Introduction

1.1 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides Australia’s national framework to identify, protect and manage threatened⁷ native species and ecological communities.⁸

1.2 The EPBC Act gives effect to Australia’s obligations for threatened species and ecological communities under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, in accordance with Commonwealth responsibilities under the 1997 Heads of agreement on Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities for the Environment.

1.3 Under the EPBC Act, the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) is required to determine whether species and ecological communities should be listed as threatened, and whether conservation plans (conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans) should be made to support their recovery.

1.4 The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), an independent statutory committee under the EPBC Act, advises the Minister on listing decisions and conservation plans.⁹ The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (the department) provides support to the TSSC in advising the Minister, and to the Minister in the administration of the EPBC Act.

Listing process

1.5 The Minister is required to determine which species and ecological communities should be listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. Species and ecological communities are listed in different categories based on their risk of extinction.¹⁰ The Minister must also maintain a list of ‘key threatening processes’, which are processes that may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a species or ecological community.¹¹

1.6 The listing of species, ecological communities and key threatening processes is subject to statutory timeframes and requirements (see Figure 1.1 for a diagram of these processes). It consists of the following two periods.

• A nomination period — in which the Minister determines which species, ecological communities and processes will be assessed for listing, following the receipt and prioritisation of public nominations, and the development of a proposed assessment list by the TSSC.
• An assessment period — in which the TSSC assesses whether each item is eligible for listing, and the Minister determines if the items will be listed.

Figure 1.1: Nomination and listing process

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Common assessment method

1.7 The Australian Government has committed to listing threatened species using a common assessment method that was agreed with states and territories in a 2015 memorandum of understanding (CAM MoU).¹²

1.8 Each state and territory maintains a separate list of threatened species. The CAM MoU aims to align lists between jurisdictions and establish a single national list of threatened species. It requires each jurisdiction to recognise assessments by other jurisdictions conducted using the common assessment method.¹³

1.9 Under the CAM MoU, the Australian Government has responsibility for assessing species that occur across jurisdictions, while states and territories are responsible for assessing species that occur only within their borders.¹⁴ The CAM MoU also requires the reassessment of species that were not previously assessed in accordance with the common assessment method.

1.10 Assessments of ecological communities and key threatening processes are not conducted under the CAM MoU.¹⁵

Conservation plans

1.11 The EPBC Act requires conservation plans to be developed for listed threatened species, threatened ecological communities and key threatening processes. The three types of conservation plans, which have statutory timeframes and requirements for their development and review (see Figure 1.2 for a diagram of these processes), are specified below.

• Conservation advice — must be produced for most listed threatened species and ecological communities to establish why they were listed and what can be done to stop their decline or support their recovery.¹⁶
• Recovery plans — are optional for listed threatened species and ecological communities (the Minister must determine whether they are required) and provide for the actions necessary to stop their decline and support their recovery.
• Threat abatement plans — are optional for listed key threatening processes (the Minister must determine whether they are required) and provide for the actions necessary to reduce the process to an acceptable level.

Statutory implications of listing and conservation planning

1.12 Listed threatened species and ecological communities receive statutory protection as a ‘matter of national environmental significance’ under the EPBC Act (unless listed in certain categories).¹⁷ Actions which may have a significant impact on these species or ecological communities are prohibited without approval from the Minister. When approving actions, the Minister must not make a decision that is inconsistent with a recovery or threat abatement plan and must have regard to any relevant conservation advice.¹⁸

1.13 Recovery plans and threat abatement plans are required to be implemented by the Australian Government to the extent they apply in Commonwealth areas. The Australian Government must also seek the cooperation of states and territories to jointly implement plans in non-Commonwealth areas.

Recent status

1.14 As of February 2022, there are 1944 threatened species, 93 threatened ecological communities and 21 key threatening processes listed under the EPBC Act. There are 410 recovery plans (covering 734 species and communities), 12 threat abatement plans and 1595 items of conservation advice.¹⁹

1.15 In response to the 2019–2020 bushfires, the Australian Government provided $16.5 million over two years from 1 July 2020 to assess the listing status of bushfire-affected species and update conservation plans. The TSSC announced a 10-point Bushfire Response Plan in March 2020, which included commitments to accelerate listing processes and update conservation plans for fire-affected species.²⁰

1.16 For 2020–21, the department informed the ANAO that the areas of the department responsible for the management of the listing process and development of conservation plans had a budget of $12.7 million, with a full-time equivalent staffing level of 45.9.²¹ These areas also undertake other work.

Previous reviews

1.17 The ANAO examined elements of the department’s management of the EPBC Act on seven occasions between 2002–2003 and 2019–2020.²² These audits noted multiple weaknesses, including governance arrangements, coordination with states and territories, performance measurement, and compliance with statutory timeframes.

1.18 Past parliamentary inquiries have identified issues with the management of the listing process, and the development and implementation of recovery and threat abatement plans.²³ These issues included completeness and accuracy of lists, delays in the listing process and development of plans, limited implementation of plans, and a lack of monitoring and performance measurement.

Rationale for undertaking the audit

1.19 The listing of threatened species and ecological communities, and development of conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans, establishes regulatory requirements under the EPBC Act and the Australian Government’s strategy for protecting threatened species and ecological communities.

1.20 This audit provides assurance to Parliament over the effectiveness and efficiency of listing and planning processes under the EPBC Act. Effective and efficient management of these processes supports the accuracy and currency of lists and plans, and therefore ensures conservation and regulatory activities are effectively targeted at species and ecological communities at risk of extinction.

Audit approach

Audit objective, criteria and scope

1.21 The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of threatened species and ecological communities under the EPBC Act.

1.22 To form a conclusion against this objective, the following high-level audit criteria were adopted.

• Is the administration of the listing process effective?
• Have effective arrangements been established to develop and implement plans and advice?
• Is the administration of the listing and planning processes timely and efficient?
• Does measurement, monitoring and reporting support the achievement of desired outcomes?

1.23 The audit scope included the administration of the listing process for threatened species and ecological communities, and the development and support for the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans.

1.24 The scope did not include:

• a complete examination of all departmental actions to implement plans and advice, with the audit scope instead limited to central arrangements to support and obtain assurance over the implementation of plans and advice;
• examination of listing and planning for other matters under the EPBC Act, such as migratory species or heritage places; or
• departmental activities to support threatened species and ecological communities that were not specifically related to listing assessments, conservation advice, recovery plans or threat abatement plans.

1.25 For example, while the ANAO examined arrangements established in the department’s Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020 and Threatened Species Strategy 2021–2031 that contributed to the development, implementation or monitoring of actions or objectives in conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans, the strategies were not audited in their entirety.

Audit methodology

1.26 The audit methodology included: reviewing departmental documentation; examining samples of listing assessments, conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans; analysis of departmental data; reviewing documentation of TSSC meetings; and meetings with departmental staff and the TSSC.

1.27 The information in this report is accurate as of November 2021, except where otherwise specified.

1.28 The audit was conducted in accordance with ANAO Auditing Standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $394,317.

1.29 The team members for this audit were Isaac Gravolin, Sam Khaw, Jacob Opray, Ben Thomson, Michael White and Corinne Horton.

2.1 Effective administration of the listing process supports the lists of threatened species, threatened ecological communities and key threatening processes to be accurate and up to date. Accurate and up to date lists, in turn, support the department’s regulation and conservation activities to be targeted at species and ecological communities at risk of extinction.

2.2 The ANAO examined whether there is an effective process to determine what should be considered for listing, and whether listing decisions and assessments are administered effectively.

Is there an effective process to determine what should be considered for listing?

2.3 The listing of species, ecological communities and key threatening processes under the EPBC Act is conducted in a yearly cycle (see Figure 1.1 for a diagram of the process). It begins with a nomination period each year, in which the items to be assessed for listing are determined.²⁴

2.4 Nominations for listing are received from both the public and Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC). Nominations must meet requirements established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations (EPBC Regulations) to be eligible. The TSSC, with the support of the department, proposes to the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) which of the eligible nominations should be assessed for listing. The Minister then determines the final list of items to be assessed.

Supporting public nominations

2.5 The objects of the EPBC Act include ‘promoting a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving … the community’. Establishing appropriate arrangements to support public nominations facilitates the achievement of this objective.

2.6 Most assessed items are not nominated by the public. From 2013 to 2021, 14 per cent of items (84 of 603) on the final assessment lists were public nominations.²⁵ During that period, an average of 17 eligible public nominations were received²⁶ and nine were included in the final assessment list each year.

2.7 The department has established guidelines and forms to support public nominations and undertakes public engagement in accordance with the EPBC Act (Table 2.1). To better position it to support public nominations, the ANAO suggests the department establish a schedule for reviewing the forms and guidelines and target its engagement activities.

Table 2.1: Arrangements established to support public nominations

Legend: ◆ Arrangement effective; ▲ Arrangement partly effective; ■ Arrangement not effective.

Note a: The TSSC requested a plain English guide to nominations for the general public in November 2013. A draft guide was developed in June 2014, with the TSSC requesting it be revised. This remained unaddressed until the department removed it from the list of TSSC action items in February 2018.

Note b: The minutes of the November 2017 TSSC meeting in which the species guidelines and forms were last reviewed stated the form ‘remains a formidable document that requires further simplification’ and that the department would present a revised form and guidelines in September 2018 — this did not occur.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Identifying Threatened Species Scientific Committee nominations

2.8 Effective arrangements to identify species, ecological communities and key threatening processes for nomination help ensure the items being assessed are those that will have the greatest impact on the objectives of the EPBC Act.

