caring for our country
Achievements Report
BIODIVERSITY AND NATURAL ICONS
2008 –2013
Biodiversity and Natural Icons
Actions have been taken to improve the protection of our biodiversity and natural
icons, including World Heritage areas, by tackling weeds and pest animals and
improving habitat of nationally threatened species and communities.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Outcome 1
By 2013, Caring for our Country will increase, by at least one million hectares, the area of native
habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance
the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes. This is additional to the
125 million hectares that is to be protected within the National Reserve System
Case study: Linking farm management and biodiversity, Tasmania
Case study: Understanding and managing critical refugia in the arid lands of central-north Australia
Case study: Woodland birds for biodiversity—protecting and restoring critical habitat,
south-eastern Australia
Case study: The Blackberry Buffer Zone, Western Australia
The Environmental Stewardship Program
Case study: Regenerating native grasses in Yass, New South Wales
Case study: Communities in landscapes—box gum grassy woodlands, National
Outcome 2
By 2013, Caring for our Country will reduce the impact of invasive species
Eradicating rabbits and rodents on Macquarie Island, Tasmania
Reducing the southern and westward migration of cane toads
Eradicating and preventing the spread of tramp ants across Australia
Case study: National Electric Ant Eradication Program
Case study: Yellow crazy ants on Christmas Island
Reducing the impact of vertebrate pest animals
Protecting biodiversity from the impact of feral camels in northern and remote Australia
Case study: Australian Feral Camel Management Project, Queensland, Northern Territory,
Western Australia and South Australia
Reducing the impact of exotic rodents on small islands
Lord Howe Island rodent eradication project, New South Wales
Reducing exotic rodents on small islands in Western Australia
Reducing the impact of rabbits across Australia
Case study: Reducing the impact of exotic rodents on small islands in Western Australia
National management of the impacts of Weeds of National Significance
Outcome 3
By 2013, Caring for our Country will secure management arrangements for all World Heritage
areas that meet the requirements of the World Heritage Convention
Management arrangements for the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage area
Management arrangements for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area
Outcome 4
By 2013, Caring for our Country will improve the protection and management of Ningaloo Reef
Outcome 5
By 2013, Caring for our Country will maintain viable Tasmanian Devil populations
Case study: Investing in information products to improve biodiversity management
Continuing to protect Australia’s biodiversity—Phase II Caring for our Country 2013–2018
References
Introduction
Australia’s environment plays an important part in the lives of all Australians and contains unique and diverse flora and
fauna. The healthy functioning of Australia’s environment relies on having diverse ecosystems. Biodiversity and natural
landscapes face threats from habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution and climate change. These threats need to be
systematically addressed to preserve our biodiversity. Caring for our Country invested in targeted activities to protect
national icons and biodiversity. Funded activities focused on improving outcomes for nationally threatened species and
ecological communities, enhancing habitat condition and connectivity and strengthening ecological resistance to climate
change and other pressures. Strategies included ensuring appropriate landscape-scale planning was in place; expanding
and improving the management of Australia’s protected areas, such as around National Reserves and World Heritage and
National Heritage places; and reducing the impact of weeds and pest animals.
A number of strategic outcomes and long-term projections guided Caring for our Country investments in the protection of
biodiversity and natural icons:

increase, by at least one million hectares, the area of native habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce
critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance the condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes.
This is additional to the 125 million hectares that is to be protected within the National Reserve System.

To reduce the impact of invasive species:
o
rabbits and rodents on Macquarie Island (Tasmania)
o
the southern and westward migration of cane toads (Bufo marinus)
o
tramp ants and camels in at least one priority area
o
in at least four other priority areas to be defined through the annual Caring for our Country business
plans.

To secure management arrangements for all World Heritage areas that meet the requirements of the World
Heritage Convention.

To improve the protection and management of Ningaloo Reef.

