Australia Third National Report 1

30. 
    Has your country established suitable time bound and measurable national-level protected areas targets and indicators? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No (please specify reasons)
   

2. 
   No, but relevant work is under way
   

3. 
   Yes, some targets and indicators established (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, comprehensive targets and indicators established (please provide details below)
   

The National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001-2005 (NOTs) provide aspirational targets, guided by time lines, for biodiversity conservation (see especially targets 1-3 (native vegetation and terrestrial ecosystems, freshwater and marine and estuarine ecosystems) and 6 sustainable grazing and threatened native grasslands). (See More about the National Objectives and http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/objectives/chapter1.html.) For example, by 2004 a representative sample of each bioregion was to be protected within the National Reserve System or the network of Indigenous Protected Areas, or as private land managed for conservation, under a conservation agreement. Work continues to meet this target.

All jurisdictions in Australia have agreed to the development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) protected area system. This has been most recently endorsed in the cross-jurisdictional publication ‘Directions for the National Reserve System – A Partnership Approach’, (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Commonwealth of Australia, 2005). This document identifies national-level protected area targets, which are:

• 
  By 2010-2015 examples of at least 80% of the number of extant regional ecosystems in each bioregion to be represented in protected areas (comprehensiveness), and by 2010-2020 examples of at least 80% of the number of extant regional ecosystems in each sub-region to be represented in protected areas (representativeness).
  

In order to assess the extent of the National Reserve System and National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, the Department of the Environment and Heritage collates a database of protected areas named the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD). CAPAD, through the supply of spatial and attribute information, is a national dataset of all declared protected areas in Australia that have been allocated an IUCN category. Updates of the CAPAD dataset is undertaken biannually. CAPAD datasets were produced in 1997, 1999/2000 and 2002. CAPAD 2004 is in the process of being compiled. (see http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/index.html).

30. 
    Has your country taken action to establish or expand protected areas in any large or relatively unfragmented natural area or areas under high threat, including securing threatened species? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but relevant programmes are under development
   

3. 
   Yes, limited actions taken (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, significant actions taken (please provide details below)
   

• 
  aims to contain samples of all ecosystems identified at an appropriate regional scale;
  
• 
  aims to contain areas which are refugia or centres of species richness or endemicity;
  
• 
  consider the ecological requirements of rare or threatened species and rare or threatened ecological communities and ecosystems, in particular those listed in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and other State, Territory and local government legislation or policy instruments; and
  
• 
  takes account of special groups of organisms, e.g. species with specialised habitat requirements or wide - ranging or migratory species, or species vulnerable to threatening processes that may depend on reservation for their conservation.
  

In this context, priority for the establishment of new protected areas is being given to large, viable areas in high priority bioregions, and where this is not possible, establishing networks of protected areas to assist in viability of ecosystems. Guidance for selection of areas for inclusion in the national reserve system is found in ‘Australian Guidelines for Establishing the National Reserve System’ (Commonwealth of Australia, 1999); see:

30. 
    Has your country taken any action to address the under representation of marine and inland water ecosystems in the existing national or regional systems of protected areas? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   Not applicable
   

2. 
   No, but relevant actions are being considered
   

3. 
   Yes, limited actions taken (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, significant actions taken (please provide details below)
   

In the early 1990s Australian governments identified a need to protect representative examples of the full range of marine ecosystems and habitats in marine protected areas. They agreed to establish a CRA system of protected areas covering Australia's exclusive economic zone. The system aims to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine and estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect Australia's biological diversity at all levels.

All Australian jurisdictions are working together to set up a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) throughout the entire marine jurisdiction.

By the end of 2002 the NRSMPA covered approximately 64,600,000 hectares or 7% of Australia's marine jurisdiction, excluding the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT), and just just over 900,000,000 hectares including the AAT, in 192 reserves.

