from pilot studies

Clash of the icons 4Which species deserve the lion share of the funding?

Will selling horns save the rhino? 6Rhinos are in trouble. Maybe legalising the trade in horns is a solution.

Anyone asked the koala? 8Romane Cristecu examines what ‘success’ means for mine restoration.

The EPBC Act offsets calculator 10Calculating the benefits of conservation action.

Facilitate this 12Anna Renwick discusses the value of facilitation.

Tracking animals just got easier 13Hamish Campbell describes the evolution of V-track.

Corridors, connectivity & monitoring 14The 2012/13 Summer Scholars report on their experiences.

The tail of the tiger 16The trade in tiger parts is taking its toll.

Our cover: The global ban on rhino parts has failed. Duan Biggs argues we need to consider other options if we are to save the rhino. See page 6. (Photo by © Steve Garvie, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/)

Research Briefs

Decision Point #69 - May 2013 Page 3

Turtles and night lightsArtificial night light poses a major threat to sea turtles (and many other non-turtle species besides). It’s believed the human-generated light disrupts adult nesting behaviour and disorients emerging hatchlings. Unfortunately, quantifying the effect has proved difficult and therefore the threat is often disregarded in conservation management. The increasing availability of high spatial-resolution satellite imagery, however, may enable us to better deal with this threat in future.

EDG-led research examined the potential of satellite imagery of night lights to predict the distribution of the endangered loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtle nests in the eastern Mediterranean coastline. Using remote sensing tools and high resolution data derived from the SAC-C satellite and the International Space Station, they examined the relationship between the long term spatial patterns of sea turtle nests and the intensity of night lights along Israel’s entire Mediterranean coastline.

They found that sea turtle nests are negatively related to night light intensity and are concentrated in darker sections along the coast. Their resulting models showed that night lights were a significant factor for explaining the distribution of sea turtle nests. Other significant variables included: cliff presence, human population density and infrastructure.

This study is one of the first to show that night lights estimated with satellite-based imagery can be used to help explain sea turtle nesting activity at a detailed resolution over large areas. This approach can facilitate the management of species affected by night lights, and will be particularly useful in areas that are inaccessible or where broad-scale prioritization of conservation action is required.

Reference

Mazor T, N Levin, HP Possingham, Y Levy, D Rocchini, AJ Richardson & S Kark (2013). Can satellite-based night lights be used for conservation? The case of nesting sea turtles in the Mediterranean. Biological Conservation 159: 63-72. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712004569

Profiting from pilot studiesPilot studies are often used to help design ecological studies. Ideally the pilot data are incorporated into the full-scale study data, but if the pilot study’s results indicate a need for major changes to experimental design, then pooling pilot and full-scale study data is difficult. The default position is to disregard the preliminary data. But ignoring pilot study data after a more comprehensive study has been completed forgoes statistical power or costs more by sampling additional data equivalent to the pilot study’s sample size. With Bayesian methods, pilot study data can be used as an informative prior for a model built from the full-scale study dataset.

Will Morris and colleagues demonstrated a Bayesian method for recovering information from otherwise unusable pilot study data with a case study on the mortality of eucalypt seedlings. A pilot study of eucalypt tree seedling mortality was conducted in south-eastern Australia in 2005. A larger study with a modified design was conducted the following year. The two datasets differed substantially, so they could not easily be combined. Posterior estimates from pilot dataset model parameters were used to inform

Short accounts of papers (old and new) from EDG researchers. If you would like copies of any of these papers please visit: http://decision-point.com.au/research-briefs.html

Sea otters and abaloneThe importance of species interactions is undisputed in ecology. But, when two interacting species are both endangered, those interactions are rarely factored in when establishing recovery targets. That’s partly because conservation policy often focusses on one species at a time, and it’s partly because modelling such interactions is difficult and complex. Consider the case of the northern sea otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) and one of its preferred prey, the northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana). Both are endangered species but both have recovery strategies that were developed without consideration of their strong predator–prey interactions.

EDG research Iadine Chades and colleagues used simulation-based optimization procedures from artificial intelligence (namely reinforcement learning and stochastic dynamic programming) to examine how different management actions affect population dynamics and the likelihood of achieving recovery targets for each species through time. They found that recovery targets for these interacting species were difficult to achieve simultaneously in the absence of management. Although sea otters were predicted to recover, achieving abalone recovery targets failed even when threats to abalone such as predation and poaching were reduced. A management strategy entailing a 50% reduction in the poaching of northern abalone was a minimum requirement to reach short-term recovery goals for northern abalone when sea otters were present. Removing sea otters had a marginally positive effect on the abalone population but only when they assumed a functional response with strong predation pressure.

While this work could prove important for the effective conservation of otters and abalone, the optimization method can be applied more generally to any interacting threatened or invasive species for which there are multiple conservation objectives.

More info: Iadine Chades Iadine.Chades@csiro.au

Reference

Chadès I, JMR Curtis & TG Martin (2012). Setting Realistic Recovery Targets for Two Interacting Endangered Species, Sea Otter and Northern Abalone. Conservation Biology 26:1016-1025.

a model for the second larger dataset. Model checking indicated that incorporating prior information maintained the predictive capacity of the model with respect to the training data. Importantly, adding prior information improved model accuracy in predicting a validation dataset. Adding prior information increased the precision and the effective sample size for estimating the average mortality rate.

The researchers recommend that practitioners move away from the default position of discarding pilot study data when they are incompatible with the form of their full-scale studies. More generally, they recommend that ecologists should use informative priors more frequently to reap the benefits of the additional data.

Reference

Morris WK, PA Vesk & PA McCarthy (2013). Profiting from pilot studies: Analysing mortality using Bayesian models with informative priors. Basic and Applied Ecology 14: 81-89. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1439179112001478

Page 4 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

Editorial

When it comes to resourcing conservation, it helps if the species you’re trying to save are charismatic. But should the cute and the cuddly get the lion share of available resources?

According to the IUCN, around 1,140 species of mammal are threatened around the world (see table 1). According to a recent analysis led by Bob Smith at the University of Kent, around 80 of those species are used by international conservation NGOs to raise funds for conservation (Smith et al. 2012). These so-called ‘flagship’ species supposedly have high marketing appeal and enable conservation NGOs to achieve considerable success with their sponsorship programs.

But if money is being raised for 80 charismatic species, what happens to the other 1,060 threatened mammal species? Or, if we want to spread the net a bit further, what about the other 16,000 non-mammal species currently listed as threatened by the IUCN (see the box on the non-mammals).

Of course the answer you’ll most commonly hear is that raising money from the general public for conservation work requires a strong appeal to a broad audience. No species should be allowed to go extinct but the harsh reality is that when you use animals to raise money you need charismatic mega-fauna like lions, rhinos and panda bears; not interesting and probably deserving species like the Moorean viviparous tree snail or the Gomera green bush-cricket, neither of which you’d want to cuddle.

The argument then continues that money raised for the flagship mammal species goes on to have two major kinds of conservation benefit. First, raising awareness about the plight of biodiversity in general and, second, by undertaking conservation actions that benefit many species associated with the flagship species that secured the donation in the first place. This latter argument implies that these ‘flagship’ species are often ‘umbrella’ species – that is species which provide substantial spill-over benefits to many other species.

