Protecting Migratory Species in the Australian Marine Environment: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Policy and Management Plans

Abstract

Marine migratory species are difficult to manage because animal movements can span large areas and are unconstrained by jurisdictional boundaries. We reviewed policy and management plans associated with four case studies protected under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999) in order to identify the coherence of policy and management plans for managing marine migratory species in Australia. Environmental policies (n = 23) and management plans (n = 115) relevant to marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and migratory shorebirds were reviewed. Few of the reviewed policies (n = 7) listed protected species and even fewer (n = 4) listed protected marine migratory species. Marine turtles were most represented in the reviewed policies (n = 7), while migratory shorebirds were most represented in management plans (n = 59). Policies and management plans were much more likely to identify relationships to other policies or plans within the same jurisdiction than to different jurisdictions. The EPBC Act 1999 served as the central link between reviewed policies and plans, but the requirements of that Act were weakly integrated into the other documents. This weak integration and the biases toward specific migratory species in environmental policies and management plans are detrimental to the conservation of these Matters of National Environmental Significance in Australia. Any changes to the EPBC Act 1999 will affect all environmental policy and management plans in Australia and highlights a need for cooperative, multi-level governance of migratory species. Our findings may have relevance to the conservation of marine migratory species in a broader international context.

A framework for improving the cross‐jurisdictional governance of a marine migratory species

“…Policy instruments protecting marine migratory species in Australia are rarely explicitly connected to other governance levels (Miller et al, 2018), but harmonization and collaboration may be achieved through the actions of a multijurisdictional steering group comprised of diverse stakeholder agencies (Figure 2). However, this does not mean that governance arrangements are necessarily harmonized.…”

“…Marine turtles in Australia provide a good case study for collaborative governance because they highlight strengths and weaknesses in a relatively well-developed natural resource governance regime. Policy instruments protecting marine migratory species in Australia are rarely explicitly connected to other governance levels (Miller et al, 2018), but harmonization and collaboration may be achieved through the actions of a multijurisdictional steering group comprised of diverse stakeholder agencies (Figure 2). While an "umbrella" plan, like the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2017 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017a), can be beneficial, a distinct steering group (or recovery team) may improve the effectiveness and delivery of the plan (Figure 2; Commonwealth of Australia, 2017b).…”

“…Managing marine migratory species should involve harmonized, multijurisdictional collaborative decision-making processes that incorporate both biological and social values for mitigating threats towards species across their range (Meek et al, 2011;Miller et al, 2018). Several management frameworks exist for collaboratively addressing cross-scale environmental management issues in social-ecological systems (e.g., Folke et al, 2005;Garmestani & Benson, 2013;Jones, 2005;Jones, 2009;Williams, 2011).…”

“…We then applied our new framework ( Figure 2; Table S1 in Supporting Information) to the plans. We first analyzed each plan for explicit (plainly written and identifiable) statements (Miller et al, 2018;Ortega-Argueta, Baxter, & Hockings, 2011) describing collaborative governance. We then expanded our analysis to include implicit components based on interview responses from respondents who helped with the development of the Plan.…”

“…The movements of marine migratory species are not constrained by political or jurisdictional boundaries (Boersma & Parrish, 1999;Hooker & Gerber, 2004). As such, they may move between protected and nonprotected waters on their migrations (Lascelles et al, 2014;Pendoley, Schofield, Whittock, Ierodiaconou, & Hays, 2014), making it difficult to manage threats appropriately (Miller, Marsh, Cottrell, & Hamann, 2018). Thus, meaningful, cross-scale stakeholder engagement would benefit the overall environmental governance system protecting marine migratory species in Australia.…”