To maintain viable Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) populations.
Due to the integrated and cross-cutting nature of the Caring for our Country initiative, many projects that contributed to
biodiversity and natural icons outcomes also delivered outcomes in other national priority areas—for example, sustainable
farm practices; community skills, knowledge and engagement; and northern and remote Australia national priority areas. An
important aspect of these projects was working in partnership with communities and land managers, providing information,
skills and incentives to adopt sustainable land management practices that supported biodiversity conservation. While there
were significant successes in the first phase of Caring for our Country, the Australian Government is committed to continue
funding strategic activities that reduce ongoing pressures on biodiversity and protected areas.
Outcome 1
By 2013, Caring for our Country will increase, by at least one million hectares, the area of native
habitat and vegetation that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance the
condition, connectivity and resilience of habitats and landscapes. This is additional to the
125 million hectares that is to be protected within the National Reserve System.
Increasing the area of well-managed native habitat and vegetation is an important step towards protecting Australia’s
native plants and animals. Improving the management of native habitats and vegetation will also maintain and build a
healthy, diverse and resilient environment that can absorb shocks such as increasing climate variability.
Caring for our Country prioritised projects that would lead to improving the resilience and connectivity within the landscape.
Up to 570 000 species are estimated in Australian habitats and depend on ecosystems for survival (Chapman 2009). Many
of these species, and the ecological communities in which they live, are now threatened. Since European settlement, native
habitats and vegetation have been degraded as rapid changes and threats have disrupted key ecosystem functions and
processes. Addressing critical threats is essential for better management.
Critical threats to biodiversity are likely to be exacerbated by climate change and include fragmentation of native vegetation,
ecologically unsustainable land uses, weeds, introduced pests and inappropriate fire regimes.
Caring for our Country supported projects that increased better management and reduced critical threats to biodiversity.
These projects included improving connectivity of habitats and native vegetation, employing sustainable land and grazing
practices, reducing the impact of weeds and invasive species and establishing appropriate fire regimes.
Caring for our Country investments helped to ensure that native habitat and vegetation continue to deliver the essential
ecological functions that support Australia’s ecosystems.
From July 2008 to June 2012, Caring for our Country invested in over 1562 projects that contributed to increasing the area
of well-managed native habitat and vegetation. Up to June 2012, over 10.5 million hectares of land were subject to
improved management practices. This exceeded the target requirement, which was to increase the area by at least one
million hectares.
These investments complemented the conservation objectives of the National Reserve System, such as developing
native vegetation buffers on land surrounding the properties. Projects focused on landscape-scale efforts across natural
areas and agricultural lands to help manage and restore native habitat.
Funding agreements to manage more than 58 000 hectares of nationally threatened ecological communities were signed
by private land managers under the Environmental Stewardship Program. Surveys by the Australian National University
have identified threatened species on a number of these sites.
Linking farm management and biodiversity, Tasmania
Caring for our Country supported practical solutions to increase farm sustainability and enhance biodiversity on private
properties on Bruny Island, off the south-east coast of Tasmania. Environmental conservation needed to be balanced with
the requirements of landholders and primary production. A particular focus of the project was enhancing the habitat of the
endangered forty-spotted pardalote (Pardalotus quadragintus), one of Tasmania’s most endangered birds, with a total
population of approximately 1000. The project provided landholders with decision-making tools to prioritise on-ground
works and resources and advice to tackle common issues. On-ground works aimed to increase the area, connectivity and
resilience of white gum habitat by engaging landholders and community groups to undertake revegetation, fencing and
other activities to enhance natural regeneration.
The project brought together landholders and the broader community to work cooperatively on land management issues.
Community knowledge, skills and engagement were increased through holding workshops on seed collection and plant
propagation, producing awareness-raising materials and supporting volunteer and school groups to grow plants and
undertake revegetation activities. By the completion of the project in April 2011, it had rehabilitated and increased the area,
connectivity and resilience of habitat for the forty-spotted pardalote.
Caring for our Country funded various projects that aimed to improve the condition of native habitat and vegetation. The
condition of native vegetation refers to the level of ‘health’ of vegetation. It can be a major indicator of the capacity of
ecosystems to produce goods and services. The condition of native vegetation may be assessed from a number of
perspectives (e.g. vegetation structure, plant species composition, ecological functionality) using many attributes
(e.g. degree of tree crown dieback, presence of weeds, provision of quality habitat for threatened animals).
It can take many years to detect noticeable and enduring changes in vegetation condition. Vegetation condition is also
affected by variables such as climate. While many Caring for our Country projects resulted in substantial improvements in
condition, some proponents acknowledged that it was too early to determine if vegetation condition had changed as a result
of on-ground works.
Connections between habitats are important for native species and to enable ecological processes. In fragmented
landscapes, connectivity is most likely to occur where there are a series of habitats close together, like ‘stepping stones’.
Many Caring for our Country projects aimed to enhance connectivity through activities such as linking remnant vegetation
patches through revegetation, ensuring distances between patches of vegetation would support threatened species or
ecological communities and improving land management practices such as grazing regimes. Some projects identified the
structural habitat requirements for specific species and then focused on expanding or connecting remnant vegetation.