Clash of the iconsWho’s to choose?By David Salt (EDG, ANU) and Hugh Possingham (EDG, University of Qld)

Smith et al considered this claim of the money raised benefitting more than just the target species but found that 61% of NGO campaigns only raised funds for the target species itself. This does not stop that money having an ‘umbrella’ effect, especially if the work is on habitat conservation or abating other threatening processes that are common to other species. That said, many species-specific actions have little umbrella effect, like captive breeding.

They also made some interesting discoveries about what features NGOs were most commonly selecting in their flagship species. Existing flagship species are generally large and have forward-facing eyes. They suggested that if this is what the general public is prepared to give money to, then there’s another 183 threatened mammal species out there with similar traits. They call these species ‘Cinderella’ species and advocate that NGOs should widen their lists beyond the existing 80 species. They could just as easily adopt these Cinderella species as flagships and they would have equal appeal. (They define Cinderella species as aesthetically appealing but currently overlooked species.)

So, based on donor appeal, maybe we can extend the list of threatened species that we can get resources for from 80 to 260. That still leaves roughly 16,000 other species with resourcing problems. What do we do about them? Do we hope that they are somehow protected under the 260 umbrellas? Maybe we could prioritise amongst those 183 Cinderallas the species that are most likely to act as complementary umbrellas for the remaining biodiversity? The

“Imagine what the conservation world might look like if it was possible to raise funds by focusing on the task of securing large numbers of threatened species rather than a single flagship species?”

On the mammal listAccording to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, mammals are in trouble. Of the 5,487 mammal species assessed, nearly one-quarter of species (22.2 %) are globally threatened or extinct, representing 1,219 species. Seventy-six of the 1,219 species are considered to be Extinct. Another 3,432 species are not considered to be threatened at present, while there was insufficient information available to assess the status of an additional 836 species.

The most diverse country for mammals is Indonesia (670), followed closely by Brazil (648). China (551) and Mexico (523) are the only other two other countries with more than 500 species. The country with by far the most threatened mammal species is Indonesia (184). Mexico is the only other country in triple figures with 100 threatened species. The highest levels of threat are found in island nations, and in particular the top three are islands or island groups in the Indian Ocean: Mauritius (64 %), Réunion (43 %) and the Seychelles (39 %).

Habitat loss, affecting over 2,000 mammal species, is the greatest threat globally. The second greatest threat is utilization which is affecting over 900 mammal species, mainly those in Asia.

More info: http://www.iucnredlist.org/initiatives/mammals/analysis

If you’re heading for extinction and seeking NGO support, it helps to be big, have a spine and forward looking eyes. (Photo by Bruce Doran)

Decision Point #69 - May 2013 Page 5

Editorial

Table 1: Numbers and proportions of species assessed and species assessed as threatened on the 2008 IUCN Red List by major taxonomic group. This is an abridged version of Table 1 in the IUCN report: State of world’s species. The original table also shows the major taxonomic groupings in invertebrates, plants and ‘other’. (‘Other’ consists of the categories of lichens, mushrooms and brown algae.) Most of the invertebrate category are insects.

Estimated number of described species

Number of species evaluated

Number of threatened species

Number threatened, as % of species described

Number threatened, as % of species evaluated

Vertebrates Mammals 5,488 5,488 1,141 21% 21%Birds 9,990 9,990 1,222 12% 12%Reptiles 8,734 1,385 423 5% 31%Amphibians 6,347 6,260 1,905 30% 30%Fishes 30,700 3,481 1,275 4% 37%Subtotal 61,259 26,604 5,966 10% 22%InvertebratesSubtotal 1,232,384 6,161 2,496 0.20% 41%PlantsSubtotal 298,506 12,055 8,457 3% 70%OthersSubtotal 50,040 18 9 0.02% 50%TOTAL 1,642,189 44,838 16,928 1% 38%

sad truth is that extinction rates are accelerating. As it is we’re losing species about 100-1000 times faster than the ‘background’ rate, and the amount of resources being devoted to fixing the problem are fundamentally inadequate. (A recent analysis in the journal Science of what it would cost to reduce the extinction risk of all threatened species came up with a figure of US$4.76 billion each year, an order of magnitude more than current conservation funding, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6109/946)

At the centre of this issue is choice. Which flagship species do NGOs choose to bring in the dollars? Which species do governments prioritise to make the most of a very limited budget. The science of the Environmental Decision Group is all about helping decision makers with these choices. By exploring the consequences of the different options on the table we are trying to foster greater transparency and accountability in our decision making.

And possibly one big choice is what it is we should be focusing on in the first place. Imagine what the conservation world might look like if it was possible to raise funds by focusing on the task of securing large numbers of threatened species rather than a single flagship species? Former EDG scientist Liana Joseph did more than just imagine what might be possible. With colleagues and the New Zealand Department of Conservation, she developed a cost-effective evaluation tool called Project Prioritization Protocol or PPP. Using this tool, priority actions, and costs and feasibility for those actions, were identified for securing each of around 660 of New Zealand’s most threatened species (Joseph et al. 2011). The New Zealand government is now in the position to state how much it will cost to secure all or a selection of these species from extinction.

With this kind of information, it is possible to estimate the amount required to secure species and make statements like: “as little as $x million is needed to secure 10% of threatened species and $y million to secure 50%.” Similarly, these data can be used to demonstrate the expected gains of additional funding for threatened species. These figures give the Department of Conservation a powerful tool for

seeking wider support for managing threatened species in New Zealand. (See Decision Point #29, p8-10 for a description of PPP and an example of how it works.)

Schemes such as PPP are often characterised as triage, which is really just another word for prioritisation. That’s okay by us because it’s true, that’s what PPP does. Unfortunately, when discussed in the popular media, the first question asked is invariably: “which species are you happy to give up on?” (If you’re in any doubt about this, consider a recent CBC radio debate on triage between Pimm and Possingham. See https://soundcloud.com/#cbc-radio-one/tooth-claw-episode-2-is-it) An appropriate response would be that we don’t want to ‘give up’ on any species, but we do want our limited budget to achieve the best outcome possible. The alternative, which sadly is the status quo, is that we are already giving up on many more species by not demanding that the available money achieves the greatest good. Indeed, the way we choose at the moment is opaque and highly inefficient, resulting in many extinctions that could have otherwise been prevented.

So, next time you’re asked by someone to donate $20 to save the panda (or whatever icon), maybe ask the fundraiser why that icon as opposed to 183 other deserving Cinderella species. And, if they have an answer to that, ask them about the other 16,000 threatened animals and plants that never get a look in. And, if they can answer that, ask for the evidence. (And if they produce the evidence, they’ve probably earned the $20.)

References

Joseph LN, RF Maloney, JEM Watson & HP Possingham (2011). Securing nonflagship species from extinction. Conservation Letters 4: 324-325.

Smith RJ, D Verissimo, NJB Isaac & KE Jones (2012). Identifying Cinderella species: uncovering mammals with conservation flagship appeal. Conservation Letters 5: 205-212.