Species

2.9 Most TSSC nominations of species have been identified through states and territories, assessments conducted by external experts, or species identified as impacted by the 2019–2020 bushfires. Of the 501 TSSC nominations included on the final assessment lists from 2013 to 2021, 483 have come from these sources (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Sources of TSSC nominations in the final assessment list^a

Note a: In 2020 and 2021, the department continued to accept nominations and make amendments to the final assessment list outside the standard nomination period. These numbers are accurate as of November 2021.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment records. As discussed in paragraph 5.26, these records are manually compiled by the department and the ANAO does not provide assurance over their accuracy.

2.10 The department has established largely appropriate processes to identify potential TSSC nominations from these sources (Table 2.2).

2.11 There is no process to assess the list of species to identify gaps or strategic priorities. Without this, and in the absence of a strategy to ensure the species identified through other sources are those that most require listing, there is limited assurance that the species being nominated are those that will have the greatest impact on achieving the objectives of the EPBC Act. Similarly, there is no process to determine when listed species should be reassessed, limiting the assurance that the list is up to date.

Table 2.2: Potential sources of TSSC nominations for species

Legend: ◆ Process largely appropriate; ▲ Process partly appropriate; ■ No process established.

Note a: Under the CAM MoU, the Australian Government has default responsibility for assessing species that occur across multiple jurisdictions.

Note b: Some expert assessments are produced to inform listings under the EPBC Act and may receive funding from the department, while others are not produced for that purpose.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Ecological communities

2.12 The department and TSSC have established processes to identify ecological communities for nomination from a range of sources.

2.13 These sources include state and territory listed ecological communities, communities affected by the 2019–2020 bushfires, and reviewing the EPBC Act list of communities to identify strategic priorities. However, there are no arrangements to determine when listed ecological communities should be nominated for reassessment and there would be merit in updating strategic priorities (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Potential sources of TSSC nominations for ecological communities

Legend: ◆ Appropriate process established; ▲ Process requires updating; ■ No process established.

Note a: Auditor-General Report No.31 2006–07 The Conservation and Protection of National Threatened Species and Ecological Communities, paragraph 3.29.

Note b: After September 2020, ecological community nominations were primarily focused on communities impacted by the 2019–2020 bushfires.

Note c: The CAM MoU contains an ‘opt in’ provision for a common assessment method for ecological communities, which would provide for the recognition of communities listed in states and territories. The Australian Government has not opted in. Opting in would require amendments to the EPBC Regulations.

Note d: One additional ecological community was listed by a territory. This community was aligned with an ecological community that was already listed under the EPBC Act.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Key threatening processes

2.14 There is not an effective process to identify key threatening processes for TSSC nomination. No key threatening processes have been proposed as TSSC nominations since at least 2011. However, the TSSC has stated that ‘there are several major causes of species decline not currently listed’ as key threatening processes.²⁷

2.15 Two primary issues have been identified by the department and TSSC — the lack of a process to proactively identify key threatening processes for nomination, and the lack of a framework to determine when invasive species should be listed or recognised in other ways. The department has attempted to address these issues, but they have not yet been resolved (Table 2.4).

Table 2.4: Issues with identifying key threatening processes for nomination

Note a: A Hawke, Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, p. 132.

Note b: H Marsh, H Campbell, K Dixon, L Gilfedder, D Kendal, S Legge, N Mitchell, C Simpfendorfer, S Bunn and D Keith, Submission to the Senate Inquiry on Australia’s faunal extinction crisis from the Commonwealth Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) [Internet], 2018, pp. 2 and 10, available from https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=f0b4f73d-5af8-4a6d-a66a-4c2c1724b843&subId=659693 [accessed 5 October 2021].

Note c: H Marsh, K Dixon, C Gore-Birch, R Harper, D Keith, S Legge, N Mitchell and C Simpfendorfer, Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 — Submission from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, a Statutory Committee established by the EPBC Act [Internet], 2020, p. 29, available from https://epbcactreview.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020–05/ANON-K57V-XF2U-J%20-%20Threatened%20Species%20Scientific%20Committee%20%281%29.pdf [accessed 5 October 2021].

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

2.16 The department has not developed a strategy to ensure the species, ecological communities and key threatening processes that are most in need of listing are being identified. Without such a strategy, the absence of processes to identify key threatening processes for nomination and assess the list of threatened species to identify strategic priorities, coupled with the time since ecological community strategic priorities were identified, limits the assurance that the items being nominated are those that will have the greatest impact on achieving the objectives of the EPBC Act.

Processing and prioritising nominations

2.19 Once nominations are received from the public and the TSSC, the department should have procedures that enable it to effectively process the nominations and prioritise them for inclusion in the proposed assessment list.

Procedures for processing nominations

2.20 The department has established procedural guidance for receiving and processing nominations, which includes the relevant requirements of the EPBC Act. However, the procedural guidance is not complete (it did not include activities undertaken to consult with states and territories on nominations under the CAM MoU) and requires updating (some referenced documents were out of date or no longer in use, and some roles and responsibilities specified in the guidance were identified by the department as incorrect).

2.21 To better support officials to undertake work in an effective manner, the ANAO suggests the department establish arrangements to ensure the guidance is complete and up to date.

Prioritising nominations

2.22 To determine whether the department effectively supports the TSSC to decide which nominations should be proposed for assessment, the ANAO examined whether there is an agreed prioritisation framework, and whether appropriate information is provided about the capacity for new assessments.

Prioritisation framework

2.23 The department supports the TSSC to prioritise nominations by providing ‘prioritisation decision support tools’ for each nominated item. The tools include an assessment of the associated risk of extinction of the item²⁸, the impacts that the listing would have, the complexity of the assessment, and whether enough information is available to list the nominated item.

2.24 There is no schedule for when the prioritisation decision support tools should be updated. In practice, the ecological community prioritisation decision support tool was updated in 2017, 2018 and 2020, the species tool was updated in 2019, and the key threatening process tool was updated in 2018. To ensure the decision support tools remain fit for purpose, the ANAO suggests the department establish an agreed schedule for their review.

2.25 The decision support tools for ecological communities and key threatening processes provide rankings to support the TSSC in determining what to propose for assessment (Table 2.5). However, the department has not yet established an approach that provides a clear comparison between species. Draft principles for prioritising species assessments were presented to the TSSC in February 2020, but have not yet been finalised — the department informed the ANAO that, in the meantime, it has been using the draft principles.

Table 2.5: Processes established to prioritise nominations

Legend: ◆ Process supports prioritisation of nominations; ▲ Process does not fully support prioritisation of nominations; ■ Process does not support prioritisation of nominations.

Note a: Decision support tools were completed for 13 of 54 potential TSSC nominations in 2018.

Note b: For example, a total of two key threatening process nominations (both public nominations) were considered from 2019 to 2021.

Source: ANAO based on the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Assessment of capacity

2.26 To support the TSSC to determine how many items should be proposed for assessment, the department provides an estimate of the department’s capacity for new species and ecological community assessments each year. The department does not provide a capacity estimate for key threatening processes and has recommended that no key threatening process nominations be included since at least 2016.²⁹

2.27 For ecological communities, the capacity estimate is determined each year by calculating the average number of assessments that would be underway per official. For species, the estimate was determined until 2019 by a calculation of the expected workload of different assessments in comparison to staffing capacity. The department did not undertake capacity calculations for species assessments in 2020 and 2021.³⁰ It is unclear how the department determined the species capacity estimate it provided to the TSSC in 2020 and 2021.

2.28 The ANAO suggests the department ensure its estimate of its capacity for new assessments each year is informed by robust calculations, so the TSSC can make informed decisions about how many items to propose for assessment. Given that most ecological community assessments exceed their initial timeframes (paragraph 4.7), there would be merit in revising the methodology for estimating capacity for ecological community assessments.

Are listing decisions and assessments administered effectively?

2.29 Once the Minister has determined what will be assessed, the department supports the TSSC to assess whether each species, ecological community or threatening process is eligible for listing (see Figure 1.1 for a diagram of the process). In practice, these assessments are conducted by the department with review and oversight by the TSSC. The TSSC must then provide the listing assessment to the Minister, who determines whether to list the assessed item under the EPBC Act.

Policies, procedures and training

2.30 Key arrangements to support officials to undertake work in a consistent and effective manner include defined criteria for listing eligibility, procedural guidance, and training.

Eligibility criteria

2.31 The EPBC Act and EPBC Regulations establish the criteria that make a species, ecological community or threatening process eligible for listing under the EPBC Act. As noted by the TSSC, these criteria include subjective terms such as ‘substantial’, ‘high’ or ‘very high’ rates of decline. Establishing clear definitions for how these terms will be applied supports consistency and public confidence in listing decisions.

Species

2.32 The department has largely adopted the definitions and guidelines established by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) for determining whether species meet the criteria for threatened.³¹ These have been incorporated into the department’s eligibility guidelines, which are consistent with the requirements of the EPBC Act.

2.33 Alignment with the IUCN definitions and guidelines is required under the CAM MoU. The IUCN definitions and guidelines allow for listing species under one sub-category that is not included in the EPBC Regulations.³² This leaves the CAM MoU and the listing process under the EPBC Act not fully aligned.

2.34 The department has worked with states and territories to develop policies to clarify how the IUCN definitions and guidelines should be interpreted under the common assessment method.³³ However, eight out of 10 areas of ‘inconsistent interpretation’, identified by the department and states and territories in 2018, have not yet been addressed.³⁴

2.35 The IUCN definitions were last updated in 2012. The associated IUCN guidelines were updated six times since then, with the most recent changes in August 2019. The department last presented its guidelines on applying the definitions and criteria to the TSSC in November 2017 but has updated its guidelines to reflect the updated IUCN guidelines.