Enhancing resilience of native habitat and vegetation was another priority of the Caring for our Country initiative. A resilient
ecosystem is able to withstand shocks and rebuild itself when necessary. Activities which supported resilience-building were
revegetation, increasing the skills and knowledge of land managers, reducing critical threats to biodiversity, establishing
buffer zones around remnant native vegetation and enhancing the condition of ecosystems.
Natural disasters often have devastating impacts on threatened species and their habitat and it is important to increase
their ability to recover from changes to the environment.
Understanding and managing critical refugia in the arid
lands of central-north Australia
The South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board received funding from Caring for our Country to
assess the importance of a range of waterholes and springs as drought refuges and to address threats to those areas. Key
threats were grazing and recreational overuse. The highest priority waterholes for restoration were those that were deepest
and had high-quality riparian vegetation with significant connectivity value.
The proponents also documented baseline information, surveyed fish populations, mapped permanent waterholes and
piloted a property management planning process called ‘Ecological Management Understanding’, which has now been
adopted for the whole arid lands region in South Australia. By identifying and protecting priority waterholes and springs, the
project contributed to a greater understanding of the functioning and resilience of this landscape in response to drought
conditions.
Woodland birds for biodiversity—protecting and restoring
critical habitat, south-eastern Australia
BirdLife Australia worked with landowners and other organisations across south-eastern Australia to place covenants on
private land with a focus on protecting critical habitat for woodland birds. Over 80 per cent of Australian temperate
woodlands have been cleared and one in five woodland birds are listed as threatened.
The proponent identified areas of highest-priority habitat for threatened and declining woodland birds. By providing incentive
payments to landholders to covenant their land and to achieve fencing, habitat restoration, weed management and the
reduction of other critical threats, the project has resulted in over 2200 hectares being protected in perpetuity since 2010.
After the devastation caused by cyclone Yasi in far north Queensland, Caring for our Country funded the delivery of actions
aimed at building resilience for the endangered cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii) and mahogany glider (Petaurus
gracilis). Terrain Natural Resource Management (NRM) worked with local landholders, Indigenous rangers, the rural fire
service and local schools and community groups to undertake on-ground works. After the cyclone, highly invasive weeds
became quickly established in disturbed areas of woodlands and littoral rainforest habitats. For cassowaries and mahogany
gliders, this affected their habitat, disrupting their ability to move through the woodlands and rainforest environments, and
added to the burden of habitat loss and fragmentation already impacting on these endangered species.
Terrain NRM provided support to landowners to identify and rehabilitate wildlife corridors, undertake burning in woodland
areas, remove barbed wire and protect paddock trees to help the mahogany glider to move safely and access food and
tree hollows. Areas of damaged littoral rainforest were revegetated and feral pig and weed control was undertaken at
Mission Beach to restore cassowary habitat. Indigenous rangers were trained to monitor mahogany glider populations with
camera traps, which will provide ongoing information on the legacy of this project. The project provided landholders with
practical skills and support to have positive effects on agricultural productivity and biodiversity, improving habitat and
contributing to the long-term social and landscape resilience of the wet tropics.
The Blackberry Buffer Zone, Western Australia
The Blackberry Buffer Zone project in Western Australia established a 100-kilometre containment line from the coast north of
Bunbury to the town of Darkan to prevent the southward spread of the American blackberry (Rubus laudatus). Caring for our
Country provided funding to the project, which was led by the South West Catchments Council with contributions from other
partners such as the Lescenault Catchments Council, industry and the WA Department of Agriculture and Food. Invasive
blackberry species degrade the natural environment and biodiversity and reduce the productivity of agricultural land, as well
as restricting access to land and water, harbouring vermin and creating fire hazards. The project proponents adopted a
coordinated approach when consulting with landowners to identify American blackberry and engage contractors to spray
infestations, primarily on private property and river reserves. More recently, revegetation commenced on a number of
riparian sites where blackberry was eradicated to strengthen the resilience of those sites to reinfestation. The project treated
the weed, with a greater than 95 per cent kill rate in nearly all infestations after the first year of treatment. An online
database tool was developed for monitoring the sites and planning future treatment and rehabilitation work to strengthen
ecosystem resilience to reinvasion. A 2011 review determined that the project successfully prevented the southward spread
of American blackberry. These achievements were recognised when the project won the 2012 Western Australia State
Environmental Award for Biodiversity Conservation. Targeted surveillance of river systems to the south of the buffer zone
will continue to ensure that the American blackberry has not spread outside of the buffer zone.
The Environmental Stewardship Program
The Environmental Stewardship Program was announced in 2007 and contracted private land managers to undertake longterm management and protection of a range of nationally threatened ecological communities listed under the Environmental
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). It was designed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity by
enhancing the condition and resilience of habitats and landscapes through land management techniques, developed in
consultation with science researchers and land managers. Funding was provided to eligible private land managers to
undertake management activities to maintain and improve the condition and extent of Matters of National Environmental
Significance as listed under the EPBC Act. The Environmental Stewardship Program targeted private sector land managers,
who control about 77 per cent of Australian land, seeking active participation to help achieve environmental outcomes. The
program employed the best available information to assess biodiversity values, conditions, trends and threatening processes
to support the systematic appraisal of biodiversity in regions.
The Environmental Stewardship Program aims to:

increase the viability and integrity of, and buffers to, high-quality remnants of ecological communities and habitats
that support species listed under the EPBC Act

improve the long-term protection of species and ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act

improve habitat condition across the landscape

improve the condition and function of ecological communities and habitats that support species listed under the
EPBC Act

create enduring changes in land manager attitudes and behaviours towards environmental protection and
sustainable land management practices

increase awareness and adoption of market-based mechanisms for environmental-based funding.
Since 2008, seven market-based competitive funding rounds were conducted in New South Wales, Queensland and South
Australia. There were nine discretionary short-term funded projects nationally and in Tasmania, Western Australia, New
South Wales, South Australia and Victoria approved under the program. This has resulted in the management of up to
58 000 hectares of threatened ecological communities on private land. The program encouraged long-term conservation
outcomes by negotiating contracts with land managers for up to 15 years and prioritising applications that committed to
placing a covenant in perpetuity over the managed area.
While the program initially focused on the critically endangered box gum grassy woodlands across south-east Australia, it
expanded to target multiple ecological communities in 2010. Other ecological communities targeted in areas of Queensland
and New South Wales were critically endangered natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains and
endangered weeping myall woodland. In South Australia, the critically endangered peppermint box grassy woodland and
critically endangered iron-grass natural temperate grasslands were prioritised for protection.
Regenerating native grasses in Yass, New South Wales
With funding from the Environmental Stewardship Program, Brian and Anna Binning enthusiastically implemented
stewardship land management practices on their property near Yass in New South Wales. Their practices promoted
regeneration of native grasses and flowers, which has improved overall biodiversity and resulted in an increase in
invertebrates and birds on their land.
Brian and Anna’s active stewardship of their property controlled exotic plant pests such as serrated tussock (Nassella
trichotoma), Paterson’s curse (Echium plantagineum), scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) and skeleton weed (Chondrilla
juncea). When combined with no stock grazing in the first year, weed control encouraged native grass and flower growth.
Strategic grazing in later years and active control of biomass helped native plants to grow and expand, leading to good
ground cover and eucalypt growth across the site and a predominance of native grasses. Fencing to protect eucalypt
regeneration areas from grazing stock and two good seasons in succession encouraged the recovery of mature eucalypts
and the growth of kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra).
Brian and Anna fenced off and directly seeded a strip of land alongside an existing vegetated laneway and report that this
laneway provides a connecting corridor for the vulnerable superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) and several other endangered
bird species. The CSIRO is conducting a pilot project on the property to monitor the population and diversity of invertebrates.
Changes to land management can take several years to impact on the landscape or species distribution. However, there is
already evidence that environmental stewardship practices are having positive outcomes for biodiversity.
In 2010, Caring for our Country funded the Australian National University to commence a large-scale monitoring project of
the effectiveness of investments in box gum grassy woodlands. Long-term monitoring plots were established at
153 contracted sites, most of which had paired control sites (Lindenmayer et al. 2012).
A baseline survey revealed that several threatened species of birds, reptiles and vegetation were present in the managed
sites, highlighting the importance of maintaining and improving remnant sites. Since the original baseline survey, vegetation
monitoring has revealed there was significantly more regeneration of over-storey species and plant species richness on
funded sites compared with control sites. Diversity in bird species was also significantly richer at stewardship sites,
suggesting that management actions being undertaken by contracted land managers are contributing to an improvement in
habitat regeneration and biodiversity (Lindenmayer DB et al. 2012).
Communities in landscapes—box gum grassy woodlands,
National
The Communities in Landscapes project was a Caring for our Country funded initiative that aimed to increase native habitat
and achieve landscape-scale conservation across white box-yellow box-Blakely’s red gum grassy woodland and derived
native grassland (box gum woodlands). These woodlands are critically endangered at a national level under the EPBC Act.
The area of the project spread across three NRM regions in New South Wales (Central West, Murrumbidgee and Lachlan
Catchment Management).
The project, led by Landcare NSW, was designed to bring together the main agencies involved in the conservation and
management of box gum woodlands, including the Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Network, Office of
Environment and Heritage (Threatened Species Unit and National Parks and Wildlife Service), NSW Department of Primary
Industries, University of Sydney, Greening Australia, CSIRO, STIPA Native Grasses Association, Birds Australia and the
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This partnership approach essentially provided landholders and community groups involved in
the project with a ‘one-stop shop’ for information and management support for box gum woodlands.