And the non-mammals?We pay a lot of attention to threatened mammals, possibly because we are mammals ourselves; but in the game of extinction, mammals are a small part of the story. Consider table 1 from IUCN’s 2008 report, the State of World’s species. It tells a powerful story about where we focus our conservation eye.

To begin with, we know a lot, relatively speaking, about the status of our mammals, birds and amphibians. Most of the known species in these groupings have been evaluated. We know a lot less about fish and reptiles. However, we know next to nothing about the conservation status of all the other species we share the planet with. Most of these we don’t have names for – the IUCN report estimates that 1.8 million species have been described yet the estimates of the total number of species on Earth have ranged from 2 – 100 million (though the consensus seems to be stabilising around 8 million). Which all goes to suggest we are far from knowing the true status of the Earth’s biodiversity.

Reference

Vié JC, C Hilton-Taylor & SN Stuart (eds) (2009). Wildlife in a Changing World – An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. http://cms.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/publications/analysis_of_the_2008_red_list/

Page 6 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

‘Use it or lose it’ has been a controversial mantra put forward by some conservation biologists. Now, with an explosion in illegal poaching for rhino horn, we’re suggesting legalising the trade might be the rhino’s only chance of escaping extinction.

There are only 5,000 black rhinos and 20,000 white rhinos left, the vast majority of which are in South Africa and Namibia. The western black rhino, a subspecies of the black rhino, was declared extinct in 2011.

Back in 1994 the situation was even grimmer, with black rhino numbers down to 2,410. In South Africa and Namibia this population was built up to just over 5,000 through a dedicated conservation ethic and culture that saw the creation of financial incentives for land-holders to manage and protect rhinos. The rhinos brought in tourists (and white rhinos also brought in money from high-end commercial hunting).

In the remainder of Africa, however, rhino numbers have plummeted because of illegal poaching. And this curse is now threatening conservation efforts in South Africa and Namibia. Rhino poaching in South Africa has more than doubled on average every year since 2007, from 13 animals to 668 in 2012 (figure 1). If current rates of poaching continue to escalate, the rhino could be extinct in the wild in Africa within two decades.

This dramatic escalation in illegal poaching is being driven by the dramatic increase in the retail price of rhino horn. In 1993 rhino horn was worth around $4,700 per kilogram. In 2012 it sells for around $65,000 per kilogram! The price has risen to these stratospheric levels because of persistent and growing demand in the face of restricted supply due to a CITES trade ban in place since 1977 (CITES stands for Convention on the Trade of Endangered Species).

Rhino horn has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for over 2000 years (see the box ‘the horn in question’). The recent tightening of restrictions on the domestic trade of rhino horn and export of trophies from legal commercial hunts has contributed to the upsurge in poaching. Rhino protection has become increasingly militarized and expensive in terms of both money and human lives. Despite this there has been very little success in reigning in the accelerating slaughter. What’s more, the increased cost of protection has resulted in a reallocation of conservation resources and is negatively affecting other conservation actions.

Current management strategies are clearly failing. It’s time to consider some alternatives. Together with Franck Courchamp, Rowan Martin

A poached white rhino in South Africa. (Photo by Tanya Jacobsen)Figure 1: Annual rhino poaching in South Africa since 2000. (Data Source, Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa).

“A carefully regulated legal trade in rhino horn may be morally repugnant to some, but it is probably the only feasible way to prevent the extinction of Africa’s remaining rhino in the wild.”

Will selling horns (legally) save the rhino?Tackling Africa’s rhino poaching crisis By Duan Biggs (EDG, University of Queensland)

and Hugh Possingham, I recently proposed in the journal Science a re-examination of the debate on the legal trade in rhino horn (Biggs et al. 2013). We argue that the most sensible way to conserve South Africa’s rhino is through a carefully controlled legal trade in horn harvested from live animals.

Rhino horn is composed of keratin and regrows when cut. The persistent and growing demand for horn could therefore be met by the humane and renewable harvesting of horns from live white rhino. However, the CITES trade ban means that the only way the growing demand can be met is by the illegal killing of rhinos for their horns.

Sedating a rhino to shave its horn can be done for as little as $20. The annual horn production of one white rhino averages 0.9 kg per year and the current speculative demand for horn could be met by the white rhinos on private conservation land in South Africa alone. With current technology, the risks to a rhino from dehorning are minimal. Moreover, there is limited evidence of significant behavioural change following dehorning.

A white rhino in South Africa’s Kruger National Park. (Photo by Duan Biggs)

Decision Point #69 - May 2013 Page 7

The fight against rhino poaching is becoming increasingly militarized with the frequent use of helicopters. (Photo by Duan Biggs)

A de-horned white rhino with calf. (Photo by Geoff York)

The horn in questionThe market for rhino horn is largely supported by practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine which considers the horn effective medicine against fever. According to the 16th century Chinese pharmacist Li Shi Chen, the horn could also cure snakebites, hallucinations, typhoid, headaches, carbuncles, vomiting, food poisoning, and ‘devil possession’. (However, it is not, as commonly believed, prescribed as an aphrodisiac). The horns are also used for dagger handles in Yemen and Oman. Rhinoceros horns, unlike those of other horned mammals (which have a bony core), only consist of keratin, which is also the chief component in hair and fingernails. This has led some scientists to suggest that you’d do just as well to chew on your fingernails.

The ongoing debateThe Science paper on legalising trade in rhino horn came out a few days before the 16th Convention of the Parties (CoP) to CITES. Given the controversy surrounding this issue, our paper received press coverage in hundreds of newspapers around the world including the BBC in the UK, the NBC in the USA, El Pais in Spain, and many Australian papers and news sites. On the same day the paper was released, the South African government indicated that they are thinking about exploring a legal trade. They said the government’s position on the matter will be guided by the proceedings at the CITES CoP.

Although there was no official formal discussion at CITES about a legal trade (formal proposals for official discussion need to be made over a year before the actual meeting takes place) the South African government hosted numerous side-events during which a legal trade was discussed. South Africa’s position together with the press generated by the Science paper meant that the highly controversial issue of a legal trade in rhino horn received more serious attention and discussion than ever before.

A majority of journalists reporting on the paper and this controversial issue took a positive stance. They presented the argument that although the notion of a legal trade may be somewhat disturbing, it clearly is the most sensible and pragmatic solution to the current crisis. However, some protectionist NGOs took a strong stance against a legal trade with arguments such as ‘we’re not sure how a legal trade will work, demand may get out of control’; ‘we need more time to think and evaluate this’; and, ‘rhino horn has no health benefits according to ‘Western’ medical scientists’. However, no one has provided a solid argument or evidence beyond the rhetoric of ‘this is a dangerous idea’ to support their arguments against a legal trade.

These criticisms were expected, a legal trade is a highly contentious issue replete with ideology, vast sums of money, vested interests, and violence. Indeed, there is uncertainty around how a legal trade will develop over time, which is why it needs to be managed adaptively to ensure positive outcomes for rhino, conservation, and society. However, there is great a deal of certainty from three decades of evidence that the trade ban is a failure. It’s time for something else.