Ecological communities and key threatening processes

2.36 The department has developed definitions and guidelines to determine when ecological communities and key threatening processes meet the criteria for listing under the EPBC Act. These are consistent with the requirements of the EPBC Act.

2.37 The definitions and guidelines for applying the ecological community eligibility criteria were last updated in November 2016, and the definitions and guidelines for applying the key threatening process criteria were last updated in March 2018.

2.38 There is no schedule to review the definitions and guidelines for the ecological community and key threatening process listing criteria. To support the definitions and guidelines to remain fit for purpose over time, the ANAO suggests the department establish a schedule for their review.

Procedural guidance

2.39 The department has established a procedural guidance manual for undertaking assessments of species and key threatening processes. This manual requires updating, is not fully complete, and could more fully capture some requirements of the EPBC Act (Table 2.6).

2.40 A procedural guidance manual for undertaking assessments of ecological communities has not been completed. The department informed the ANAO that the manual for species and key threatening processes ‘was also originally developed for’ ecological communities, and that some of the procedures in the manual were generic and would also apply to ecological communities. The manual for species and key threatening processes still contains some documents that relate to ecological communities.³⁵

2.41 Without complete and up to date procedural guidance, officials are reduced in their ability to support the TSSC to provide effective advice to the Minister and undertake assessments in a way that meets the requirements of the EPBC Act and CAM MoU.

Table 2.6: ANAO assessment of procedural guidance for listing assessments

Legend: ◆ Attribute achieved; ▲ Attribute partly achieved; ■ Attribute not achieved.

Note a: Activities not linked to include processing state-led assessments under the CAM MoU. Activities not included include updating tracking spreadsheets and publishing news items on the department’s website.

Note b: Requirements not found for species include subsections 189A(1), and section 194. Subsections were assessed as not being found if any requirements of that subsection were not included.

Note c: Requirements not found for key threatening processes include subsections 188(1), 188(2), 188(3) and section 194. Subsections were assessed as not being found if any requirements of that subsection were not included.

Source: ANAO based on assessment of Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documentation.

2.42 In addition, there is no schedule for when the procedural guidance for assessments should be reviewed or updated. Records indicate that since 1 July 2016, the guidance was updated twice in 2016 and once in 2019. Establishing a review schedule would better support the guidance to be complete, up to date and include all the requirements of the EPBC Act.

Training

2.43 Departmental officials have received training on the application of the IUCN assessment guidelines from IUCN accredited trainers. This was delivered in March 2020, October 2020, March 2021, October 2021, December 2021 and February 2022.

2.44 There is no policy for which officials should undertake training or how often they should be trained. The department also does not maintain consolidated records of whether officials have been trained, although there are records of attendance at individual training sessions. Establishing agreed training requirements and monitoring their completion would provide greater assurance that officials have the skills required to undertake effective assessments.

Stakeholder consultation

2.45 Information relevant to listing assessments is held by a range of stakeholders. These include states and territories, non-governmental organisations, traditional owners and scientific experts. Effective arrangements to consult with stakeholders support the department to obtain this information.

Ecological communities

2.46 As discussed in paragraph 2.40, there is no current procedural guidance for undertaking assessments of ecological communities.

2.47 In the absence of documented procedures, the ANAO examined the consultation undertaken for each of the 13 ecological community assessments completed between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021. In practice, each assessment involved consultation with the public (as required by the EPBC Act), a targeted selection of experts and at least one state or territory, and a workshop or field trip with stakeholders. All but one involved consultation with traditional owners.

2.48 The department did not consistently demonstrate how submissions had been considered. Of the 13 assessments, four described to the Minister how each submission had been considered, while five provided an overall description or a description for some but not all submissions. Similarly, two described to the TSSC how each submission had been considered, with seven providing an overall description or a description for some submissions.

Species and key threatening processes

2.49 As described in Table 2.7, the department has established procedures for consultation on species and key threatening process assessments that provide a basis for obtaining and considering information from the public, experts, stakeholders, traditional owners, and states and territories.

Table 2.7: Consultation procedures for species and key threatening processes

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

2.50 While consultation requirements under the EPBC Act were met, some departmental procedures are not consistently followed. An examination of 26 species listing assessments randomly selected from all species assessments completed between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021 found that:³⁶

• the list of targeted experts and questions to ask was not presented to the TSSC prior to consultation for one assessment;
• while relevant states and territories were provided copies of the draft assessment for all but one assessment, there were not records on file of states and territories being provided with the final assessment for 20 of 24 assessments³⁷, as required under the CAM MoU;
• details of how submissions were taken into account was not provided to the TSSC for 19 assessments, and not provided to the Minister for 25 of 26 assessments; and
• details of how traditional owners may be consulted were not found for 23 of 26 assessments — the department has subsequently implemented arrangements to improve its engagement with traditional owners.³⁸

Conduct of assessments

2.51 Undertaking listing assessments in accordance with procedural and legislative requirements ensures that listing decisions are consistent, legally valid and meet the expectations of the TSSC.

Quality assurance

2.52 Quality assurance arrangements support the accountable authority to ensure work is completed appropriately.

2.53 The department has established quality assurance arrangements for assessments of species and key threatening processes, but they have not been implemented (Table 2.8). No standard quality assurance arrangements have been established for ecological communities. This limits the department’s assurance that assessments are being completed in an effective manner.

Implementation of requirements

2.54 To determine whether listing assessments are conducted in accordance with procedural and legislative requirements, the ANAO examined 29 listing assessments led by the Australian Government (26 species and three ecological communities).³⁹ These assessments were randomly selected from all listing assessments completed between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021.⁴⁰

2.55 All assessments were compliant with the EPBC Act. However, there were high rates of non-compliance with procedural requirements (Table 2.9).

Table 2.9: Compliance with procedural and legislative requirements

Legend: ◆ Requirements met; $tri Requirements partly met; ■ Requirements not met.

Note c: Requirement only applies to species.

Note d: One additional assessment described how some (but not all) submissions were taken into account.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

2.56 In addition, the ANAO examined 12 species that were assessed by states or territories under the CAM MoU and processed for listing under the EPBC Act. For each of these assessments, the department had completed a required checklist to determine whether the assessments met the requirements of the CAM MoU.

2.57 The high rate of non-compliance with procedural guidance indicates that greater quality assurance is required. Establishing improved arrangements to ensure compliance with procedural guidance, alongside updating the guidance, would better position the department to ensure listing assessments are conducted in an effective manner.

Acceptance by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee

2.60 As the department’s role in listing assessments is to support the TSSC, the TSSC’s acceptance of final assessments during TSSC meetings may provide an indication of the department’s effectiveness in administering assessments and compliance with TSSC requirements.

2.61 Of the 26 Australian Government led listing assessments completed during 2020–2021, 18 final assessments were approved by the TSSC subject to feedback provided during the meeting, and eight required revision and subsequent out of session approval by a subset of the TSSC. None were rejected or required to be recompleted or re-presented at another TSSC meeting.

3.1 Under the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, the Australian Government is required (as far as possible and as appropriate) to develop and implement plans or management strategies to promote the recovery of threatened species and rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems.⁴¹

3.2 The EPBC Act gives effect to this by requiring the development of conservation advice for most threatened species and ecological communities when they are listed, and recovery plans and threat abatement plans where it has been determined they are needed (see Figure 1.2 for a diagram of this process). These documents, collectively referred to as conservation plans, establish the actions necessary to protect and recover the relevant species and ecological communities.

3.3 Establishing effective conservation planning arrangements supports the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities, and allows Australia to meet its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Effective conservation planning arrangements include:

• effective processes to develop and review conservation plans; and
• effective arrangements to support the implementation of conservation plans.

Is there an effective process to develop and review plans and advice?

3.4 Establishing effective processes for conservation planning supports conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans to be targeted at the actions that will be most successful in conserving threatened species and ecological communities.

Determining whether plans are required

3.5 Under the EPBC Act, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) provides recommendations to the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) about whether recovery plans and threat abatement plans are required. The department supports the TSSC in making these recommendations.

3.6 Recovery and threat abatement plans provide statutory protection under the EPBC Act.⁴² However, they can take a long time to develop (see paragraph 4.11 for plan development timeframes).

3.7 Establishing an effective process to recommend whether recovery or threat abatement plans are required supports the department and TSSC to allocate the resources necessary for plan development to the species and ecological communities where they will have the greatest impact.

Recovery plan decisions

3.8 The Minister has determined that recovery plans are required for 911 (48 per cent) of listed threatened species and ecological communities.⁴³ Four species and one ecological community have not had a recovery plan decision made, although each had a recovery plan developed for it.⁴⁴

Recovery plan decision principles

3.9 The TSSC has published principles for determining when a recovery plan is required or when conservation advice alone will be sufficient. The principles state that conservation advice will be considered sufficient, unless:⁴⁵

• there are complexities in conservation planning that present challenges for the coordination of effort⁴⁶;
• the species or community has significant occurrences in Commonwealth areas;
• there is an established recovery team willing to review and update the recovery plan; or
• there is a high-quality draft recovery plan already available.

3.10 The department has not been able to provide the TSSC with supporting evidence for these principles that demonstrates the relative effectiveness of recovery plans and conservation advice. The TSSC requested in 2015 that the department provide an example of how having a recovery plan instead of conservation advice has impacted the conservation of a species, but this request was removed from the list of pending actions in 2019 as the data was ‘unavailable’. In the absence of this evidence, the department and TSSC have held workshops with experts and stakeholders to inform the approach to recovery plan decisions.

Recovery plan decision procedures

3.11 The department supports the TSSC to recommend whether a recovery plan is required by providing a ‘decision support tool’ for each species and ecological community. The tool summarises a range of factors in accordance with the recovery plan decision principles, including: the complexity of recovery actions required; whether the additional regulatory support provided by a recovery plan would be beneficial; and the rate at which the species is declining.