Since submission of the last national report in 2001, several new marine and coastal and freshwater reserves have been established. Those established as Ramsar listed sites are:

See also:

30. 
    Has your country identified and implemented practical steps for improving the integration of protected areas into broader land and seascapes, including policy, planning and other measures? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but some programmes are under development
   

3. 
   Yes, some steps identified and implemented (please provide details
   below)
   

4. 
   Yes, many steps identified and implemented (please provide details
   below)
   

A National Parks and Protected Area Management Committee has been established under the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. Its purpose is "to provide an inter-Governmental mechanism for identification and resolution of park and protected area management issues at a National level across Australia and New Zealand".

The Committee comprises representatives of each state and territory park service, the Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage and New Zealand's Department of Conservation. (See Agency Links). The Committee has a formal and structured benchmarking and best practice program, concentrating on the development of best practice models for protected area management. The Committee provides the mechanism for guiding protected areas managers on improved integration of reserve systems into the surrounding landscape.

A series of reports, each one dealing with a particular aspect of protected area management, has been prepared under the program. Details of completed reports and those underway are available on the Best Practice Reports page. See, for example the 1997 report on Stakeholder Management (Neighbour Relations) prepared by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

30. 
    Is your country applying environmental impact assessment guidelines to projects or plans for evaluating effects on protected areas? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   No, but relevant EIA guidelines are under development
   

2. 
   Yes, EIA guidelines are applied to some projects or plans (please
   provide details below)
   

3. 
   Yes, EIA guidelines are applied to all relevant projects or plans (please provide details below)
   

30. 
    Has your country identified legislative and institutional gaps and barriers that impede effective establishment and management of protected areas? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   No, but relevant work is under way
   

2. 
   Yes, some gaps and barriers identified (please provide details below))
   

3. 
   Yes, many gaps and barriers identified (please provide details below)
   

30. 
    Has your country undertaken national protected-area capacity needs assessments and established capacity building programmes? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but assessments are under way
   

3. 
   Yes, a basic assessment undertaken and some programmes established (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, a thorough assessment undertaken and comprehensive programmes established (please provide details below)
   

Australian governments at the national and regional level have agreed on the actions necessary to develop the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA). See the Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas: A Guide for Action by Australian Governments.

30. 
    Is your country implementing country-level sustainable financing plans that support national systems of protected areas? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but relevant plan is under development
   

3. 
   Yes, relevant plan is in place (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, relevant plan is being implemented (please provide details below)
   

30. 
    Is your country implementing appropriate methods, standards, criteria and indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas management and governance? (Decision VII/28)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but relevant methods, standards, criteria and indicators are under development
   

3. 
   Yes, some national methods, standards, criteria and indicators developed and in use (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, some national methods, standards, criteria and indicators developed and in use and some international methods, standards, criteria and indicators in use (please provide details below)
   

The Strategic Plan of Action for the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas provides guidance to all jurisdictions regarding the establishment of a nationally consistent performance assessment framework.

1. 
   outcomes and impacts of actions taken;
   
2. 
   contribution to the achievement of the goals of the Strategic Plan of the Convention;
   
3. 
   contribution to progress towards the 2010 target;
   
4. 
   progress in implementing national biodiversity strategies and action plans;
   
5. 
   contribution to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals;
   
6. 
   constraints encountered in implementation.
   

30. 
    Has your country identified alien species introduced into its territory and established a system for tracking the introduction of alien species?
    

30. 
    ◊ Has your country assessed the risks posed to ecosystems, habitats or species by the introduction of these alien species?
    

For Terrestrial IAS, see Target 6.1, and also GSPC Targets 2.1 and Question 10 above.

A comprehensive National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions is under development (see Target 6.1, www.daff.gov.au/invasivemarinespecies, and http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/imps/index.html for further information).

30. 
    ◊ Has your country undertaken measures to prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate, those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species?
    

30. 
    ◊ In dealing with the issue of invasive species, has your country developed, or involved itself in, mechanisms for international cooperation, including the exchange of best practices? (Decision V/8)
    

30. 
    ◊ Is your country using the ecosystem approach and precautionary and bio-geographical approaches as appropriate in its work on alien invasive species? (Decision V/8)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   Yes (please provide details below)
   

• 
  http://www.daff.gov.au/invasivemarinespecies
  
• 
  http://www.deh.gvo.au/coasts/imps/index.html
  
• 
  Environmental Biotechnology
  
• 
  Cooperative Research Centre for Pest Animal Control.
  