Evidence from studies of other wildlife products suggests that a legal trade in rhino horn is likely to succeed in three key ways. First, technology now exists to track wildlife product through the selling chain to the end consumer to minimise laundering and illegal trade. Second, the cost-effectiveness, reduced risk, and lower transaction costs associated with a legal trade are likely to attract buyers away from the illegal market. Third, if there is an increase in demand for horn following legalisation, this increase can be met by increasing the amount of land that white rhinos live on. The rhino therefore serves conservation as an umbrella species leading to broader conservation benefits and generates income for rural communities.

A Central Selling Organisation (CSO) is one option of a structure through which a carefully regulated legal trade can be managed. A CSO can be funded from a percentage of horn sales and would be accountable

to white-rhino-range states and the CITES Convention of the Parties (CoP), which includes governments of demand countries. The CSO could ensure that proceeds from rhino horn are channelled towards the enforcement of the legal trade, that horn harvesting is humane and renewable, and that financial benefits are returned to communities and landholders where rhino occur. Moreover, the CSO could take the lead in creating and implementing a system in which the harvesting of horn takes place from animals that live in their natural habitat so that the production of horn not only conserves rhino, but their natural habitat and associated species.

A CSO can be structured to manage the uncertainties and risks that may emerge from a legal trade in a number of ways. A CSO represents a short and closely-monitored market chain which reduces the risk of corruption because it will be difficult to circumvent the controls. The CSO should work in partnership with the governments of demand countries to ensure that strong penalties are enforced for any buyers who operate outside of the legal market. Importantly, the CSO should fund and lead the monitoring of a legal trade so that an understanding of the market can emerge and to support and enable the adaptive management of the trade.

A legal trade in rhino horn was first proposed to CITES two decades ago but was rejected as premature on the grounds that the problem lies with consumers and their insatiable demand. Yet attempts at stronger enforcement, education and awareness have clearly failed and the trade ban is now unintentionally accelerating the slaughter in the only part of Africaw here healthy rhino populations still exist.

A carefully regulated legal trade in rhino horn may be morally repugnant to some, but it is probably the only feasible way to prevent the extinction of Africa’s remaining rhino in the wild.

More info: Duan Biggs d.biggs@uq.edu.au

Reference

Biggs D, F Courchamp, R Martin & HP Possingham (2013). Legal Trade of Africa’s Rhino Horns. Science 339: 1038-1039 DOI: 10.1126/science.1229998

A public lecture on this topic with more information by Duan Biggs can be viewed at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3rHC9Thw88

Page 8 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

With the loss of habitat being a major threat to many species, restoration of degraded landscapes has become a critical part of our conservation toolbox. Identifying criteria that define ‘success’, however, is far from straightforward. If a major aim of restoration is the creation (or restitution) of habitat, then surely an important part of defining success is demonstrating that wildlife are actually using it. We investigated this proposition for restored koala habitat and found future restoration efforts would do well to bear this in mind.

In ecological restoration, criteria for success have traditionally focussed on physical and botanical characteristics of the site being restored. These include things like the presence of erosion, landform, quality of the water; or the structure and diversity of the site’s flora. Fauna, on the other hand, is very rarely considered directly. Indeed, most restoration ecologists rely on a concept of ‘build it and they will come’, where it is assumed that if a project is successful in providing quality flora, the fauna will naturally recolonise. Indeed, this paradigm is frequently used in mine-site rehabilitation, a rapidly developing area of restoration.

Mine-site rehabMine rehabilitation is all about re-establishing a functioning ecosystem once the mine activities have ceased. While restoration to the exact pre-disturbance ecosystem might not be always achievable, the term ‘rehabilitation’ acknowledges that the landscape will be returned to a functioning condition that relates to its earlier state.

Because of numerous negative impacts from mining in the past, mine rehabilitation is a legal requirement in countries like Australia and the United States. As such it is now closely regulated by governments. In the guidelines published by governments to assist the mining industry in developing appropriate criteria for success, we found that the ‘build-it-and-they-will-come’ paradigm was widespread. The extent to which fauna actually moves into rehabilitated sites, however, has seldom been studied.

To explore how fauna interacts with rehabilitated mine sites, we examined rehabilitation after sand mining on North Stradbroke Island in Moreton Bay, South East Queensland (see ‘Rehab on Straddie’). Sand mining has occurred here for more than 60 years. Sibelco, the mining company currently operating there, is only the second company in Australia to have reached an agreement with the government regarding criteria for success for rehabilitation following mine closure. Sibelco supported our research to better understand how fauna responded to rehabilitation.

Koalas and rehabWe decided to focus on an Australian animal that everyone agreed should benefit from the rehabilitation on North Stradbroke Island (by everyone we specifically mean the mining company, the government and local stakeholders). That animal is the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), a species that has recently been classified as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. In recent years koala populations have been in severe decline in South East Queensland, and one

Anyone asked the koala? How koalas can teach us a thing or two about restoration successBy Romane Cristescu (University of New South Wales)

of the principal drivers of koala decline is habitat destruction. Given this, it is important to know whether their habitat can be successfully rehabilitated.

First, we examined how successful rehabilitated areas were based on the flora criteria being used by the rehabilitation managers. Then we looked at which parts of the rehabilitation were being used by koalas. To ensure koalas were actually living in an area, as opposed to dispersing through it, we radio-tracked several individuals. This confirmed that koalas could actually spend up to 100% of their time and reproduce in rehabilitated areas. Finally, we confirmed that koala population sources were present in the surrounding undisturbed areas, so that all the selected rehabilitated areas could potentially be recolonised by koalas.

One of the Stradbroke koalas involved in this research. The Straddie koala population is precious in many ways, including that this is a rare

occurence of a natural (ie, non-introduced) island population, and that the genetics of Straddie koalas differs from the mainland koalas.

(Photo by Romane Cristescu)

“What we thought were the best rehabilitated areas based on flora had very little koala occurrence.”

Decision Point #69 - May 2013 Page 9

The koala’s choiceWhen we compared the best rehabilitated areas based on flora criteria with the areas being used by koalas it quickly became apparent that they seldom matched. In fact what we thought were the best rehabilitated areas based on flora had very little koala occurrence. Meanwhile koalas were happily recolonising other parts of the rehabilitated areas that ranked lower in terms of floral success. This is a strong signal that the policies guiding mine-site rehabilitation that advocate monitoring based on flora targets will not necessarily ensure successful rehabilitation of all biodiversity.

Based on this, we looked at whether better proxies might be available for koalas. Could we choose habitat criteria that were more focused on the needs of koalas? It’s known that koala-specific variables such as richness of eucalypt diversity and tree canopy cover can have positive effects on the occurrence of koalas. However, these habitat variables did not translate into better proxies for koalas, as again the best rehabilitated areas based on habitat proxies and koalas were not always congruent.

This leads us to conclude that koala recolonisation is being constrained by habitat variables above and beyond those that are commonly assessed, and that we need to also factor in interactions with other species, social structure, behaviour and dispersal abilities.