The project provided efficient access to capacity-building activities, site-based information services, cross-property
conservation planning, demonstration sites and monitoring and evaluation. Communities in Landscapes supported the
establishment of six cross-property conservation planning groups involving 60 landholders and covering 62 000 hectares.
Landholders developed individual whole-farm plans as well as cross-property plans for their local landscapes focusing on
biodiversity connectivity. Identified actions included changing grazing management, strategic planting of trees and shrubs
and improving the habitat quality of dams and watercourses. For example, within the Dananbilla—Illunie group, mixed tree
and shrub plantings (6000 tubestock over 10 000 hectares) were undertaken by 11 landholders focusing on restoration of
scattered paddock trees and shrub groves into corridor zones.
A further 66 individuals, community groups and local councils were engaged in Communities in Landscapes through Small
Community Grants. Outcomes from the small grants included revegetation and remnant protection projects; a range of training
events, workshops, field trips and educational resources; development of seed banks; and construction and installation of
nesting boxes for woodland birds. In addition, training events, workshops, woodland awareness and demonstration property
field days attracted landholders and managers. Information was also disseminated to landholders, group members and
government and non-government officers through sites at major field days, meetings, conferences and field trips. Communities
in Landscapes also involved schoolchildren in activities associated with Threatened Species Day.
The success of the Communities in Landscapes project has been underpinned by the project team’s commitment to build an
in-depth understanding of the socio-cultural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable practices by individuals. Early in the
project, team members undertook a Participatory Rural Appraisal to develop an understanding of the social and cultural
environment in which land managers operate in the target box gum grassy woodland areas of NSW. The Participatory Rural
Appraisals consisted of interviews across the project area with a wide range of local landholders. The interviews yielded
information on the physical, social and economic environment of landholders, their attitudes and plans for the future, sources
of information and on-farm research, environmental management and participation in community networks and Landcare.
The Participatory Rural Appraisals brought the project partners together as a team and, through the interviews, feedback
sessions and workshops, they gained valuable insights which guided the project design and implementation to ensure that it
aligned with the wants and needs of landholders.
An evaluation of the Communities in Landscapes project revealed that 57 per cent of landholders involved in the
Communities in Landscapes project had gained new knowledge and skills and either intended to act, or had already acted,
on the new knowledge and skills in the form of practice change. The on-ground focus of changed practice was primarily
changed management for biodiversity conservation (e.g. management of farm dams and waterways, grazing management
and conservation of native seed in pasture areas) as a result of increased understanding of the biodiversity values of
particular sites and the ways in which connectivity can be enhanced.
The importance of the social aspects of the Communities in Landscapes project were also valued by landholders who were
involved.
The cross-property conservation planning groups have continued to function beyond the life of the Communities in
Landscapes project. Some of the groups have been successful in attracting additional funding to support the implementation
of their cross-property plans. Some groups are also interested in establishing Landcare groups.
As a result of the strong partnership approach of this project, there have also been positive lasting impacts on inter-agency
relationships. The information gained through the socio-cultural aspects of the project have also had lasting impacts on the
philosophies and approaches used by partner organisations in relation to natural resource management.
“Many of us were already heading along the path of integrated conservation and production management, but the
Communities in Landscapes project provided valuable back-up and working through a group provided confidence and
a more intensified motivation for proceeding with on-ground works”—landholder and Communities in Landscapes
participant
“Facilitation of people getting together and talking through related issues and sharing their ideas and experiences in
conservation farming was really valuable”—landholder and Communities in Landscapes participant
“The collaborations that have been built will be enduring into the future e.g. between local Landcare, the [Conservation
Management Network] and [Department of Primary Industries]”—project manager
“We have had a major shift in DPI in relation to NRM and landscape perspectives—managing for biodiversity as well
as production. Communities in Landscapes was a catalyst for this”—project partner, DPI
Outcome 2
By 2013, Caring for our Country will reduce the impact of invasive species.
Weeds and vertebrate pest animals damage the health and resilience of Australia’s native animals, plants and ecosystems
and reduce agricultural productivity. Over 2700 exotic plant species and at least 73 introduced animals have become
pests in Australia. Weeds and invasive pest animals cost Australian agriculture over $4.7 billion per annum and the cost to
the environment is estimated to be similar although not as easily quantifiable (Australian Biosecurity Group 2005). Caring
for our Country invested in a range of projects in priority areas to reduce the impact of invasive species, including:

projects involving rabbits and rodents on Macquarie Island, Tasmania

projects involving the southern and westward migration of cane toads (Bufo marinus)

projects involving tramp ants such as the Argentine ants on Norfolk Island

the National Ant Eradication Program

the National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program

projects involving yellow crazy ants in North East Arnhem Land and on Christmas Island

projects involving camels in northern and remote Australia

projects involving vertebrate pest animals, including rabbits, foxes, cats, pigs and goats

national coordination of managing Weeds of National Significance.
Weed and pest species can take over the habitat of threatened species and can make biodiversity recovery and
conservation impossible. They threaten the integrity of significant sites such as Ramsar wetlands, cultural heritage sites and
declared World Heritage areas such as Macquarie Island. Some pests deplete food sources for native wildlife and others
can carry diseases that threaten cattle or sheep, particularly tuberculosis and foot rot. Weeds of National Significance are
agreed by the Australian Government and all state and territory governments as a priority for sustained nationally
coordinated action under the Australian Weeds Strategy.
Information on Weeds of National Significance can be obtained from www.weeds.org.au/WoNS.
Threat abatement plans are available at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/tap.
Successfully managing invasive species requires a coordinated approach with all stakeholders. The most effective methods
are prevention, early detection and eradication. Follow-up monitoring and treatments are needed to ensure that reinfestation
does not occur. In agriculture, on-farm management of invasive species improves the resilience of the farming system and
benefits soil condition, water quality and biodiversity. As part of the EPBC Act, threat abatement plans have been developed
for vertebrate pest animals such as cane toads (Bufo marinus), foxes, and feral rabbits, cats, pigs and goats. These plans
list key threatening processes to nationally threatened species and endangered ecological communities, as well as outlining
current research, management and treatment methods.
Eradicating rabbits and rodents on Macquarie Island, Tasmania
Macquarie Island is situated about 1500 kilometres south-east of Tasmania. It was inscribed on the World Heritage List in
1997 for its outstanding universal natural values. Seabirds such as king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus), two species of
giant petrel, northern (Macronectes halli) and southern (Macronectes giganteus) and wandering albatrosses (Diomedea
exulans) nest on the island. In recent years, increased rabbit and rodent populations have caused significant damage to the
island’s vegetation and wildlife. Over-grazing by rabbits led to extensive damage to tall tussock grasslands and a loss of
breeding habitat for nesting seabirds and destabilisation of slopes. Rats preyed on seabird chicks and eggs and were a
threat to at least nine bird species that currently breed on Macquarie Island. Rats and mice were also inhibiting plant
regeneration.
The Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Project aims to eradicate all three invasive species of rabbits, rats and mice at the
same time. It is a large project which required several years of detailed planning. The five-year project is co-funded by
Caring for our Country, with a contribution of up to $9.19 million, and the Tasmanian Government until 2014–15. The project
is being managed by the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service and is overseen by a steering committee which includes
representatives from the Tasmanian Government, the Australian Government and the New Zealand Department of
Conservation. The steering committee is supported with expertise from a scientific advisory committee.
The pest eradication program has not yet been completed, but major progress has been made. It is possible that rats and
mice have already been eradicated, as there have been no confirmed sightings since the last bait drop in July 2011. Rabbit
numbers have been reduced from approximately 100 000 to probably fewer than 10. Since the completion of baiting, 14
rabbits have been found and killed and none have been found since November 2011. It is believed that a small number of
rabbits remain on the island and hunting for survivors will continue for several years. Once the last known rabbit has been
accounted for, two years of monitoring will commence to check thoroughly for any indications of surviving rodents
or rabbits.
Poison bait was dropped on Macquarie Island by helicopter in winter 2010 with the aim of reducing impacts of pest species
on native wildlife—many of which leave the island at this time—and to achieve maximum uptake of the bait when food
reserves are low. Only a small amount of the bait was distributed before bad weather forced postponement of the program.
Reduced rabbit and rodent activity was noted in areas that had been baited.
The number of seabird deaths following the limited baiting was unexpectedly high. An expert review found that no seabird
species was likely to be lost as a result of continuing the project. However, if pest control was not continued there were high
risks of catastrophic damage to the ecosystem and some seabird populations could become locally extinct. Therefore, the
eradication program was subsequently modified to lessen the impact on non-target species. Calicivirus was introduced early
in 2011 to reduce rabbit populations without baiting and more people were employed to remove poisoned carcasses.
Aerial baiting was completed successfully in winter 2011 and was supplemented with a limited amount of hand baiting.
Following the completion of baiting, ground hunting teams of skilled hunters and trained detector dogs commenced work to
eliminate surviving rabbits. The dogs were trained to locate rabbits without harming native animals.
Vegetation is becoming re-established on Macquarie Island, including tussock grass (Poa foliosa) and the megaherbs
silver-leaf daisy (Pleurophyllum hookeri) and Macquarie Island cabbage (Stilbocarpa polaris). Vulnerable blue petrels
(Halobaena caerulea) are now breeding on the island, small terns (such as the Antarctic tern, Sterna vittata) are breeding
again on cobblestone beaches, and grey petrels (Procellaria cinerea) have had their most successful breeding season
since recording commenced in 2000. This return to ecosystem health will have benefits for the future of many protected