• 
  CSIRO - Entomology
  

30. 
    Has your country identified national needs and priorities for the implementation of the Guiding Principles? (Decision VI/23)⁶
    

The treatment of the precautionary approach in the current COP 6 Decision VI/23⁸ goes well beyond the definition agreed in Principle 15 of the UN Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The Rio definition was reaffirmed at Head of Government level at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa in 2002. Australia is not opposed to the exercise of precaution. In fact the The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 includes the text of Rio Principle 15.

The burden of proof provision in Principle 10 of the current VI/23 disputed text, which places the onus on the country of export, shifts the balance in WTO Members’ rights and obligations. Under the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures the country of import is required to base its measures on risk assessments. In cases where relevant scientific evidence is insufficient, the country of import may provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures on the basis of available pertinent information. In such circumstances, the importing country shall seek to obtain the additional information necessary for a more objective assessment of risk and review the measure within a reasonable period of time. The SPS Agreement also states that exporting countries claiming that areas within their territories are pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence shall provide the necessary evidence in order to objectively demonstrate to the importing country that such areas are, and are likely to remain, pest- or disease-free areas or areas of low pest or disease prevalence.

Australia is concerned that the characterisation of risk analysis, which includes “taking into account socio-economic and cultural considerations”, may be interpreted to undermine the scientific underpinnings of risk assessment and risk management processes as set out under international trade rules.

Australia, as a megadiverse island continent, recognizes only too well the threats invasive alien species pose and the importance of clear guidelines to assist Parties to prevent or mitigate their spread. Accordingly, Australia continues to work actively with interested Parties in order to resolve the substantive and procedural concerns relating to Decision VI/23⁹.

Australia’s work domestically in support of the environmental objectives of the CBD’s work on Invasive Alien Species can be found under Target 6.1, and also Targets 2.1 and 10 (GSPC) above, and inter alia, at the following sites:

National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity

30. 
    Has your country created mechanisms to coordinate national programmes for applying the Guiding Principles? (Decision VI/23¹⁰)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   No, but mechanisms are under development
   

2. 
   Yes, mechanisms are in place (please provide details below)
   

30. 
    Has your country reviewed relevant policies, legislation and institutions in the light of the Guiding Principles, and adjusted or developed policies, legislation and institutions? (Decision VI/23¹¹)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but review under way
   

3. 
   Yes, review completed and adjustment proposed (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, adjustment and development ongoing
   

5. 
   Yes, some adjustments and development completed (please provide details below)
   

30. 
    Is your country enhancing cooperation between various sectors in order to improve prevention, early detection, eradication and/or control of invasive alien species? (Decision VI/23¹²)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   No, but potential coordination mechanisms are under consideration
   

2. 
   Yes, mechanisms are in place (please provide details below)
   

See also Target 6.1 above and

• 
  National Weed Strategy
  
• 
  National Weed Assessment 2005
  
• 
  http://www.weeds.org.au/
  

• www.daff.gov.au/invasivemarinespecies

• www.deh.gov.au/coasts/imps/index.html

• National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity

30. 
    Is your country collaborating with trading partners and neighboring countries to address threats of invasive alien species to biodiversity in ecosystems that cross international boundaries? (Decision VI/23¹³)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   Yes, relevant collaborative programmes are under development
   

3. 
   Yes, relevant programmes are in place (please specify below the measures taken for this purpose)
   

Australia cooperates closely with the Governments of Papua New Guinea, East Timor and Indonesia on quarantine and invasive species matters of concern (See Target 6.1 above).

Australia also works very closely with New Zealand. Both countries are members of the Asia Pacific Invasive Species network, which is part of the Asia Pacific Forestry Commission. The two countries are also exploring joint biosecurity research and programs, mainly related to agriculture, but with potential benefit for management of threats by invasive species to biodiversity.

In 1994 the Australian Government opened the CSIRO European Laboratory on the Agropolis International Campus near Montpellier. This reflected the fact that many of Australia's pests and weeds are from the Mediterranean region, and that CSIRO has been researching bio-control agents for these species for decades. The CSIRO Division of Entomology manages the Laboratory.