Predicting koala recolonisation using habitat proxies needs to also be mindful about the relevant scales to study and the geographic specificities of habitat variables used as proxies. This might be an even bigger challenge when considering fauna less well studied than koalas, where potentially relevant variables might not be known.

Focussing on faunaObviously, not every animal species can be monitored. For many species we will probably still need to rely on habitat proxies. When making a choice between the two (the use of habitat proxies versus monitoring fauna directly), there are two main considerations. First, one needs to weigh up the costs of assessing the relevance of proxies against using a direct fauna criterion (ie, the expense of ensuring the available proxy is relevant against the expense of directly monitoring the fauna). Second, one needs to assess the consequences of using a criterion uncoupled from what it is meant to represent (ie, how risky is it to use a habitat proxy that represents imperfectly the fauna of interest?).

And then there is the choice of which fauna species should be monitored? We advocate that fauna monitoring should occur when all major stakeholders agree that a particular species should benefit from rehabilitation, such as was the case in our study for koalas. We expect a similar consensus could be reached when charismatic species, threatened species, species of cultural or economic significance and keystone species occur in the area surrounding a restoration project. For such species, the cost of taking an inappropriate decision because of an inaccurate proxy may override any other cost.

Moreover, fauna species are involved in many ecosystem functions (such as pollination, nutrient cycling and seed dispersal) and increased ecosystem resilience. These species are also good candidates to be included in success criteria for restoration projects.

Mining activity is on the increase in Australia. Despite this, most mining companies still don’t have agreed criteria on what marks a successful rehabilitation, something they should be working on given the heightened awareness on the damaging legacies of past mining operations. We think our work is timely in this regard, and hope that the mining industry (and legislators) will begin to include fauna in their criteria of what makes a successful rehabilitation.

More info: Romane Cristescu romromfr@yahoo.fr

Reference

Cristescu RH, J Rhodes, C Frere & PB Banks (2013). Is restoring flora the same as restoring fauna? Lessons learned from koalas and mining rehabilitation. Journal of Applied Ecology. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12046

Rehab on StraddieNorth Stradbroke Island lies 30 km south east of Brisbane. The island is about 38 km long and 11 km wide, and is the second largest sand island in the world. Sand mining has operated on the island since 1949. Mined areas are progressively rehabilitated according to pre-mining landscape aspect, slope and elevation. Current methods of rehabilitation include spreading topsoil and seeding with seed either collected ahead of the mine path or within a 30 km radius of the rehabilitated site. Seed mixes vary considerably in accordance with pre-mine vegetation surveys and generally have between 70 and 90 species. A hybrid sterile sorghum crop is sown for a fast-growing windbreak to protect the young native seedlings from wind exposure. Terolas (a bitumen emulsion) is sprayed to stabilize the soil surface, prevent sand and soil movement and erosion. One to two years after direct seeding, nursery stock is planted at an average rate of 1650–2000 seedlings per hectare.

Image NASA World Wind Landsat montage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Stradbroke_Island

The traditional approach to mine site rehabilitation has been that if you can recreate the pre-existing flora to some degree then pre-

existing fauna will return. Studies on where koalas are choosing to live on Stradbroke Island are suggesting this ‘build it and they will come’

model isn’t working. (Photo by Kate Adams, Sibelco)

Page 10 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

By Martine Maron (EDG, University of Queensland) From a collaboration with (NERP ED): Hugh Possingham, Megan Evans and Phil Gibbons; (DSEWPaC): Kimberley Dripps, Kelly Pearce, Kat Miller, Stefan Kraus, James Trezise, Feach Moyle (formerly DSEWPaC), Bec Sagoe-Crentsil, Peter Burnett and Vicki Middleton (formerly DSEWPaC).

It’s projected that nearly a billion hectares of terrestrial ecosystems will be lost by 2050 as land is converted into places to grow food and fibre, extract minerals and oil, or house people. Even with a first-rate protected area network, such losses of habitat mean that extinctions will continue (and likely accelerate). Is there a way to stem such losses in the face of inevitable development?

Environmental offsetting is held up by many as an answer. The approach is often encountered in the context of climate change mitigation. Carbon offsets involve capturing and retaining carbon in terrestrial sinks to compensate for emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Would a similar approach work for biodiversity?

Biodiversity offsetting involves compensating for environmental damage at one location by generating ecologically equivalent gains at another, so that there is ‘no net loss’. Biodiversity offsets are increasingly being used as a regulatory tool to balance the needs of sustainable

development and environmental conservation. Unfortunately, such schemes are often prone to failure due to poor design and implementation.

The EPBC Act Offsets PolicyThe Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act is the Australian Government’s key piece of environmental legislation. It regulates impacts on matters of national environmental significance, such as nationally threatened species and world heritage areas as well as actions that involve the Commonwealth. Developed following broad consultation, the recently released EPBC Act environmental offsets policy (October 2012) sets out the principles for effective offsetting for those protected matters regulated under national environmental law. The policy was developed with a number of explicit aims, including improving the environmental outcomes that EPBC Act offsets deliver and providing greater certainty and transparency around regulatory decision making. One of the key priorities arising from the policy development process and identified by Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEPWaC) staff was the development of a transparent offsets guide that would give effect to the policy principles when assessing biodiversity offsets.

A new offsets assessment guideThe final EPBC Act Offsets assessment guide emerged through a collaborative effort between DSEWPaC staff and researchers in the NERP Environmental Decisions Hub. The offsets assessment guide provides a tool for evaluating whether offsets for impacts on nationally threatened species and ecological communities are adequate. It is the first tool in

The new EPBC Act offsets-assessment guide

Calculating the benefits of conservation actions

Does restoring farm land with native plantings (as pictured at the top of the page) offset a development that involves the clearing

of native forest?

Figure 1. Biodiversity benefit gained at an offset site is the difference between the scenario with the offset action and the baseline scenario (modified from Maron et al. 2013).

Decision Point #69 - May 2013 Page 11

operation in any jurisdiction worldwide that explicitly and transparently accounts for additionality, uncertainty, and time lags in calculating an offset requirement.

The first step in any offset scheme design is to define the objective. The EPBC Act environmental offsets policy aims to ensure that offsets ‘improve or maintain’ the viability of the protected matter that is impacted. The policy also requires that offsets target the particular threatened species or community that is affected: so a loss of black-throated finch habitat cannot be traded for a gain in cassowary habitat, for example.

To deliver on an objective of ‘improve or maintain’, we must first state the baseline. That is, we want black-throated finch habitat to be improved or maintained, but compared to what? In the case of the EPBC Act policy, the baseline is ‘business as usual’. In other words, it aims to achieve ‘improvement or maintenance’ compared to the expected scenario in the absence of the impact and the offset. This scenario is often one of ongoing decline.

Comparing losses and gainsA biodiversity offset trade involves a loss of biodiversity at an ‘impact’ site being exchanged for a gain in biodiversity at an ‘offset’ site based on an ‘offset action’. Usually, the amount of impact is estimated during the impact assessment process. But establishing the amount of biodiversity benefit generated at an offset site by the offset action is harder. That is because the gain in biodiversity at the offset is not the same thing as the amount of biodiversity the site currently supports.

