Conservation decisions using the Atlas of Living Australia:a case study in the Queensland Brigalow Belt

LAND & WATER

Dr Rocio Ponce-Reyes

12 May 2016

m

Presenter name | Presenter title

1 December 2015

Tara MartinDanial Stratford Stuart Whitten Josie Carwardine

Jennifer Firn Iadine ChadèsSam NicolRocio Ponce-Reyes

Australia’s biodiversity is incredibly diverse, unique, and imperilled by human-induced threatening processes

We can’t manage all threats everywhere – we need costed and prioritised strategies to guide decision making

This enables decisions made using the best available estimates of outcomes for biodiversity per dollar spent

4 |

Why prioritise threat management?

Priority Threat Management is a participatory, decision-science approach for identifying feasibleand cost-effective strategies for abating threats to nature.

Threat management prioritisation process

Threatened native fauna

Threatened native flora

Biodiversity of concern

Threats Benefits

Actions

Strategies[goal]

Likelihood of uptake

Probability of success

Costs

Photo: Sally Cripps (www.abc.net.au)

Photo: Rocio Ponce-Reyes

Photo: Rocio Ponce-Reyes

Photo: Rocio Ponce-Reyes

www.qhatlas.com.au

77

102

Photo: Eric Vanderduys

Photo: Eric Vanderduys

Listed species:

• EPBC• NCA Qld • Experts

Experts and stakeholders

• Stakeholders and expert participants

• 43 participants in total (of 63 contacted)

• 29 participated in the three day workshop in Brisbane (October 2014)

• 14 additional participants in follow-up discussion via email, phone and in person

• Landholders

• Park managers

• Non-government organisations (e.g. WWF)

• Universities (UQ, QUT, GU,CQU, USQ)

• CSIRO scientists

• Federal and State Government – NRM managers and threatened species experts

• Resources industry (Origin Energy)

• Private environmental consultants

• Traditional Owners

Management strategies

STRATEGY(in order of CE ranking)

AVERAGE BENEFIT/ SPECIES (n=179)

FEASIBILITYFEASIBILITY WITH COMMON VISION

ANNUALISED AVERAGE COST

($/YEAR)

1.Manage Fire regimes 4.1 0.62 0.68 $0.5m

2.Manage Invasive plants 3.8 0.66 0.74 $1.5m

3. Manage Hydrology 2.0 0.53 0.61 $1.2m

4. Establish Key biodiversity areas 6.2 0.50 0.67 $3m

5. Manage Grazing 5.2 0.54 0.65 $4.1m

6. Restore key habitats 4.9 0.54 0.63 $3.7m

7. Protect regrowth 3.7 0.40 0.61 $4.0m

8. Protect remnants 6.2 0.47 0.62 $12.4m

9. Manage Pest animals 4.0 0.46 0.59 $12.7m

10.Manage Pollution 2.5 0.56 0.61 $18.2m

All combined 12.3 0.66 0.74 $57.3m

Build a Common vision $0.2m

CE= Benefit x Feasibility/ Cost

A common vision

( Carnarvon Gorge - Rocío Ponce-Reyes)

Overarching strategy to build a shared stakeholder vision with a set of goals to align disparate values within the region

The vision would be used to guide on-ground management to protect nature while balancing social, economic and development needs

It could be used to strategically allocate off-set and other conservation funds

Complementary sets of strategies BB

Key results

• Management of key threats in the Queensland Brigalow Belt bioregion at $1.60/ha can benefit 179 species and save 12 from likely extinction from the region

• Threat management strategies alone sometimes may be insufficient to secure all species:

9 species are not predicted to reach 50% probability of persistence

• Managing fire is the most CE strategy in the Brigalow

• The common vision is a great investment – for a low cost, it makes on-ground management strategies more cost-effective by improving their feasibility (5-21%)

Take home messages

• Databases like ALA are crucial for conservation projects – the 1st

step is knowing what needs protection…

• The complementarity analysis can advise on the best investments under different budgets

• A community driven, holistic management approach, which builds broad stakeholder support for the program will also be required for maximising outcomes = Common Vision

Special thanks to all the experts!• Lee Allen - Qld DAF

• Graeme Bartrim - Origin

• Stephen Balcome - Griffith University

• Don Butler - Qld Herbarium

• Mike Bent - Fitzroy NRM

• Brett Campbell - OriginEnergy

• Rob Coulson - Origin Energy

• Steve Cupitt - RPS

• Wes Davidson - Qld EHP

• John Dwyer - UQ

• Craig Eddie - BooBook Ecological Consulting

• Peter Elsworth - Qld DAF

• Teresa Eyre - Qld Herbarium

• Rod Fensham - UQ +Qld Herbarium

• Damian Ferguson - AgForce

• Clive McAlpine - UQ

• Juliana McCosker - Qld EHP

• Alistair Melzer - USQ

• Paula Peeters - Qld EHP

• Kate Reardon-Smith - USQ

• Andy Reeson - CSIRO

• Chris Robson - QUT

• Claire Rodgers - CHRRUP

• Leonie Seabrook - UQ

• Hugo Spooner - Avocet Nature Reserve

• Martin Taylor - WWF

• Eric Vanderduys - CSIRO

• Ken Waterton - Yukenbulla Services

• Bruce Wilson - EcoLogical Australia

• Peter Thompson - QMDC

• Matt Gentle - Qld DAF

• Mike Gregory - Qld EHP

• Craig Hempel - Qld EHP

• Michael Herring - Qld EHP

• Rod Hobson - Qld National Parks

• John Hodgon - NPRSR

• Lindsey Jones - Qld EHP

• Shane Joyce - Landholder

• Mark Cant - NPRSR

• Brett King - NRM North Queensland Dry Tropics

• Mark Kennard - Griffith University

• Alex Kutt - University of Melbourne

• Martine Maron - UQ

LAND & WATER

Thank youLand & WaterRocio Ponce-ReyesPhD

t +61 7 3833 5709

e Rocio.PonceReyes@csiro.au

Priority Threat Management for Nature Conservation workshop

5 July 2016 - University of Queensland

http://brisbane2016.scboceania.org/

Estimating benefits: species persistence

Estimate the probability that species will persist at levels high enough to achieve their ecological function in 50 years under:

• The baseline scenario, no strategy

• The successful implementation of each strategy, assuming that all other threats are still operating

Future with

implementation of

the strategy

Current situation

Future under minimum

management scenario

Species prob.

persistence

1

0

Time (yrs)2050

no strategy

with strategy