Threatened species listing as a trigger for conservation action

Farrier, David; Whelan, Robert J.; Mooney, Carla

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.12.001

Cited by 45 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is known that listed threatened species are more likely to receive management and investment than species that are not listed (Shields, 2004;Farrier et al, 2007), often with greater beneficial outcomes if there is substantial investment (Taylor et al, 2005;Ferraro et al, 2007). Another potential consequence of these taxonomic biases is that entire phylogenies of less charismatic species may miss out on conservation resources and management planning for recovery at a global scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The important factors contributing to cost-effective conservation strategies, such as genuine threat status, recovery potential and the cost and likelihood of success of conservation actions (Harvey et al, 2002;Farrier et al, 2007), are not incorporated into this approach. Inefficient and biased allocation of conservation efforts prevents debates about the adequacy of funds available for conservation and about how more efficient solutions could otherwise be achieved (Bottrill et al, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Biases in listing towards charismatic species may influence where investments are allocated for conservation actions (Farrier et al, 2007) and ignore other species that may have greater ecological importance or recovery potential if protected. Another possible implication of a biased listing and planning process is an inability to assess accurately overall biodiversity improvements or declines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study

Walsh

Watson

Bottrill

et al. 2012

Oryx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many countries rely on formal legislation to protect and plan for the recovery of threatened species. Even though the listing procedures in threatened species legislation are designed to be consistent for all species there is usually a bias in implementing the laws towards charismatic fauna and flora, which leads to uneven allocation of conservation efforts. However, the extent of bias in national threatened species lists is often unknown. Australia is a good example: the list of threatened species under the Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act has not been reviewed since 2000, when it was first introduced. We assessed how well this Act represents threatened species across taxonomic groups and threat status, and whether biases exist in the types of species with recovery plans. We found that birds, amphibians and mammals have high levels of threatened species (12-24%) but , 6% of all reptiles and plants and , 0.01% of invertebrates and fish are considered threatened. Similar taxonomic biases are present in the types of species with recovery plans. Although there have been recent improvements in the representation of threatened species with recovery plans across taxonomic groups, there are still major gaps between the predicted and listed numbers of threatened species. Because of biases in the listing and recovery planning processes many threatened species may receive little attention regardless of their potential for recovery: a lost opportunity to achieve the greatest conservation impact possible. The Environmental Protection and Biological Conservation Act in Australia needs reform to rectify these biases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study

Walsh

Watson

Bottrill

et al. 2012

Oryx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Australia is a signatory party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and each party is required to develop and implement national environmental and biodiversity policies under Article 6 of that convention (Australian Government: UN Convention on Biological Diversity). Australia has fulfilled this obligation through the enactment of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999, Australian Government, 1999;Farrier et al, 2007), which is designed to protect nationally important flora, fauna, and environments while protecting Australia's socioeconomic needs (EPBC Act 1999). The EPBC Act regulations include a list of threatened species, based on criteria broadly similar to those of the IUCN Red List, and of migratory species, based on species listed on both Appendix I & Appendix II of the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS), the Japan-Australia (JAMBA), China-Australia (CAMBA), and the Republic of Korea-Australia (ROKAMBA) Migratory Bird Agreements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Despite published recommendations (Miller et al 2007, Rodríguez 2008, several points of confusion persist in the use of RLTSs (e.g. RLTSs used directly as a list of protected species or as a template to establish conservation priorities), which hampers both the production and use of RLTSs for conservation (Possingham et al 2002, Farrier et al 2007, Martín-López et al 2011.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National and subnational Red Lists in European and Mediterranean countries: current state and use for conservation

Azam¹,

Gigot²,

Witté³

et al. 2016

Endang. Species. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Threatened species listing as a trigger for conservation action

Cited by 45 publications

References 9 publications

Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study

Trends and biases in the listing and recovery planning for threatened species: an Australian case study

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

National and subnational Red Lists in European and Mediterranean countries: current state and use for conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About