To estimate how much benefit is generated by an offset action (such as protecting and managing a site), we must make judgements about not only how the target biodiversity will fare if we do the offset action, but also how it would have fared if we do not do the offset action.

So, the total amount of benefit generated by an offset action is the difference in biodiversity outcomes between two scenarios: the offset action scenario, in which some action is done to enhance or prevent the decline of biodiversity at a site; and the baseline scenario (or ‘business-as-usual’ scenario), in which the action is not done (Figure 1).

A generalised approach for calculating offset creditSo how do we work out what we need to do to offset a given amount of damage? The EPBC Act offsets assessment guide includes the following steps:

1. Determine the currency. In a like-for-like model, losses at an impact site and gains at an offset site must be measured the same way, in the same units. These units might be numbers of individuals, units of population viability, or the hectares of a vegetation type adjusted for its condition. In the Guide, the user selects the most appropriate currency from seven options (area of habitat, area of ecological community, number of features, condition of habitat, birth rate, mortality rate, or number of individuals).

2. Quantify the impact using the relevant currency.

3. Estimate the baseline scenario for biodiversity (in the relevant currency) at the offset site. This could be done using site survey data combined with information on typical rates of clearing and degradation at similar sites.

4. Estimate the offset action scenario for biodiversity (in the relevant currency) at the offset site. This involves describing how the offset actions – for example, protection and management at a site – are expected to improve the site over time.

“This is the first tool in operation that explicitly and transparently accounts for additionality, uncertainty, and time lags in calculating an offset requirement.”

5. Define the relevant time horizon – how long is it expected to take for the benefits of the offset actions to be realised?

6. Take the difference between these two scenarios at your time horizon.

7. Adjust this expected benefit based on the level of confidence that the offset actions will achieve the expected outcomes.

8. Apply a time discount factor to this adjusted benefit to give the net present value of the benefit. This yields the benefit for the protected matter that is expected to be generated at the offset site.

The amount of credit should be at least as large as the loss at the impact site – or, in the case of the EPBC Act approach, at least 90%. The EPBC Act policy permits up to 10% of the impact to be compensated for with a cash contribution to research or education – termed ‘other compensatory measures’. The amount of this payment is scaled to the cost of the direct offset component, but in a non-linear way, so the last 10% of the offset (if comprised of a cash contribution) costs much more than 10% of the direct offset. This reflects the fact that the cost of delivering conservation outcomes increases nonlinearly as the cheaper options are taken up, leaving only more expensive options.

If it all sounds like a lot of work, that’s because genuine offsetting is a challenging process. And it’s far from a silver bullet. The circumstances under which it can reliably be achieved are limited (see Decision Point #63), and trading protection of a threatened ecological community in one place for its destruction elsewhere cannot halt its decline. However, when done with rigor, biodiversity offsetting can reduce the chance that declines will become steeper, and it can also reveal to us the replacement cost of biodiversity. In most cases, that cost is more than we might think. The good news is that recent research by NERP researchers has already been used to inform the DSEWPaC offset calculator and policy, and is furthering our understanding of how to develop effective approaches to biodiversity offsetting. (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/environmental-offsets-policy.html).

More info: Martine Maron m.maron@uq.edu.au

Beyond the offsetCalculating the real benefit of a conservation action by comparing losses and gains isn’t only relevant to the way we do offsets, it applies equally to conservation planning and agri-environment schemes. NERP ED recently reviewed the literature on conservation policy in the three areas of offsets, conservation planning and agri-environment schemes (Maron et al. 2013). We found that the approaches used to calculate conservation benefit often involved assumptions about the alternative scenario that were not explicit, demonstrably wrong or both. Based on this, we believe that assumptions about how conservation value changes over time in the alternative scenario can often be substantially refined, and that making these assumptions explicit by calculating directly the expected difference between the two scenarios is likely to improve the quality of conservation decision-making.

Consider agri-environmental schemes where governments give out money to landholders to do environmental works. The increasing popularity of market-based instruments for the delivery of such funding has led to a proliferation of benefit metrics for comparison of competing bids for funding. These metrics, or utility functions, are derived through a variety of approaches and are intended to represent the benefit being purchased for a given investment in private land conservation, often in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of competing investment options. We examined recent (since 2000) agri-environment schemes that used a quantitative metric of benefit to compare competing bids for funding. We found that rather than calculating conservation benefit as the difference between the ‘with investment’ scenario and the alternative scenario, the difference between the current value and the estimated future value of a site (with investment) was often used. In effect, this reflects a naive assumption that the alternative scenario for a site is one of no change from its current state.

Reference

Maron M, JR Rhodes & P Gibbons (2013). Calculating the benefit of conservation actions. Conservation Letters doi: 10.1111/conl.12007

Page 12 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

Many of us are presented with the role of not only organizing but facilitating workshops as part of our research. This involves skills that we haven’t commonly acquired through our scientific training. In March, facilitation specialist Mary Maher ran a two-day facilitation skills workshop for EDG researchers at the University of Queensland. Twelve people from the Brisbane and Melbourne nodes attended and after the two days we each left with a new set of facilitation skills ready to put into practice.

Day one began with an introduction about what facilitation is really about and how to get started. Here we learnt the importance of the four P’s: Purpose (the aim of the workshop), Participants (who they are), Process (what’s going to happen), and Product (the end result we’re aiming for, eg, a report, a scientific paper, or a list of new research ideas). These are important to introduce right at the beginning of any workshop or meeting so everyone is in agreement about the aims and expectations.

It’s also important to introduce some basic ground rules, or ‘workshop survival tips’, to ensure the workshop runs smoothly. For example, all mobile phones should be turned off at the beginning of proceedings! At this point it is useful to explain to everyone the notion of the ‘groan zone’: the period during a workshop or group meeting characterized by exasperation, frustration, confusion, perplexity and boredom! It was reassuring to learn that this is a completely normal phase, which is often essential to lead to a convergence of thoughts and agreements.

Facilitate thisWhat is facilitation and how is it useful for EDG researchers?By Anna Renwick (EDG, University of Queensland)

“The ‘groan zone’ is the period characterized by exasperation, frustration, confusion, perplexity and boredom! It’s a completely normal phase, which is often essential to lead to a convergence of thoughts and agreements.”

The schedule for Day 2: techniques in graphical facilitation can make information more accessible and engaging.

News

Eight key features of a facilitator1) Be prepared

2) Know your role and your audience

3) Listen (two ears, one mouth!)

4) Stay neutral

5) Involve people

6) Keep clarity

7) Be flexible

8) Keep focused

How we as a facilitator and participants engage and react within the workshop is largely based on personality type and how we deal with stress. We looked at the 16 different personality types defined by Myers-Briggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator) and six styles used under stress including masking, avoiding, withdrawing, controlling, labeling and attacking (http://sourcesofinsight.com/six-styles-under-stress/). It’s useful to keep this in mind, especially when there are a multitude of different personality types in the room, as it can allow you to deal with different situations more efficiently.

The second day involved us filling our toolbox with nano, micro-process and macro-process skills. One favorite nano-skill was active listening, a skill useful both in workshops and everyday life. We practiced all the techniques through lots of roleplaying which was an invaluable part of the learning process. One especially challenging situation to facilitate is dealing with a ‘difficult character’. Having skills and techniques up your sleeve in these situations is essential.