3.12 The department has also established procedural guidance to process recovery plan decisions, for initial decisions made during listing assessments and subsequent decisions made after the listing assessment. The guidance is consistent with the EPBC Act. However, it only covers subsequent decisions to not have a plan.⁴⁷

Recovery plan decision review project

3.13 In 2014, the department informed the Minister that it had ‘limited capacity to fund and little jurisdictional support to develop new or revised recovery plans’ and was ‘facilitating the making of a smaller number but prioritised set of recovery plans’. To support this, the department and TSSC commenced a project to review all recovery plan decisions made before 2013. The project is scheduled to finish in October 2022.

3.14 As part of the project, the TSSC and department applied the recovery plan decision support tool to 811 species and ecological communities that had previously been determined to require a plan. The TSSC provided advice to the Minister in May 2021 proposing that 675 species and communities no longer require a recovery plan and 136 continue to require a plan.⁴⁸ As of February 2022, these proposed decisions are undergoing staged public consultation.

3.15 A preliminary analysis of the results for the first 185 species and ecological communities that underwent consultation was presented to the TSSC in December 2021. The analysis indicated that all 6701 received submissions (6505 of which were part of campaigns) disagreed with the proposed decisions to not require plans. The department informed the ANAO that ‘the preliminary analysis is an initial step in a larger process’ and ‘the comments contained in the submissions were wide ranging and therefore not only restricted to an opinion on the decision (to not require recovery plans)’.

Threat abatement plan decisions

3.16 The Minister has determined that threat abatement plans are required for 11 of the 21 listed key threatening processes.

3.17 Under the EPBC Act, the Minister is required to decide to have a threat abatement plan for a key threatening process if they believe it is a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process. Where it is determined a threat abatement plan is not required, the Minister must review this decision every five years.

3.18 The department and TSSC have published criteria for determining whether a threat abatement plan would be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the key threatening process. The department has not established procedural guidance for applying the criteria or processing threat abatement plan decisions.

3.19 The department did not apply the criteria for feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency in the three threat abatement plan decision reviews conducted since 1 July 2016.⁴⁹ The reviews provided overall advice on whether threat abatement plans would be feasible, effective and efficient, but did not address those factors individually. As part of reviews of threat abatement plans (see paragraph 3.54), the department has outlined the advantages and disadvantages of different threat abatement approaches, but has not applied the criteria or individually assessed feasibility, effectiveness or efficiency.

3.20 The ANAO suggests the department apply the criteria for feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency when making and reviewing threat abatement plan decisions, to support the Minister to make consistent and effective decisions about whether threat abatement plans are required.

Development of conservation plans

3.21 The ANAO examined whether the department has established an effective approach to developing conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans.

Conservation advice development

3.22 Conservation advice is required to be established under the EPBC Act for most listed threatened species and ecological communities⁵⁰, to set out what can be done to stop the decline or support the recovery of the species or community.

3.23 From 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021, 379 conservation advice documents were established. Conservation advice is in place for all relevant species, but two ecological communities do not have required conservation advice. These two ecological communities have recovery plans.

Procedural guidance

3.24 The department has established procedural guidance for the development of conservation advice, which is consistent with the EPBC Act but not complete or fully up to date (Table 3.1). It has also established a quality assurance checklist for the development of conservation advice.

3.25 This procedural guidance applies to conservation advice for species assessed for listing by the department. For species assessed by states and territories and processed under the common assessment method, the conservation advice is developed by the state or territory.

Table 3.1: ANAO assessment of conservation advice procedural guidance

Legend: ◆ Attribute achieved; ▲ Attribute partly achieved; ■ Attribute not achieved.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Compliance with procedural and legislative requirements

3.26 Conservation advice has been partly developed in accordance with requirements. The ANAO examined 33 conservation advice documents, randomly selected from all conservation advice developed by the department between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021⁵¹, and found that 10 did not meet legislative or procedural requirements. Identified issues included that:

• seven did not contain ‘a statement that sets out the main factors that are the cause of it being [eligible for listing]’, as required by the EPBC Act — however, this information could be gathered from the entirety of the document;
• five did not include monitoring actions to provide information on the performance of other actions in the conservation advice, as required by procedure; and
• five conservation advice documents established since 2018 did not meet a range of new requirements introduced during that period.⁵²

3.27 No quality assurance checklists were found on file.⁵³ The department informed the ANAO that officials are not required to save the completed checklist.

Continuous improvement

3.28 The department and TSSC regularly assess the approach to conservation advice, to better support the recovery of threatened species and ecological communities.

3.29 Since 1 July 2016, the approach to conservation advice has been discussed during at least 15 TSSC meetings.⁵⁴ The department and TSSC have agreed to review the procedural guidance for conservation advice annually, with potential improvements to be discussed at each TSSC meeting and added to a register. Key improvements that have been made are:

• the inclusion of objectives from 2021, to better identify the intended outcomes of the conservation advice; and
• the inclusion of information on ‘habitat critical to the survival of the species’ from 2020, which is a key factor in regulatory decision-making.⁵⁵

3.30 However, some issues identified by the TSSC or department have not yet been resolved. For example, the department has not established arrangements to align conservation advice for species assessed by states and territories under the common assessment method with better practice requirements that have been established for other conservation advice.⁵⁶

Recovery plan development

3.31 Recovery plans are intended to protect and manage threatened species or ecological communities, by providing for the actions necessary to stop the decline and support the recovery of the species or community. Recovery plans can be made by the Australian Government, adopted from states and territories, or made jointly with states and territories.

3.32 From 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021, four recovery plans were made by the Australian Government, eight state and territory plans were adopted, and two plans made jointly with states and territories. Recovery plans have not been established for 164 species and ecological communities determined to require them.⁵⁷

Procedural guidance

3.33 The department has established procedural guidance for the development of recovery plans. It has also established two quality assurance checklists to be completed for each recovery plan and provided to the TSSC.

3.34 As shown in Table 3.2, the procedural guidance is not up to date or complete and does not include all the requirements of the EPBC Act. The department informed the ANAO that it is aware the guidance needs updating and has begun developing new guidance.

Table 3.2: ANAO assessment of recovery plan procedural guidance

Legend: ◆ Attribute achieved; ▲ Attribute partly achieved; ■ Attribute not achieved.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Compliance with procedural and legislative requirements

3.35 The four recovery plans developed by the department between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021 were largely developed in accordance with requirements. Most quality assurance checklists were completed.⁵⁸

3.36 Stakeholder engagement strategies, which are required by procedural guidance, were not found on file for the four recovery plans. The development of each recovery plan involved consultation with the public (as required under the EPBC Act), targeted experts, and states and territories. The development of three of the four plans involved consultation with traditional owners and documented how stakeholder feedback had been taken into account.⁵⁹

Continuous improvement

3.37 The department informed the ANAO that it is currently reviewing the procedural guidance for developing recovery plans, and the procedural guidance for adopting state and territory plans was updated in 2020. A review of the procedural guidance and overall approach for recovery planning has not been completed since at least 1 July 2016. The TSSC has periodically discussed aspects of the approach⁶⁰ and the department informed the ANAO some administrative processes (such as briefing materials) have been updated.

3.38 There is no schedule for future review. To ensure recovery plans are developed effectively, the ANAO suggests the department establish a schedule to periodically review and update the approach (including procedural guidance) to recovery planning.

Threat abatement plan development

3.39 Threat abatement plans are intended to reduce the effect of a key threatening process. They must provide for the actions necessary to reduce the process to an acceptable level, to maximise the chances of survival of affected species and ecological communities.

3.40 From 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021, six threat abatement plans were developed. Threat abatement plans have been established for all 11 key threatening processes determined to require them.

3.41 The department has also established other non-statutory documents (five ‘threat abatement advice’ and two ‘national action plans’) to provide for the management of key threatening processes. The department informed the ANAO that it ‘takes a flexible approach to the type of guidance document most likely to lead to effective threat abatement, such as using national actions plans where there are multiple stakeholders to own and implement the plan’. As these documents are not produced under the EPBC Act, the ANAO has not examined them as part of this audit.

Procedural guidance

3.42 The department has established procedural guidance for threat abatement plans, but it is not up to date or complete, and does not contain all relevant requirements of the EPBC Act (Table 3.3). The department has also established a quality assurance checklist which is to be completed for each plan.

Table 3.3: ANAO assessment of threat abatement plan procedural guidance

Legend: ◆ Attribute achieved; ▲ Attribute partly achieved; ■ Attribute not achieved.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Compliance with procedural and legislative requirements

3.43 The six threat abatement plans established since 1 July 2016 were largely consistent with procedural and legislative requirements for content. Four did not meet the legislative requirement to state where actions most needed to be taken for threat abatement — three of these instead stated that priority areas needed to be identified, which has not been completed as of February 2022.

3.44 No quality assurance checklists were found on file. Without this, there was limited evidence that the development process was consistent with EPBC Act requirements. For example, the EPBC Act requires that regard is had to ‘minimising … significant adverse social and economic impacts’ and to ‘the role and interests of Indigenous people in the conservation of Australia’s biodiversity’, but this was not clearly demonstrated in some plans.⁶¹ The quality assurance checklist is intended to demonstrate how these requirements were met.

Continuous improvement

3.45 While the department and TSSC have periodically discussed the approach to determining whether a threat abatement plan is required and whether non-statutory documents may be more appropriate, the procedures or approach for developing threat abatement plans have not been reviewed since at least 1 July 2016. The department informed the ANAO that a review of the procedural guidance is planned for 2022.

