Red Tape vs. Rescue: How Victoria’s Species Are Losing the Fight

 

It’s no secret our beautiful Australian biodiversity is struggling. Eco anxiety is rampant, and everything seems doom and gloom, but we can fix this if we stop wasting time splitting hairs and start working on real solutions, like rewilding our cleared land and leaving the remaining habitat alone. We just need so much more from the people in power! 

 

Who’s looking after the environment? 

Things need to be listed as threatened or endangered before anyone pays attention. 

Nationally we have the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) which lists threatened plants, animals, places, and ecosystems across Australia.

Here in Victoria, we also have the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). Once a species is on this watchlist, attention can be directed to threatening processes and conservation strategies employed to mitigate risk and improve chances of survival. 

Sounds great doesn’t it? Someone is keeping an eye on our wildlife and fixing their decline right? 

It’s certainly a good thing, and certainly a great start, but sadly, it’s not that comforting. 

 

The first hurdle: Getting a species listed 

There’s no magic or intuition behind the government just knowing a species or ecosystem is in trouble. Someone has to know the species exists in the first place, and notice a problem with it. With more than ‘tens of thousands of native plants and animals in Victoria’, who’s watching all of them?  

To get a species on the FFG Act watchlist, someone has to nominate the species with the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), who then decide if it meets certain criteria to be listed. The onus is on the nominee to provide evidence that the population is declining. 

The problem with this is obvious. 

How many of us who’ve noticed less bugs on our windscreen have tracked the abundance of them over decades? So it falls to researchers and organisations focusing on species or ecosystems and studying them over time or relying on someone else to have published research on them previously. Which we need! One researcher recently managed to get Fat-tailed Dunnarts listed through their PhD work, and explains the challenges in the system very clearly. We can’t do this for every species though. 

Determining population abundance and measuring declines is incredibly hard! Animals don’t have their own governments circulating census forms every 5 years to keep track of how many of them are still around – at least I don’t think they do.

Through this method of ‘safe until proven otherwise’, we end up with gaping holes and missed species. Researchers focusing on species of interest means we end up knowing a lot about some species and nothing about others. Reptiles and invertebrates are notoriously under-studied in the research world. We often find out there’s a problem when it’s too late to fix it.  

The logical thing here is to look broader. Is the habitat or ecosystem itself in trouble? Considering both National and Victorian State of the Environment reports indicate Australian habitat health is declining, and more than half of Victoria’s native vegetation has been cleared since colonisation, it’s a safer bet to assume the animals within them are struggling too. So then how are species being delisted from the FFG Act when the habitat that sustains them is still deteriorating? More on this later.

Here’s a radical idea – if the evidence stacks up that Australia’s environment is deteriorating, which it does, why not include all native species as vulnerable until proven otherwise? Why do we need to exhaust ourselves getting dingoes relabelled from wild dogs to natives to prevent their eradication, or collecting years of evidence proving that Murray-Darling carpet pythons are virtually non-existent in the wild when they’re clearly nowhere to be seen anymore? While we waste time, years go by and our environment gets worse, and species disappear. 

 

The next  hurdle: Doing something about it 

So we manage to provide evidence that a species is in trouble. It’s pretty clear that there are some common themes amongst threats amongst all listed species 

• Introduced foxes and cats 
• Clearing/destruction/fragmentation of habitat for agriculture, residential or commercial development 

These feature heavily in the causes of species declines on any list. 

Then someone has to actively do something about it. If it’s dire, and with enough pressure, governments may put on more advisory councils and task groups, to write more 300 page documents that get passed around for edits and approvals before being signed off. Then the battle begins with all the vested groups the recommendations impact; commercial developers; farmers; forestry loopholes; fisheries; hunters; landholders; members of the public opposed for whatever reason. 

More time goes by and not much changes, at least not enough to stop the trajectory. 

Often it’s conservation volunteers and private organisations that make big differences. Weeding, restoring habitat, monitoring nests, citizen science identifying protected species in a habitat so no one can destroy it, protesting, signing petitions, you name it! But this can all feel in vain when a new coal mine begins development despite dedicated groups set up to stop it, Traditional Owners outcries, and the site being one of the last remaining habitats of the so-called ‘protected’ Black-throated finch. 

In a perfect world the people managing the country should be making it easier for us to keep our biodiversity – I guess they’re too busy making new roads. 

But people-power is real and we really can still make a difference. We could just make more of a difference with the government on our side!  

 

The nail in the coffin: Dropping off the list too soon, or not getting on the list until it’s too late!

So after we get a species listed, spend more time and money working on Threat Abatement Plans and Recovery Plans, finding groups that will try to manage the threats and implement the advice (if any of that is done at all), we still have to fight to keep it on the list, even when the threat isn’t over. 