The workshop was a great success and I for one left feeling revitalized, inspired and more confident about facilitating meetings in future.

More info: Anna Renwick a.renwick@uq.edu.au

Every workshop brings together multiple personality types. The key to effective facilitation is understanding this and being able to work with

the differences..

Decision Point #69 - May 2013 Page 13

A new era has emerged where the movements and habitat selection of hundreds if not thousands of aquatic animals can be monitored autonomously and simultaneously. All around the Australian coast-line, and throughout many of its estuaries and rivers, underwater acoustic receivers have been deployed to listen out for transmitters implanted into sharks, rays, fishes, crustaceans, crocodiles, turtles, and even jellyfish. It works like this; each group tags their own study species and deploys their own receivers, but because any receiver can detect and decode any transmitter, by sharing the data each research group can increase their study area up to the continental scale.

The technology and sheer scale of the data-collection is impressive, but following the movements of so many species across a range of temporal and spatial scales is a complex process. In Decision point #38 we discussed the need for software to facilitate the synthesis of these data, and through a collaborative project between the UQ Eco-lab (Dr Hamish Campbell & Dr Ross Dwyer) and EDG (Matthew Watts) the V-track software was born. (V comes from the company VEMCO, the developer of the acoustic technology).

V-Track is the first-step in the creation of a universal suite of R-based analysis tools for the animal acoustic-telemetry community. It was coded in modular format in the R programming language in order that additional modules and routines could be added by the community as new requirements and procedures are identified and created.

Such a centralised source of freely-available analysis tools will not only assist individual research groups but also facilitate collaboration through data-sharing. Essentially, improving our understanding about the spatial movement of aquatic animals and

An underwater acoustic listening station is prepared for shallow sea deployment.

Tracking animals just got easier A new suite of analysis tools for the animal acoustic-telemetry communityBy Hamish Campbell (University of Queensland)

Underwater acoustic transmitters and receivers are being used by researchers all around Australia to collect animal movement, interaction, and resource selection. Two examples of the type of work being carried out involve following the movements of bull sharks and estuarine crocodiles in far North Queensland. Both of these projects are being carried out by the UQ Eco-lab. Above, a five metre estuarine crocodile from the Cape York Peninsula is being held down by staff from Australia Zoo while an acoustic tag is implanted. Below, a juvenile bull shark fitted with an acoustic tag is about to be released.

why they chose specific localities and habitats at certain times.

We understand that not everyone is an R programmer and we have therefore provided a simple to use graphical user interface to drive the R commands. To download the freely available version of V-track go to www.uq.edu.au/eco-lab/V-track. Happy tracking.

More info: Hamish Campbell hamish.campbell@uq.edu.au

Reference

Campbell HA, ME Watts, RG Dwyer & CE Franklin (2012). V-Track: Software to analyse and visualise animal movement from acoustic telemetry detections. Marine and Freshwater Research 62: 815-820.

Page 14 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

News

A corridor to nowhere?By Matthew Anderson

In 2012 the Australian Government finalised the National Wildlife Corridors Plan – a policy that embodies the acceptance of connectivity science into public policy. This inclusion, along with connectivity in other public policy areas, is the focus of this review.

While far from a new concept, the definition, application and usefulness of connectivity are still contested in academia. This debate can and has caused confusion in how the practice of enhancing connectivity is to take place.

It has often been argued that removing dissent in scientific circles is an important basis for ideas to be incorporated into public policy (suggested as one way to bridge the ‘implementation gap’ so rued by science). Yet the inherently understandable nature of connectivity has led us into a new situation: one where science has yet to settle on something that public policy has accepted as one approach to biodiversity conservation. Three main issues regarding the application of connectivity science arise.

First, as the different types of connectivity are fleshed out (functional, structural, habitat, ecological and genetic), the risk is that the term quickly becomes a catch-all for any environmental improvement. The risk of introducing another definition of connectivity creates an overwhelming desire to ensure that the term ‘connectivity’ still has some value. Ensuring that the term is not simply thrown on any funding request (such as through the Biodiversity Fund or Caring for Our Country) will be necessary in order to maintain some usefulness in the term.

Second, one glaring source of trouble may come from the creators of public policy themselves. Currently present in at least four

Corridors, connectivity and strategic assessmentAnother summer of science/policy scholarship

policy documents and three funding guidelines, the extremely varied definition and subsequent application of connectivity concepts could lead a reader to believe connectivity may well be everything and anything. While this reflects the conflict that exists in science, the varied definitions don’t help local community groups attempting to establish a wildlife corridor in their area.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is a need for science to move beyond arguments over the effectiveness of corridors and instead reach the conclusion that if indeed they have been included in public policy then we may as well make the best of it. Therefore, what is most needed are practical guidelines for the design and management of corridors and measurement of their effectiveness. Simply put, other than the bigger-is-better corridor mantra, what is it that the local community group can look to for guidance?

By fixing these three issues we can ensure that corridors have value, are understandable and are effective. Otherwise we risk Australia building corridors to nowhere.

The rapid rise of connectivity science over the last twenty years may represent one of the best hopes for the preservation of unique Australian ecosystems. As it stands, the science has been threaded through public policy but its success through funding programs remains to be seen. Going forward, connectivity conservation has the potential to have a significant effect on Australian biodiversity, but only if it is understood, applied and measured successfully.

Summer research across the divideThe 2012/2013 summer break saw the second round of the NERP Summer Scholar program where leading undergraduate students are embedded in the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population, and Communities (DSEWPaC) to work on science/policy issues. The hope is that, in the process, a bit of light is thrown on that enduring, seemingly intractable problem of how science might better engage with policy.

The students are selected through the ANU Summer Research Scholarship program, and placed in DSEWPaC with the help of the Scientific Research & Information Section, SRIS (facilitators of the NERP Program). NERP ED researcher Don Driscoll oversees the process.

Last year, the first round of the program, Annabel Lusk looked at the policy of how to manage the impacts of invasive species while Prudence Roberts reviewed the process of development approvals in areas that are cassowary habitat. (See Decision Point #57, page 14 &15, for their stories.)

This year the program expanded to three projects. Matthew Anderson reviewed policy on connectivity, Marlese Fairgray examined monitoring in strategic assessment and Sarosh investigated detectability.

More info: Don Driscoll don.driscoll@anu.edu.au

Monitoring in the MidlandsBy Marlese Fairgray

During the summer 2012/2013 I spent my time undertaking an investigation on science and policy through the ANU Summer Research Scholarship program. For this project I was based at DSEWPaC in the Strategic Approvals East section which works on strategic assessments under the EPBC Act. The project had two aims. The first was to evaluate the environmental monitoring program for the Tasmanian Midlands Water Scheme strategic assessment (MWS) in the context of the literature to improve the robustness

The 2012/13 NERP Summer Scholars give their final presentations to a packed house at DSEWPaC (the audience included the acting

Department Secretary Kimberley Dripps). Matt Anderson is standing. Seated on the right is Sarosh Sikander and then Marlese Fairgray.