3.46 There is no schedule for the review of threat abatement plan procedural guidance. The ANAO suggests the department establish a schedule for the periodic review and update of the approach to threat abatement planning, to ensure procedural guidance is effective and threat abatement plans achieve their desired outcomes.

Review of plans and advice

3.47 Establishing arrangements for the review and update of conservation plans supports them to remain effective over time. This is recognised in the EPBC Act, which requires recovery plans and threat abatement plans to be reviewed every five years.

Conservation advice reviews

3.48 The department has not yet established a procedure for how or when conservation advice should be reviewed or updated. In practice, 59 currently listed species and ecological communities (three per cent of all species and ecological communities requiring conservation advice) have had their conservation advice updated outside of a new listing assessment.⁶² The average conservation advice is more than nine years old.

3.49 The absence of arrangements to review and update conservation advice limits the department and TSSC’s ability to ensure they are up to date and effective. The department informed the TSSC in 2018 that it ‘recognises the regulatory and conservation risks associated with out-of-date Conservation Advices but has very limited capacity to update advices at this time’. The issue was raised by the TSSC in 2015, 2017 and 2021, with the TSSC committing in 2021 to work with the department to develop a system for updating conservation advice.⁶³

Recovery plan reviews

3.50 The department has established a template and procedural guidance for the review of recovery plans, which includes an assessment of whether the objectives and actions of the plan have been achieved.

3.51 In practice, most reviews of recovery plans have not used the template or assessed whether the plan’s objectives or actions had been achieved. Of the 77 recovery plans due for their first five-year review between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021:

• nine had the achievement of their objectives and actions assessed using the template, with two additional reviews assessing the achievement of actions but not objectives;
• fifty-seven had their need for a recovery plan reassessed;
• three were agreed to have been reviewed based on a listing assessment or conservation advice that had either been completed or was underway;
• six had not been completed, although two of these were signed off as having been reviewed.⁶⁴

3.52 Some recovery plans have been updated, with 180 currently listed species and ecological communities (22 per cent of all species and communities that have had recovery plans) having had their original recovery plan replaced by a newer one. This has slowed over time, with 31 species and communities having new recovery plans established since 1 July 2016. The average recovery plan is more than 12 years old.

Threat abatement plan reviews

3.53 The department has established guidance for how to review threat abatement plans, which states that reviews will assess progress towards achieving the objectives of the plan. It also states reviews will involve identifying potential revisions to the plan and include an assessment of how plans may be developed and implemented more effectively and efficiently in future.

3.54 In practice, one threat abatement plan has been reviewed since 1 July 2016. This review assessed progress towards the objectives of the plan, identified areas for revision, and assessed the advantages and disadvantages of different options for abating the threat going forward (such as keeping the current plan, revising the plan or revoking the plan). The review did not assess how plans may be developed and implemented more effectively or efficiently in future.

3.55 Six updated plans were produced between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021 (see paragraphs 3.40–3.44) based on previous plan reviews. Three more plans were assessed as requiring revision in reviews between 2013 to 2015 but have not yet been updated. The average threat abatement plan is more than seven years old.

3.56 The limited review and update of threat abatement plans, as well as conservation advice and recovery plans, reduces the department’s assurance that conservation plans are up to date and effectively provide for the protection of species and ecological communities.

Are there effective arrangements to support the implementation of plans and advice?

3.59 Establishing effective arrangements to support the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans promotes compliance with the requirements of the EPBC Act and United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.⁶⁵ It also supports the protection of threatened species and ecological communities.

Implementation through departmental programs

3.60 The department may implement conservation plans through a range of activities. These include funding programs, the regulation of actions that may have a significant impact on threatened species and ecological communities, activities conducted through program areas such as the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office, and research funded through the National Environmental Science Program.

3.61 The department has not established arrangements to coordinate or obtain assurance over the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans through regulation, program areas or research.

3.62 For funding programs for threatened species and ecological communities, the department has established a prioritisation framework and arrangements to align some programs with conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans. These arrangements are examined below.

Prioritisation framework

3.63 The department’s approach to prioritising investment in threatened species and ecological communities is established in the Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020 and Threatened Species Strategy 2021–2031. Each strategy provides for the identification of priority species and actions, to support the department to target its investments at the species and ecological communities where it will have the greatest impact.

3.64 The department adopted a documented prioritisation methodology for the 2021–2031 strategy, to identify priority species. It also plans to identify ‘priority places’ (which may include ecological communities), which are still being identified as of February 2022. This addresses issues with the previous strategy, including that the prioritisation methodology was not documented, only identified priority birds, mammals and plants, and did not identify priority ecological communities (Table 3.4).

3.65 Since the release of the Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020, four of eight funding programs that included threatened species in their outputs or outcomes have required successful projects to be aligned with priority species or actions under the strategy (see Appendix 3).

Alignment between programs and conservation plans

3.66 Aligning funding programs with conservation plans supports those programs to effectively support threatened species and ecological communities.

3.67 Not all funding programs require or assess the alignment of projects with conservation plans. Of the eight programs since 1 July 2016 that included threatened species or ecological communities as an outcome or output (listed in Appendix 3), four did not include alignment with conservation plans as a requirement or criteria for assessment.⁶⁶

3.68 For some programs, the department requires funding recipients to record in a database how their projects are aligned with identified priorities, plans or strategies, including conservation plans. For the two funding opportunities since 1 July 2016 that targeted threatened species or ecological communities and required this information to be recorded (20 Million Trees: Grants Round Three and Regional Land Partnerships), 190 of 219 relevant projects had referenced a conservation advice, recovery plan or threat abatement plan.⁶⁷

Implementation by Commonwealth entities, states and territories, and other organisations and individuals

3.69 Activities to protect threatened species and ecological communities are undertaken by other Commonwealth entities, states and territories, and non-governmental groups and individuals. Establishing arrangements to coordinate and support action from these groups helps facilitate the successful implementation of conservation plans.

Commonwealth entities

3.70 The EPBC Act requires Commonwealth entities to implement recovery and threat abatement plans to the extent they apply in Commonwealth areas. Entities responsible for managing Commonwealth areas include the Director of National Parks (who manages Commonwealth national parks) and the Department of Defence (which manages defence estates).

3.71 As the entity responsible for the administration of the EPBC Act, the department is responsible for supporting and obtaining assurance over other Commonwealth entities’ compliance with these requirements.

3.72 While the department informed the ANAO that it engages with relevant Commonwealth entities when developing plans, it does not have arrangements to support or obtain assurance over the implementation of recovery plans or most threat abatement plans by Commonwealth entities.⁶⁸

States and territories

3.73 The department is required, under the EPBC Act, to seek to cooperate with states and territories to jointly implement recovery and threat abatement plans in state and territory areas.

3.74 Under the 1997 Heads of agreement on Commonwealth and State roles and responsibilities for the Environment, where the Australian Government has identified the need for a cooperative environmental program, it must:⁶⁹

• consult with the states or territories on establishing a cooperative program; and
• establish an agreement for the delivery of the program with the relevant states or territories, if they agree that cooperative action is required.

3.75 There is no process to consult with states and territories on establishing cooperative programs for implementation of recovery plans or conservation advice once they have been developed (the department engages with states and territories during the development of recovery plans and conservation advice). There are no agreements with states and territories for the cooperative implementation of recovery plans or conservation advice.

3.76 For threat abatement plans, there is no standard process to consult with states and territories on the establishment of cooperative implementation programs. For two of the 12 threat abatement plans in place, the department participates in working groups with states and territories to consult on progress in addressing the threat. There are no agreements with states and territories for the cooperative implementation of threat abatement plans.

3.77 The department may fund state and territory implementation of conservation plans through funding programs, and states and territories may participate in recovery teams (see paragraphs 3.63–3.68 and 3.78–3.80, respectively). There are no other processes through which the department supports the implementation of conservation plans by states and territories.

Other organisations and individuals

3.78 Non-governmental organisations, community groups and individuals undertake a range of on-ground activities to protect threatened species and ecological communities. These groups often form ‘recovery teams’ to coordinate the implementation of a conservation advice or recovery plan.

3.79 The department informed the ANAO that the department’s ‘main role in supporting recovery teams is providing advice and guidance to groups as they establish themselves’ and that the department does not ‘typically’ provide funding for the operation of recovery teams. The ANAO identified eight recovery teams in which the department has participated.⁷⁰ The department does not have complete records of recovery teams, but has identified 90 recovery teams in operation.

3.80 To improve the governance and coordination of recovery teams, the department aimed to establish a national register of recovery teams, establish best practice governance procedures for recovery teams, and have all recovery teams follow those procedures by 2020. While best practice governance procedures have been established⁷¹, most recovery teams have not been certified as consistent with the procedures and there is not yet a national register. As of February 2022, 16 recovery teams have submitted their terms of reference to be added to the register and be certified as consistent with the governance procedures.

Assurance and tracking of implementation

3.81 Tracking the implementation of conservation plans provides assurance that they are being implemented and supports effective coordination of their implementation.

3.82 The department does not currently maintain consolidated records of the implementation of actions in conservation advice and recovery plans. It aimed in 2015 to have all recovery teams submit annual reports on their progress in implementing conservation advice and recovery plans by 2020, but has received only three annual reports as of February 2022. In February 2022, it committed to track and publish the implementation of priority actions in conservation advice and recovery plans for all 100 priority species under the Threatened Species Strategy 2021–2030 by 2026.⁷²

3.83 For threat abatement plans, the department keeps a tracking sheet on the implementation of actions in the Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats, and receives annual reporting on the Threat abatement plan for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. No ongoing records are maintained of the implementation of the other nine threat abatement plans.