In June this year (2024), the Hardhead duck was delisted, meaning its status was changed from Vulnerable to not included at all. Being a popular game duck, The Sports Shooting Association submitted the nomination to the SAC so that it could once again be fair game.

The rationale given for its removal was that it no longer met any of the criteria needed to stay on the list. 

 

Let’s look at these criteria a little more. 

Criterion A – Population size reduction.

The report showed it hasn’t declined in the last three generations of birds. Great! It hasn’t increased either, but we won’t worry about that. 

It’s murky waters though. The 2023 Eastern Australian Waterbird survey shows that five of the eight game duck species were showing long-term decline (Hardhead had no trend), and the wetlands of the Murray-Darling showed an overall decrease of species. Total waterbird abundance trends were declining. 

Criterion B – Geographic range (Extent of Occurrence and Area of Occupancy).

It inhabits a great range over a decent distance. Great news for a species! 

Criterion C – Small population size and decline

This gets even murkier. The report gives 2021 estimates showing a 90% chance there are somewhere between 15,800 and 51,900 of these birds in Victoria. The report admits that ‘Counts for Hardhead were too few for robust analysis in 2022’ and 2023 data wasn’t available at the time of writing the decision. The 2023 Eastern Australian Waterbird survey estimated 13,769 birds across the East of Australia.  

But it gets even more confusing. In the same document reasoning why it’s no longer under the FFG watchlist, it states very clearly that harvesting at the higher number of recorded shootings (30,000 ducks per year), “could pose a significant threat to the Hardhead population in the future if coupled with the predicted ongoing threats related to wetland habitat reduction.” 

The Hardhead is a local resident of the Murray-Darling wetlands, a particularly vulnerable habitat, and utilises other wetlands as well. So guess what, it IS coupled with the ongoing threats, wetland habitats are STILL deteriorating, as are most Victorian habitats. 

The Victorian State of Environment Report 2023 measured and reported the following biodiversity issues: 

 

 

Think that covers most of Victoria’s habitat types, maybe healthlands are doing ok. What about the species within them? 

 

The State of the Environment report acknowledges that there is a lack of biodiversity monitoring, and gaps in our knowledge in so many areas. It’s not surprising when we’re relying on needing to count every animal and study every square inch of the state to determine whether something needs attention. Another radical, albeit incredibly simplistic, idea – we have the evidence! Every habitat is struggling! Just start fixing ecosystems and stop wasting time on paperwork!

Back to the report on why the Hardhead was delisted. It states that it’s likely habitat destruction that’s more of a threat than hunting. Hunting a species whose threat of habitat loss is still a major issue will probably negatively affect the population though. Doubling the threats doesn’t seem like it will help the population out much. Nearly 320,000 ducks were harvested in 2023 across the six duck species allowed to be hunted then. Now we can add Hardheads back on that list. It’s worth noting that ducks wounded and left to die, or abandoned eggs and juveniles from their parents being killed, aren’t counted in these numbers, but travelling veterinarians and wildlife carers in the field see these first hand. 

They’ll put caps on the number of Hardheads permitted to be bagged of course, which puts a lot of responsibility on the hunter to reliably identify a particular duck species mid-flight, a feat for even the expert birders amongst us. 

 

Criterion D – Very small or restricted population

Lots of hopeful assumptions in this one. ‘The Hardhead population in Victoria may experience a ‘rescue effect’ from interstate populations (none of which are considered threatened under relevant state legislation), and immigration will likely decrease the extinction risk within Victoria.’ Reads to me like, look, there’s more of them outside Victoria, surely they’ll just fly in and replace the Vic ones when they die out.

 

Criterion E – Quantitative analysis

 ‘There is no population viability analysis available to provide evidence for this criterion.’ Paraphrasing, but this one reads a bit like ‘no one’s studied this so we have no idea.’ 

 

Don’t get me wrong, a species being delisted is incredible news! That’s what we’re hoping for, that the threats have gone and the species is stable. Given the ongoing rate of extinction and deteriorating ecosystems, this system just doesn’t seem to be working. Delisting a species whose main threat of habitat loss is still a problem is concerning. Using the example of the Hardhead, someone now has to watch the species, and fight to get it re-listed if it starts disappearing, spending more time and energy re-doing something that was already done. 

 

We do need lists like the FFG, EPBC and IUCN. We just also need them to not be checkboxes and platitudes. We need real, tangible actions. Getting a species listed isn’t the priority and shouldn’t be the sole driver for protection. As long as our governments are supporting unsustainable and unethical practices that destroy habitats and remove animals from ecosystems, and we as individuals encourage a demand for these, our wildlife doesn’t stand a chance. 

We need to stop wasting time on paperwork, cognitive dissonance, and litigious loopholes and fight for our biodiversity now.