Decision Point #69 - May 2013 Page 15

Incorporating detectabilityBy Sarosh Sikander

What better place to investigate the environmental science-policy interface than Canberra, where the ANU lies close to the towering edifices of the Federal government’s environment department. How exactly, if at all, does environmental science inform relevant policy? What are some of the barriers to science informing policy? These were some of the questions I investigated as a NERP Summer Scholar.

For most of two months, I worked with policy officers in the Species Information Section of the Heritage and Wildlife Division. The team I was with develops referral guidelines to help determine if a proposed action will have an impact on threatened species. They also develop species survey guidelines which advise on surveys, and survey techniques, undertaken as part of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).

My research focused on imperfect detectability in biological surveys for EIAs. To this end, I began with a literature review of the relevant science to garner knowledge about the concept of species detectability. In addition to analysing relevant policy documents and frameworks, I carried out an informal survey in order to understand how the science informs policy.

One of the problems encountered in ecological surveys is the possibility of recording a ‘false absence’ of a species because a species occupying a site may not be detected. This imperfect detectability occurs due to factors such as species life cycles, time and money spent on the census, and observer expertise.

Ecologists have developed many techniques to estimate detection probabilities, however, conservation agencies and government departments make little use of them. My review of the relevant policy documents suggests imperfect detectability is not explicitly accounted for in EIA nor the Federal government’s national survey guidelines for threatened species.

Possible solutions to some of the issues I unearthed during my research include prioritising species when developing detectability models. This should be done in such a way that models are developed first for those species where detectability comes up as a big issue (such as for cryptic or highly mobile threatened species). Another way would be to group together species with similar detection probabilities into functional groups so that survey guidelines can be used across the entire group.

There is currently a lot of data on threatened species through the EIAs that are conducted that is coming into the department and much of it is not utilised across sections. The Compliance and Enforcement Branch is currently in the process of developing an internal database of EIAs which could prove invaluable.

One of the key finding of my survey was a consensus amongst policymakers that significant impact guidelines require revision so that minimum survey guidelines incorporate detection probabilities. There was also consensus that this cannot be done without outside help from scientific experts as this task lies outside of the role and responsibility of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee.

It is therefore imperative that a Research Task Force be formed: a long-term research program where academic researchers can carry out this detectability modelling and provide information on minimum survey effort requirement for threatened species.

“What better place to investigate the environmental science-policy interface than Canberra, where the ANU lies close to the towering edifices of the Federal government’s environment department.”

of the monitoring program. The second was to investigate how science influenced policy in the development of the Midlands documentation and policy.

The MWS is an irrigation scheme to be constructed in the Midlands area of Tasmania. It seeks to sustainably provide up to 491 farms with irrigation water for 100 years. Under the EPBC Act a strategic assessment was carried out by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. This strategic assessment identified the potential impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) which may result from the irrigation scheme. As a condition of approval, the scheme commits to no clearance or conversion of the Lowland Native Grasslands of Tasmania, a nationally threatened ecological community present in the region. In addition to this, there must be no significant impacts on any other MNES as a result of use and supply of water under the MWS.

In order to determine the environmental effects of the scheme and ensure these commitments are adhered to, monitoring of relevant parameters will be undertaken. Most monitoring will be carried out under existing monitoring programs, with minor variations and additional monitoring sites, as well as monitoring being informed by data collected during the preparation of farm water access plans and construction environmental management plans.

Results from this monitoring program are expected to inform authorities whether the current approach is successful or whether adaptive management is needed to mitigate the effects of the scheme. A monitoring program is only effective if it answers the questions for which it was designed with sufficient certainty. Therefore, the monitoring program undertaken must be robust enough to determine whether significant impacts on MNES are occurring as a result of the MWS.

From the research carried out it is recommended that data from existing monitoring programs be compiled in order to determine baseline trends of sufficient statistical power. Where possible, baseline data should be from sites within the MWS area, with sites outside the area being used as control sites. Determination of baseline trends, comparison with sites outside the MWS area and clear experimental methodology for detecting changes in trends will create a more robust monitoring program and increase the likelihood of the monitoring program’s success.

Through this project I found that the preparation of documentation for the MWS strategic assessment relied heavily on information from government documents such as recovery plans and databases, as well as expert opinions. Only a small amount of the information used came from peer-reviewed scientific papers. As part of this project, I was invited to attend a NERP Environmental Decisions Hub think tank on strategic assessments. It was great to see that there is a willingness for scientists to inform decision makers and for decision makers to be informed by scientists. The next step in how to do this will be key in science informing policy.

Working with SEWPaC has been a great experience. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in the Department, and it was fascinating to see first-hand how government departments operate.

see Decision Point #66 for several stories on the

science of detectability.

Page 16 Decision Point #69 - May 2013

What’s the point?The tail of the tiger

Illegal trade is not only endangering rhinos (see page 6). In March, the conservation NGO TRAFFIC released its latest report on the illegal trade of tiger parts. The report, titled Reduced to Skin and Bones Revisited, finds that parts of at least 1425 tigers had been seized across all but one of the 13 tiger-range countries between 2000 and 2012. A total of 654 seizures of tiger parts ranging from skin to bones, to teeth, claws and skulls took place during this period, an average of 110 tigers killed for trade per year or just over two per week.

The IUCN has listed the tiger as endangered (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/15955/0) and notes that its range and population size has declined by 50% over the last three generations. What’s more, the declining trend is likely to persist in the near future. Despite this, the thirteen tiger-range countries have come together and pledged to double the world’s tiger population by 2022, the next Year of the Tiger on the Asian lunar calendar, with a goal of achieving at least 6,000 tigers.

More info: http://www.traffic.org/species-reports/traffic_species_mammals73.pdf

The Environmental Decision Group (EDG) is a network of conservation researchers working on the science of effective decision making to better conserve biodiversity. Our members are largely based at the University of Queensland, the Australian National University, the University of Melbourne, the University of Western Australia, RMIT and CSIRO.

The EDG is jointly funded by the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research Program and the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence program.

Decision Point is the monthly magazine of the EDG. It is available free at: http://www.decision-point.com.au/ If you would like to contact Decision Point, see page 2.

To contact the EDG please visit our websites at: http://ceed.edu.au/ or http://www.nerpdecisions.edu.au/

Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions

ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS GROUP

The finer points of detectability Last month Brendan Wintle (Deputy Director, NERP Environmental Decisions Hub) gave a presentation to staff at the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Community (SEWPaC) in Canberra. Brendan’s presentation explored various tools that can support species surveys (including their design and frequency) and understanding relationships between detection of species and their abundance. The presentation follows on from an earlier talk delivered by Richard Hobbs on restoration (discussed in the last issue of Decision Point).Brendan’s presentation was well attended with around 50 staff from many line areas of SEWPaC. There was plenty of time for Q&A and, judging from the questions, SEWPaC staff appreciated the opportunity to think and test their concerns with a leading NERP researcher. Brendan is pictured above (he’s on the right) fielding questions after the presentation.

© n

atur

epl.c

om /

Vive

k M

enon

/ W

WF-

Cano

n