3.84 The department may assess the extent to which actions were implemented as part of statutory reviews of recovery plans and threat abatement plans. As discussed in paragraphs 3.51 and 3.54, not all reviews have been completed and most reviews of recovery plans did not assess progress against the plan. The department does not aggregate or track the findings of these reviews, including whether actions have been implemented.

3.85 Where reviews of progress against recovery and threat abatement plans have been undertaken since 1 July 2016, they reported that most actions have been commenced but few actions have been completed (Table 3.6).

Table 3.5: Status of actions in recovery and threat abatement plan reviews

Note a: This is all current recovery plans that were due for their first five-year review between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021 and had their progress against the actions of the plan reviewed.

Note b: This is the one threat abatement plan that has been reviewed since 1 July 2016.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

3.86 The current lack of tracking of the implementation of conservation plans, combined with the absence of support for implementation by Commonwealth entities, states and territories, and other groups, limits the assurance that conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans are being effectively implemented.

4.1 Timely and efficient administration of the listing and conservation planning processes supports the department to complete a greater number of listing assessments and conservation plans (conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans) during a given period. This enables lists and conservation plans to remain up to date.

4.2 To determine whether the administration of the listing and conservation planning processes is timely and efficient, the ANAO examined:

• whether listing and conservation planning is completed in a timely manner;
• whether departmental records indicate listing and conservation planning is efficient; and
• whether the department has implemented appropriate arrangements to support timeliness and efficiency.

Is listing and conservation planning completed in a timely manner?

4.3 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) includes statutory timeframes for listing assessments and the development and review of recovery and threat abatement plans (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2 for diagrams).

Listing assessments

4.4 The EPBC Act requires the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) to determine, following advice from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), the date by which each listing assessment must be provided to the Minister. The Minister may subsequently extend this timeframe by up to five years.

4.5 Once the TSSC has provided the Minister with the assessment, the Minister must either list the item under the EPBC Act or decide not to include it within 90 business days. This timeframe may be extended by the Minister.

Performance against statutory timeframes

4.6 To determine whether statutory timeframes were being met, the ANAO randomly selected 40 species assessments from all assessments completed between 1 July 2016 and 1 July 2021. The ANAO also examined all 13 ecological community assessments completed during this period.⁷³

4.7 As displayed in Figure 4.1, species assessments were mostly completed within their initial assessment timeframe, with the remainder completed within an extended timeframe. Most ecological community assessments had their assessment timeframe extended, with one not completed during either its original or extended statutory timeframe.⁷⁴

Figure 4.1: Assessments completed within initial and extended statutory timeframes

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment records.

4.8 Once provided to the Minister, some species assessments and most ecological community assessments were not completed within the 90 business day period to list the item or any extended timeframes determined by the Minister (Figure 4.2).⁷⁵

Figure 4.2: Listings completed within the 90 day or extended statutory timeframe after the assessment is provided to the Minister

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment records.

Average timeframes

4.9 Since 1 July 2014, the average timeframe from a species being included on the priority assessment list to being listed under the EPBC Act⁷⁶ has fluctuated with no clear increasing or decreasing trend (Figure 4.3). The timeframe for ecological communities has increased from around 800 days in 2014–2015 to around 1800 days in 2020–2021.

Figure 4.3: Average number of days from inclusion on the priority assessment list to listing under the EPBC Act

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment records. Complete records were only available from 1 July 2014. As discussed in paragraph 5.26, these records are manually compiled by the department and the ANAO does not provide assurance over their accuracy. One ecological community listed in 2020–2021 was not specifically included in the priority assessment list (it was assessed based on an item in the priority assessment list for ‘any other ecological community nominated by the committee’) — this community was not included in the above calculations. Its inclusion would reduce the average to 1632 days.

Recovery plans

4.10 Once a species or ecological community has been determined to require a recovery plan, the EPBC Act requires the plan to be established within three years. This period can be extended by up to three years by the Minister.⁷⁷

4.11 The timeliness of recovery plans has deteriorated over time (Figure 4.4). Excluding species and ecological communities that already had a recovery plan when it was determined they would require a plan⁷⁸, only one of the 55 listed species and communities with recovery plans due since 1 July 2013 met its statutory due date. The average time it took to establish a recovery plan during this period was 2355 days (6.4 years).⁷⁹

4.12 In 2018, the department’s executive board agreed to a workforce and budget reduction strategy that stated that the department would be preparing recovery plans for ‘the highest priority (<5) threatened species only’ to facilitate a reduction in staffing levels. The strategy noted that this risked an ‘increase in [the] number of statutorily overdue recovery plans’, which was realised.

Figure 4.4: Proportion of statutory timeframes met each year for recovery plans^a

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment data. As discussed in paragraph 5.26, these records are manually compiled by the department and the ANAO does not provide assurance over their accuracy.

Note a: This data is based on whether a recovery plan was in place within three years of the current recovery plan decision for each currently listed species and ecological community. It does not include species or ecological communities that already had a recovery plan at the time they were determined to require one.

4.13 The EPBC Act also requires recovery plans to be reviewed within five years. Of the 77 recovery plans due for their first five-year review between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2021, none were reviewed within the statutory timeframe. The minutes from a TSSC meeting in March 2018 stated that ‘resourcing constraints have led to prioritisation of assessment and listing of new species over recovery plan reviews’.

4.14 The department’s plan to review whether recovery plans are required for all species currently requiring them (commenced in 2014, scheduled for completion in October 2022 and currently undergoing consultation on the proposed recovery plan decisions; see paragraphs 3.13–3.15) is intended to bring it back into compliance with statutory timeframes.

Threat abatement plans

4.15 Once a key threatening process has been determined to require a threat abatement plan, the plan must be in place within three years. Threat abatement plans must be reviewed every five years, and decisions to not have a threat abatement plan must be reviewed every five years.

4.16 As no key threatening processes have been listed since 2014, there have not been any statutory timeframes for the development of threat abatement plans in recent years. Statutory timeframes have not been met for reviews of threat abatement plans and reviews of decisions to not have a threat abatement plan.

• All 12 key threatening processes with threat abatement plans did not meet the last statutory review date for their plans.⁸⁰
• Eight of nine key threatening processes with decisions to not have a threat abatement plan did not meet their last statutory review date. The ninth decision is not yet due for its first review.

4.17 The department presented a plan for addressing the backlog of work on threat abatement plans reviews and decision reviews to the TSSC in June 2020. Additional resourcing has been provided until July 2023 to deliver this work, with the approval minute noting that the previous resourcing levels would ‘not progress the overdue decisions significantly’.

Is listing and conservation planning efficient?

4.18 The Auditing and Assurance Standards Board defines efficiency as the ‘performance principle relating to the minimisation of inputs employed to deliver the intended outputs in terms of quality, quantity and timing’.⁸¹

4.19 The department has not established arrangements to measure its efficiency or use of resources in listing and conservation planning (see paragraph 5.28). In the absence of departmental efficiency measures, the ANAO examined the budget available to the responsible areas of the department (as an indicative input) and the number of listing assessments, conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans produced each year (as an indicative output).

4.20 The budget for the areas of the department that undertake listing and conservation planning decreased by 10 per cent from 2012–2013 to 2019–2020, and staffing decreased from an average staffing level of 55 to 40. Additional funding and staffing was provided in 2020–2021.⁸²

4.21 During this period, the number of listing assessments, conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans completed by the department did not increase in proportion to the budget (Figure 4.5). While not all the budget allocated to these areas of the department is used for listing and conservation planning, these results do not indicate efficiency has improved. The department informed the ANAO that the complexity of work increased during this period.

Figure 4.5: Work produced and budget over time^a

Note a: As most listing assessments and conservation plans take multiple years to complete, changes to the budget will not be reflected in work outputs until subsequent years.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment records. The ANAO has not obtained assurance over the accuracy of budget and staffing information.

Have appropriate arrangements been implemented to support timeliness and efficiency?

4.22 The Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 requires entities to be governed in an efficient manner. Key arrangements to support efficiency and timeliness include establishing fit for purpose systems and processes, planning, and periodically reviewing and updating the approach taken.

Systems and processes

4.23 Key systems and processes to support timeliness and efficiency include:

• procedural guidance and training arrangements that provide officials with the information needed to complete work in a timely manner;
• a risk-based approach that enables resources to be allocated to those areas that will have the greatest impact on objectives; and
• effective information systems that support officials to undertake work, where available.

4.24 As shown in Table 4.1, the department’s systems and processes do not yet fully support timeliness and efficiency.

Table 4.1: Systems and processes

Legend: ◆ System or process supports efficiency; ▲ System or process does not fully support efficiency; ■ System or process does not support efficiency.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Planning

4.25 Establishing work plans for listing assessments and conservation planning can support efficiency and timeliness by identifying key milestones, allocating roles and responsibilities, and allowing informed resource allocation. This includes plans for both the approach to individual listing assessments and conservation plans, and the overall approach to multiple assessments and plans.

4.26 As shown in Table 4.2, work plans have not been developed to guide the approach to individual conservation plans or species listing assessments, although most ecological community assessments have work plans. Overarching plans have been established to coordinate the approach to multiple assessments and conservation plans, but they do not all specify timeframes for milestones, establish who is responsible for each item of work, or provide for monitoring of actions.

Table 4.2: Planning arrangements established by the department

Legend: ◆ Planning arrangements support timeliness and efficiency; ▲ Planning arrangements do not fully support timeliness and efficiency; ■ Planning arrangements do not support timeliness and efficiency.

Note a: The remaining five work plans only provided the final timeframe for each assessment or conservation plan, or did not provide timeframes for all assessments or conservation plans.