30. 
    Is your country developing capacity to use risk assessment to address threats of invasive alien species to biodiversity and incorporate such methodologies in environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA)? (Decision VI/23¹⁴)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but programmes for this purpose are under development
   

3. 
   Yes, some activities for developing capacity in this field are being undertaken (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, comprehensive activities are being undertaken (please provide details below)
   

Risk assessment, quarantine and import controls

Under the EPBC Act a live species that does not appear on the list of specimens considered suitable for live import cannot be imported. Before a species can be added to this list it must undergo a rigorous assessment of its potential risk to the environment. A draft risk assessment report is prepared against agreed terms of reference. This report is put out for public comment and all comment must be addressed before the report is considered final. With the Bureau of Rural Sciences the Department of the Environment and Heritage has recently developed quantitative risk assessment models to assist in determining the potential environmental risk of a species proposed for import.

Under the EPBC Act, actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance are subject to a rigorous referral, assessment, and approval process. An action includes a project, development, undertaking, activity, or series of activities. The Act, inter alia, provides for: the identification of key threatening processes; protection of critical habitat; preparation of recovery plans and threat abatement plans; and the regulation of exports and imports of live animals and plants, wildlife specimens, and products made or derived from wildlife.

The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC) [1] has asked the National Land and Water Resources Audit to undertake, by 2006, a national assessment of the extent, impact and potential threats of weeds on Australia’s productivity and environment.

30. 
    Has your country developed financial measures and other policies and tools to promote activities to reduce the threats of invasive species? (Decision VI/23¹⁵)
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but relevant measures and policies are under development
   

3. 
   Yes, some measures, policies and tools are in place (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, comprehensive measures and tools are in place (please provide details below)
   

• Predation by the European red fox

• Predation by feral cats

• Competition and land degradation by feral goats

• Competition and land degradation by feral rabbits, and

• Predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs

Through the Natural Heritage Trust and the “Defeating the Weed Menace Program” (2004), the Australian Government is funding research and development, communication activities and on-ground actions to reduce the current and potential impacts of weeds. The Program emphasises prevention of new weed problems through improved quarantine and limiting and educating against the sale in Australia of weedy and potentially weedy plant species. An accelerated review of the plant seed importation list is underway and is due for completion in 2006.The Program encourages early identification and action on new weed problems, by ensuring coordinated management action and ongoing monitoring.

1. 
   outcomes and impacts of actions taken;
   
2. 
   contribution to the achievement of the goals of the Strategic Plan of the Convention;
   
3. 
   contribution to progress towards the 2010 target;
   
4. 
   progress in implementing national biodiversity strategies and action plans;
   
5. 
   contribution to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals;
   
6. 
   constraints encountered in implementation.
   

30. 
    Has your country created and developed capacity-building programmes to involve and enable smallholder farmers, indigenous and local communities, and other relevant stakeholders to effectively participate in decision-making processes related to genetic use restriction technologies?
    

1. 
   No
   

2. 
   No, but some programmes are under development
   

3. 
   Yes, some programmes are in place (please provide details below)
   

4. 
   Yes, comprehensive programmes are in place (please provide details below)
   

30. 
    Has your country supported indigenous and local communities in undertaking field studies to determine the status, trends and threats related to the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities? (Decision VII/16)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   No, but support to relevant studies is being considered
   

2. 
   Yes (please provide information on the studies undertaken)
   

30. 
    Has your country initiated a legal and institutional review of matters related to cultural, environmental and social impact assessment, with a view to incorporating the Akwé:Kon Guidelines into national legislation, policies, and procedures?
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   No, but review is under way
   

2. 
   Yes, a review undertaken (please provide details on the review)
   

30. 
    Has your country used the Akwé:Kon Guidelines in any project proposed to take place on sacred sites and/or land and waters traditionally occupied by indigenous and local communities? (Decision VII/16)
    

1. 
   No
   

1. 
   No, but a review of the Akwé: Kon guidelines is under way
   

2. 
   Yes, to some extent (please provide details below)
   

3. 
   Yes, to a significant extent (please provide details below)