Note b: The remaining work plans did not specify who was responsible for all assessments and conservation plans.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Review and improvement

4.27 The department has periodically reviewed and improved its processes for undertaking listing assessments and developing conservation advice, to improve timeliness and efficiency (see Appendix 4). Many of these improvements were initiated in 2020 to support the assessment of a larger number of species following the 2019–2020 bushfires.

4.28 There have been no documented changes to the processes for developing recovery or threat abatement plans since 1 July 2016. A 2014 departmental taskforce made five recommendations aimed at improving the efficiency of recovery planning, but these were not implemented.

4.29 Without measuring its efficiency, timeliness or resource use, the department is not well placed to identify areas for improvement or demonstrate that the changes it has made have improved its timeliness and efficiency.

5.1 Effective measurement, monitoring and reporting arrangements provide the information necessary to determine whether desired outcomes are being achieved and support informed decision-making.

5.2 To determine whether effective measurement, monitoring and reporting has been established for listing assessments and conservation plans (conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans), the ANAO examined whether:

• an appropriate performance measurement framework has been established;
• monitoring and reporting arrangements effectively inform the management of threatened species and ecological communities; and
• measurement and reporting indicate that desired outcomes are being achieved.

Has an appropriate performance measurement framework been established?

5.3 As noted in previous Auditor-General reports, a key element of governance is the establishment of a performance framework that provides information to external and internal stakeholders about the entity’s effectiveness and efficiency in achieving intended results.⁸³

External performance measures

Commonwealth performance framework

5.4 The Commonwealth performance framework requires entities to establish performance measures in their annual corporate plans, to measure their performance in achieving their purpose.⁸⁴ Results against these measures are required to be provided in entities’ annual reports, to provide accountability to the Parliament and public.⁸⁵

5.5 In 2021–22, the department included one performance measure in its corporate plan that is related to listing and conservation planning for threatened species: ‘stability or improvement in the five-year rolling trajectory of the threatened species main index’. There are no performance measures that provide information on the status of threatened ecological communities or key threatening processes.

5.6 The threatened species main index is a public project led by the University of Queensland and funded under the department’s National Environmental Science Program. It brings together data from multiple sources to show the average change in threatened species abundance compared to a baseline year. A pilot index of bird species was released in 2018, with mammals and plants added to the index in 2019 and 2020 respectively.⁸⁶

5.7 This measure provides information about the achievement of the EPBC Act objective of protecting threatened species. The ANAO identified the following areas for improvement.

• The index contains information on 210 of the 1814 species listed as threatened (but not extinct) under the EPBC Act, including birds, mammals and plants.⁸⁷ Continued expansion will be necessary to develop a more representative picture of all threatened species, including currently unrepresented groups such as fish and invertebrates.
• The description of the performance measure states that ‘the trajectory of priority species … is the main driver of changes to the index’. However, the index averages the results of all threatened species, regardless of whether they are priority species. The department was unable to demonstrate how this statement was to be achieved.
• The description in the corporate plan alone does not provide sufficient detail to enable a reader to understand the methodology used — this information is available on the threatened species index website, but no link is provided.⁸⁸

5.8 When reporting against the index, it will be important for the department to identify how its actions have influenced the result.⁸⁹ This should include the effects of being protected under the EPBC Act as a listed threatened species or ecological community, and the implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans. Without this, it is not possible to separate the impact of the department’s actions from factors such as local, state and territory government activities, invasive species or extreme weather events.

5.9 The department’s 2019–‍2020 and 2020–2021 annual reports did not identify listing or conservation planning as activities undertaken to achieve its purpose and did not include analysis on how listing assessments or conservation plans had contributed to the performance results. The ANAO suggests the department ensure future performance reporting identifies the impacts of its listing and conservation planning activities.

Other external performance measures

5.10 The department also established performance targets in the Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020 that related to listing and conservation planning for threatened species.⁹⁰ This included targets of improved trajectories for 21 priority bird species, 20 priority mammal species, and 30 priority plant species (see paragraphs 5.52 and 5.53 for performance against the targets).

5.11 The targets for the improved trajectory of priority species provide information about the achievement of intended outcomes for the management of threatened species. The trajectory of each species was assessed by scientists under the National Environmental Science Program, with the methodology for the assessment in the third year of the strategy published online.⁹¹ The methodology for the assessment in the final year has not yet been published.

5.12 To accompany the reporting against the targets, each species had a detailed scorecard published in the third year of the strategy, with similar scorecards expected to be published for the final year of the strategy. The scorecard identified the factors contributing to the result, including the impact of actions under the strategy. It did not identify how protection as a listed threatened species or the development or implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans or threat abatement plans had contributed to the result.

Internal performance measures

5.13 Well defined internal performance measures of effectiveness, efficiency, outputs and cost can be a valuable source of information for decision-makers on their strategies and areas for improvement.

5.14 There are no internal performance measures on the department’s effectiveness, efficiency or outputs (such as cost or timeliness) in undertaking listing assessments or developing and implementing conservation plans. Performance measures were intended to be developed for the common assessment method memorandum of understanding (CAM MoU) but have not been implemented. This limits the department’s ability to make informed decisions about its approach to listing and conservation planning.

Evaluation and review

5.15 Periodic evaluation provides assurance that programs are achieving their intended outcomes and supports continuous improvement.

5.16 There has not been an evaluation of the approach to listing and conservation planning since 2014. As discussed in Table 5.1, most recommendations from past evaluations and reviews have not yet been implemented. There is no schedule or plan for future evaluations.

Table 5.1: Outcomes of past evaluations

Note a: The department informed the ANAO that some aspects of the recommendations are now obsolete.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

5.17 The department has not completed most required yearly reviews of the operation and effectiveness of the CAM MoU, although it does discuss the operation and effectiveness of the CAM MoU as part of regular meetings with participating states and territories.⁹²

5.18 In the absence of formal evaluations and reviews, the TSSC and department periodically hold workshops to discuss elements of listing and conservation planning processes. These can be informal workshops held during TSSC meetings, or formal workshops with stakeholders that result in a report of the outcomes. The ANAO identified one workshop in 2018 and two in 2019 that resulted in a report, and two workshops in 2021 that did not result in a report. These workshops discussed topics such as ‘future directions for conservation planning’.

5.19 In addition, the department funds research projects under the National Environmental Science Program that may provide information that informs individual aspects of the listing process and conservation planning. Examples of relevant projects include ‘improving conservation assessments and policy options for poorly known species’ and ‘managing impacts of feral and over-abundant herbivores on threatened species and ecological communities’.

5.20 While these workshops and research projects can inform the approach to listing assessments and conservation planning, they do not provide a replacement for effective performance measurement, monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Without these things, the department is not well positioned to make informed decisions or demonstrate it is achieving intended outcomes.

Does monitoring and reporting inform the management of threatened species and ecological communities?

5.23 Effective monitoring and reporting allow progress to be tracked, trends to be identified and officials to make informed decisions. For the management of threatened species and ecological communities, this should include information about listing assessments and conservation plans, and about the status of threatened species and communities.

Listing assessments and conservation plans

5.24 Key information to inform the management of listing assessments and conservation plans includes progress on assessments and conservation plans, progress on broader initiatives, and trends in assessments and conservation plans.

Progress on assessments and conservation plans

5.25 To determine whether the department effectively monitors and reports on its progress on assessments and conservation plans, the ANAO examined the department’s internal and external monitoring and reporting arrangements.

Internal monitoring and reporting

5.26 The department tracks its progress on listing assessments and conservation plans under development in multiple spreadsheets. Some key information from these spreadsheets is incompletely or inconsistently recorded, such as when assessments were completed or when consultation occurred with states and territories. As noted in past Auditor-General reports, the use of spreadsheets to store key business information increases the risk of error, due to the lack of version controls and reporting.⁹³

5.27 Using these spreadsheets, the department manually compiles a progress report for each TSSC meeting (including an update on each assessment and conservation plan underway⁹⁴) and a weekly update on statutory decisions for relevant areas of the department.⁹⁵ With the June 2021 TSSC progress report containing 44 pages and more than 10,000 words, it is a time-consuming process to manually compile this information from multiple spreadsheets.

5.28 No other standard monitoring or reporting arrangements have been established for listing assessments and the development and implementation of conservation plans. There is no monitoring or reporting on effectiveness and efficiency, or aggregated output information such as resource use, cost or timeliness. The implementation status of most conservation plans is not currently monitored (paragraphs 3.82–3.86). This limits the department’s ability to make informed decisions about listing assessments and conservation planning.

5.29 The department has commenced a project to enable information systems to record and report on progress against assessments, scheduled to be completed by July 2022. Implementing this project will be an important step towards improving the effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring and reporting.

External reporting

5.30 The management of threatened species and ecological communities under the EPBC Act is a topic of parliamentary and public interest. External reporting on listing assessments and the development and implementation of conservation plans helps inform stakeholders about the Australian Government’s progress.

5.31 The EPBC Act requires the department to report each financial year on the operation of the EPBC Act, including the development of conservation plans and compliance with statutory timeframes. The department includes information in its annual report on listing assessments completed and conservation plans made. However, it has not fully met the requirement to report on non-compliance with statutory timeframes — despite being non-compliant with listing decision and recovery plan review timeframes each year since 2016–2017 (paragraphs 4.8 and 4.13), these were not included in the reported non-compliances.

5.32 The Australian Government is required to report periodically on its progress in implementing the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.⁹⁶ This takes the form of reporting against Australia’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan and against targets established under the convention.⁹⁷ While some of this reporting relates to threatened species and ecological communities, it does not specifically include listing assessments or the development and implementation of conservation advice, recovery plans or threat abatement plans.⁹⁸

5.33 The department publishes information on listed species on its website, including conservation plans and the outcomes of listing assessments.⁹⁹ Some key information is not published, including most reviews of recovery and threat abatement plans, and reviews of threat abatement plan decisions.¹⁰⁰ As the department does not record information on the implementation of most conservation plans (paragraph 3.82–3.85), this is also not published.

5.34 Publishing this information would better support transparency and public confidence in the management of threatened species and ecological communities under the EPBC Act.

Progress on plans and initiatives

5.35 The department has undertaken a range of broader initiatives that relate to or support the listing and conservation planning processes. Establishing agreed reporting schedules, and reporting in accordance with those schedules, provides assurance that initiatives are on track.

5.36 The department has not consistently established reporting schedules for projects and initiatives and has not met the reporting requirements of the CAM MoU (Table 5.2).

Table 5.2: Reporting against plans and initiatives

Legend: ◆ Reporting conducted in accordance with agreed schedule; ▲ No reporting schedule established, but reporting conducted; ■ Reporting not conducted or not conducted in accordance with schedule.

Note a: Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 10-point Bushfire Response Plan — One year review [Internet], 2021, available from https://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/10-point-bushfire-response-plan-one-year-review.pdf [accessed 21 October 2021].

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Identification of trends

5.37 As part of the assessment and conservation planning processes, the department collects standard information for each species and ecological community. This includes the underlying data from each listing assessment¹⁰¹, the threats affecting each assessed species and community, and the actions that would support their recovery. Systematically recording and reporting on this information would support the department to identify strategic priorities and trends.¹⁰²

5.38 The department’s information systems do not have the capability to store or report on this information, which is currently stored in individual listing and conservation planning documents. The department has commenced a project to enable its systems to store and report on data from listing assessments, though this does not include threats or conservation actions. This project is scheduled to be completed by July 2022.¹⁰³

Status of threatened species and ecological communities

5.39 Australia is required under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to monitor threatened species, threatened ecological communities and key threatening processes ‘as far as possible and as appropriate’. This monitoring is to occur through ‘sampling and other techniques’ and data obtained from this monitoring is required to be maintained and organised.

5.40 The department does not have a system to collect, maintain or monitor data on the status of threatened species, ecological communities or key threatening processes. As stated in the most recent State of the Environment Report under the EPBC Act, ‘the lack of effective monitoring and reporting has been raised in every jurisdictional report, and multiple other reports and papers as a major impediment to understanding the state and trends of Australian biodiversity’.¹⁰⁴

5.41 Some improvements have occurred for monitoring of species in recent years. This includes:

• the information in the threatened species index on 210 listed threatened species (see paragraphs 5.5–5.7); and
• the reporting against the 71 priority species in the Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020 (see paragraphs 5.10–5.12 and 5.52–5.53).

5.42 However, this monitoring does not include 1563 of the 1814 species listed as threatened (but not extinct), any ecological communities or any key threatening processes.¹⁰⁵ It is also reliant on information collected by other sources, which is often incomplete or unreliable.¹⁰⁶ In addition, the reporting on priority species under the threatened species strategy is not currently added to a database or organised for further use.

5.43 As part of the Threatened Species Strategy 2021–2030, the department has committed to ‘establish national monitoring programs for species identified as requiring activities to fill critical data and information gaps’, as well as ‘refine and promote a national standardised monitoring protocol and best practice guidelines for priority species and places’.¹⁰⁷

Does measurement and reporting indicate the management of threatened species and ecological communities is achieving desired outcomes?

5.44 The listing and planning provisions of the EPBC Act aim to contribute to the protection of threatened species and ecological communities, including by preventing extinction and promoting the recovery of threatened species. This is supported by the activities, plans and initiatives undertaken by the department, including listing assessments and the development of conservation plans, which have their own desired outcomes.

Status of species and ecological communities

5.45 As discussed in paragraphs 5.39–5.43, the department has not established measurement and reporting arrangements that provide complete and reliable information on the status of threatened species. The status of threatened ecological communities is not measured or monitored.

5.46 The information available on threatened species indicates that their status is deteriorating. The threatened species main index (see paragraphs 5.5–5.7) indicates that threatened species populations have declined around 60 per cent since the commencement of the EPBC Act in 2000 (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: Average change in threatened species population size (threatened species main index)

Source: University of Queensland, The Australian Threatened Species Index 2020 [Internet], available from https://tsx.org.au/tsx/#/ [accessed 13 November 2021].

Status of lists

5.47 The department and TSSC have established draft objectives for the list of threatened species, which include that it should be comprehensive (include all eligible Australian species) and current (reflect the current status of those species). The department has not established arrangements to determine whether the list of threatened species is comprehensive or current.

5.48 No objectives have been established for the lists of ecological communities and key threatening processes. In the absence of objectives, it is not possible to assess whether the lists of ecological communities and key threatening processes are achieving their intended outcomes.

Conservation plan objectives

5.49 The EPBC Act establishes objectives and purposes for conservation advice, recovery plans and threat abatement plans.

5.50 The department does not undertake coordinated monitoring or reporting of whether conservation plans are achieving their objectives (Table 5.4). The available reviews of recovery and threat abatement plans indicate that most objectives have not been fully achieved.

Table 5.3: Analysis of whether measurement and reporting indicates conservation plan objectives are being achieved

Note a: Most reviews of recovery plans have not assessed whether objectives were achieved (paragraph 3.51).

Note b: An example of an overall objective is ‘recovery of all populations to a position where they are stable’. Example secondary objectives are ‘maintain and improve the condition and extent of habitat’ and ‘increase community awareness, understanding and involvement’.

Note c: This is based on ANAO categorisation of the review.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Key plans and initiatives

5.51 The department has undertaken initiatives to improve its management of threated species and ecological communities under the EPBC Act. These include the Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020 and the alignment of the threatened species list with states and territories.

Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020

5.52 The Threatened Species Strategy 2015–2020 included targets grouped under five themes: tackling feral cats and their impacts, improving the trajectory of 20 threatened mammals by 2020, improving the trajectory of 20 threatened birds by 2020, protecting Australia’s plants, and improving recovery practices.

5.53 Four of the 13 targets for the final year of the strategy were met. The department reported that progress was made against the other nine, but they were not fully achieved (Table 5.5). Improved trajectory targets were met for 24 of 71 mammal, bird and plant species, compared to 15 species with declining trajectories and 26 without significant changes in their trajectories.

Table 5.4: Achievement of Threatened Species Strategy 2015–20 final year targets

Note a: One extra bird species was added as a priority species, beyond the originally planned 20 species.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment reporting.

Alignment of threatened species list with states and territories

5.54 The Common Assessment Method Memorandum of Understanding (CAM MoU) was established in 2015 to reduce misalignment and duplication between Australian Government and state and territory threatened species lists. It aimed to have all species listed in the same category by all governments within two years ‘or as soon as possible thereafter’. While progress has been made, this has not been achieved.

5.55 Figure 5.2 shows the number of species recorded by the department as being listed under the EPBC Act or by a state and territory government, and whether those species are listed in the same category by each government in whose territory they occur. Since the commencement of the CAM MoU in 2015, the proportion of species listed in the same category by each relevant government has increased from 13 to 20 per cent.

Figure 5.2: Alignment of lists of threatened species since 2015

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment data. This data does not include species that do not occur within states or territories (such as marine species). The department does not maintain records of state and territory occurrence for species not listed under the EPBC Act.

5.56 The CAM MoU also aimed to have arrangements (including legislative amendments) established to enable governments to recognise each other’s species listing outcomes within two years. While progress has been made by most governments, this has not yet been completed.

5.57 The Australian Government is not currently able to recognise species listing outcomes under one of the sub-criteria established in the common assessment method (this requires amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations; see paragraph 2.33). Three of eight states and territories have implemented arrangements allowing them to fully recognise species listing outcomes under the common assessment method (see Appendix 5).

Appendix 1 Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s response

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2 Improvements observed by the Australian National Audit Office

1. The existence of independent external audit, and the accompanying potential for scrutiny can promote improved performance. Improvements in administrative and management practices can occur in anticipation of ANAO audit activity; during an audit engagement; as interim findings are made; and/or after the audit has been completed and formal findings are communicated.

2. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) has encouraged the ANAO to consider ways in which the ANAO could capture and describe some of these impacts. The ANAO’s 2021–22 Corporate Plan states that the ANAO’s annual performance statements will provide a narrative that will consider, amongst other matters, analysis of key improvements made by entities during a performance audit process based on information included in tabled performance audit reports.

3. Performance audits involve close engagement between the ANAO and the audited entity as well as other stakeholders involved in the program or activity being audited. Throughout the audit engagement, the ANAO outlines to the entity the preliminary audit findings, conclusions, and potential audit recommendations. This ensures that final recommendations are appropriately targeted and encourages entities to take early remedial action on any identified matters during the course of an audit. Remedial actions entities may take during the audit include:

• strengthening governance arrangements;
• introducing or revising policies, strategies, guidelines or administrative processes; and
• initiating reviews or investigations.

4. In this context, the below actions were observed by the ANAO during the course of the audit. It is not clear whether these actions and/or the timing of these actions were planned in response to proposed or actual audit activity. The ANAO has not sought to obtain assurance over the source of these actions or whether they have been appropriately implemented.

Appendix 3 Alignment of threatened species funding programs with priority species

Appendix 4 Initiatives to improve the timeliness and efficiency of listing assessments and conservation advice

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.

Appendix 5 Arrangements established by governments to enable the common assessment method

Legend: ◆ Common assessment method fully adopted; ▲ Common assessment method partly adopted; ■ Common assessment method not yet adopted.

Source: ANAO based on Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment documents.