species as well as overall biodiversity and will fulfil Australia’s international responsibilities to protect the World Heritage
values of this stunning and important landscape. The achievements of the eradication program are supported by science
and demonstrate the value of co-funding and collaboration between multiple stakeholders for invasive species
management.
Reducing the southern and westward migration of cane toads
The cane toad (Bufo marinus) is a highly invasive introduced species and poses an enormous threat to Australia’s
biodiversity. The species occurs across states and therefore control methods require national coordination. Cane toads
have continued to spread across Australia since 1935 when they were first introduced to control cane beetles. The main
threat posed by the species occurs when other wildlife attempt to eat them. It is toxic at all stages of its life cycle and is a
threat to native predators, including frogs, birds, goannas, snakes, lizards, freshwater crocodiles, dingoes and quolls. Cane
toads may also prey on native animals and compete for food and shelter. Although cane toads are not known to have
directly caused the extinction of any species, they have caused local population extinctions of the northern quoll (Dasyurus
hallucatus). Cane toads are particularly difficult to eradicate, as they can tolerate a broad range of environmental and
climatic conditions, disperse widely, are prolific breeders and have no specific predators.
Female cane toads usually breed twice a year and can lay 8000 to 35 000 eggs at a time (CSIRO 2003). In comparison,
most Australian native frogs typically lay only 1000 to 2000 eggs per year. Cane toads can reach high densities in suitable
habitat of over 2000 individuals per hectare (SEWPaC 2005). In recently colonised populations (less than two years old),
their numbers rapidly increase to levels far in excess of those in older established populations.
Up until the 1960s, cane toads were spreading at approximately 10 kilometres per year. Now they are spreading rapidly
throughout northern Australia. Since reaching the wet–dry tropics of the Northern Territory, the westward expansion of cane
toads has been recorded at around 55 kilometres each year. In recognition of the serious consequences of this dispersal,
Caring for our Country committed more than $2 million over two years to reduce the impacts of cane toads and to develop a
national threat abatement plan.
Caring for our Country funding provided assistance with controlling the spread of cane toads through on-ground work as well
as research and developing sustainable control measures. These investments helped reduce their migration and
subsequent impacts. Research into feasible control measures and a cane toad threat abatement plan will help guide future
abatement actions. Between September 2008 and October 2010, around one million cane toads were removed from northwestern Australia. Community projects achieved over 8360 volunteer action days of cane toad control—well in excess of the
target of 1500 days. In addition to removing cane toads from key sites, organisations such as FrogWatch, Stop the Toad
Foundation, Kimberley Toad Busters and Darwin City Council also provided support for research, carried out educational
activities, raised community awareness and were involved in biodiversity identification and monitoring.
Frogwatch achieved success in reducing cane toad populations with exclusion fencing and also developed and maintained
relationships with key stakeholders such as Darwin City Council and Indigenous Larrakia Rangers. In some areas, local
biodiversity was boosted—for example, there were increased numbers of yellow-spotted monitors (Varanus panoptes),
a type of goanna. Three projects undertaken by Kimberley Toad Busters and Stop the Toad Foundation projects involved
1433 volunteers and focused on removing cane toads from frontier sites near the Northern Territory and Western Australian
border. These projects may have slowed the spread of the cane toads but were not able to stop the pest from migrating
further west into the Kimberley.
Caring for our Country also funded research into the development of feasible sustainable control measures and
management solutions for cane toads.
The University of Sydney has made progress in developing a conditioned taste aversion method for training the
northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) to avoid cane toads. In collaboration with staff from the University of
Queensland, the University of Sydney identified two cane toad pheromones that could potentially be used to control
cane toad tadpoles.
Dr Sean Doody assessed biodiversity assets expected to be impacted by cane toads in the Kimberley (WA) and
established a baseline to facilitate measuring the impact of cane toads on these biodiversity assets.
Research by James Cook University identified a number of enhancements that could be made to cane toad traps to
improve the trapping efficiency, in particular, the use of UV ‘black’ lights instead of white lights.
Researchers from the University of Wollongong and the NSW Department of Trade and Investment conducted
research into methods used for culling toads and prepared a code of practice and standard operating procedures for
humane control: Methods for field euthanasia of cane toads.
A cane toad threat abatement plan was developed with Caring for our Country funding as a requirement under the EPBC
Act. The plan acknowledges that it is currently not possible to contain or eradicate the cane toad and that a new approach to
management is required. Rather than focusing on curbing the western and southward movement of the cane toad, the plan
focuses on the protection of high-priority species and locations. The plan aims to provide a national strategy for guiding
investment and effort by the Australian Government, jurisdictions, research organisations and non-government
organisations.
Eradicating and preventing the spread of tramp ants across Australia
Invasive tramp ants are a diverse group of ants which originate from many regions of the world and have arrived in Australia
in a variety of ways. Ants can be transported in cargo shipments, soil, machinery, and timber and construction materials.
Some tramp ants have the ability to significantly affect Australia’s native biodiversity either directly through predation or
competition with native animals or indirectly by modifying habitat structure and altering ecosystems. Most tramp ants have a
number of impacts and can affect plant and animal health, social and cultural values of natural resources and human health.
Key lessons learned from Caring for our Country tramp ant projects:

Early responses are critical to contain species.

Infestations are usually more widespread than first estimated.

Sufficient funding and contingency plans are essential to prevent delays in treatment.

Investing in research and monitoring is crucial.
At least six tramp ant species are of concern in Australia due to their impact or potential impact on biodiversity. Native ants,
ground invertebrates, reptiles and amphibians are generally considered to be the most vulnerable to invasive ants. The red
imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) and the yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes) on Christmas Island have been listed
as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act. In consultation with states and territories, the Australian Government
developed a threat abatement plan for tramp ants and has jointly funded tramp ant containment and eradication programs.
National coordination proved to be the most effective management approach. Caring for our Country provided funding for
various treatments, including yellow crazy ants in North East Arnhem Land and Christmas Island, the National Red Imported
Fire Ant Eradication Program in south-east Queensland, the National Electric Ant Eradication Program in far north
Queensland and Argentine ants on Norfolk Island.
National Electric Ant Eradication Program
The National Electric Ant Eradication Program is co-funded by all state and territory governments, with Caring for our
Country. The program is managed by Biosecurity Queensland. The program has prevented electric ants (Wasmannia
auropunctata) from spreading into the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage area, to other areas in Queensland and
across Australia.
Electric ants can cause significant economic, environmental and social impacts, including declines in the numbers of native
invertebrates and small vertebrates through predation, competition for food and habitat. They can also disrupt ecosystem
processes such as leaf litter decomposition.
The eradication program has reduced the spread of electric ants in the priority areas of Cairns, Bingil Bay and Port Douglas
in Queensland. Effective chemical baiting and community engagement have been central to these achievements, with the
public encouraged to report infestations, Biosecurity Queensland conducting surveillance in areas likely to be infested, and
work practices altered for high-risk industries such as nurseries and soil transport. Community awareness has led to the
detection and treatment of new areas of infestation.
Threats from electric ants have been contained from 320 hectares of infestation in 2006 to 11 hectares in 2013. Complete
eradication is expected to be achieved by 2015, enabling the protection of biodiversity and heritage values.
Capacity-building through community engagement and partnerships with industry is important to raise awareness about
detecting, reporting and preventing the further spread of ants. All treatment programs are on track to achieve their threat
abatement goals, although long-term surveillance is still required to monitor the success of the treatments and effects on
biodiversity.
Common name
Scientific name
Origin
Australian status
Red imported fire ant
Solenopsis invicta
Pantanal region of Brazil
Localised incursions
(QLD)
Yellow crazy ant
Anoplolepis gracilipes
Possibly Africa
Localised incursions
(QLD, NT, Christmas
Island)
African big-headed ant
or coastal brown ant
Pheidole megacephala
Southern Africa
Widely established
(WA, NT, QLD, NSW)
Electric ant or little fire
ant
Wasmannia
auropunctata
Central and South America
Localised incursions
Argentine ant
Linepithema humile
Argentina
Widely established (WA,
SA, VIC, NSW, TAS,
ACT)
Tropical fire ant
Solenopsis geminata
Possibly South America
Localised incursions (NT,
Christmas Island, Cocos
Island, Ashmore Reef)
Yellow crazy ants on Christmas Island
Yellow crazy ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes) are an introduced species which are found within Arnhem Land (NT), in
approximately 20 locations throughout coastal Queensland, and on multiple Australian offshore islands, particularly
Christmas and Cocos–Keeling Islands. The ants form super-colonies that can cover over 100 hectares and have densities of
more than 100 ants per square metre, making them a serious threat to agriculture and the natural environment. The species
is listed as a key threatening process to biodiversity on Christmas Island under the EPBC Act.
Christmas Island supports a wide range of unique endemic flora and fauna. It has large populations of land crabs and
seabirds and large areas of rainforest. It also has two internationally significant Ramsar wetlands—the Dales and Hosnies
Spring. The diversity and abundance of land crabs, especially the red land crab (Geocarcoidea natalis), are striking features
of the island’s invertebrate fauna. The island is important for breeding seabirds and global conservation of bird biodiversity.
Yellow crazy ants are widespread throughout rainforest and settled areas of Christmas Island and have formed supercolonies with high densities. The infestations have impacted on biodiversity through predation and competition with other
species such as invertebrates, reptiles, hatchling birds and small mammals. Yellow crazy ants have also caused alteration of
ecosystem processes through the destruction of ecological communities and keystone forest species and the loss of the red
land crab. They have also caused population outbreaks of scale insects. Threat abatement work has been undertaken and
was successful at destroying super-colonies in most of the infested areas, guided by an Invasive Ants on Christmas Island
Action Plan and the Christmas Island National Park Management Plan. In addition, the Crazy Ant Scientific Advisory Panel
provides overarching scientific and technical advice for managing the pests.
Caring for our Country is providing funding over four years to continue existing measures to control yellow crazy ants on
Christmas Island, offering important continuity and ensuring that conservation efforts would be enduring. Additional funding
was contributed for research on treatment methods in this period by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities’ National Environmental Research Program. These investments helped continue a strategy of
aerial and hand baiting of ant infestations and to develop more sustainable alternatives to current baiting, including research
into a potential biological control agent. The research is investigating the feasibility of targeting the ant’s major food source
—a scale insect. Targeted baiting efforts have been highly effective in controlling super-colonies, although they tend to reemerge within a few years, which necessitates further control efforts.
An Island Wide Survey in 2011 mapped yellow crazy ants and identified more than 1100 hectares of super-colonies, with
many inaccessible to hand baiting due to terrain and vegetation. A subsequent aerial baiting campaign was undertaken from
July to September 2012, and there are early indications these treatments were successful at eradicating the targeted supercolonies. Eradication will allow forest ecologies to recover as red land crab populations re-establish. Other species at risk—
many of which are endemic—will also benefit, including the critically endangered bat species, the Christmas Island pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus murrayi), the endangered Christmas Island shrew (Crocidura attenuate trichura), the vulnerable Lister’s gecko
(Lepidodactylus listeri), the endangered Christmas Island goshawk (Accipiter hiogaster natalis) and the Christmas Island
hawk-owl (Ninox natalis).
Community awareness is an important aspect in identifying the presence of the ants and gaining acceptance for treatment
methods. The broader community is kept informed about yellow crazy ants through an information brochure, and updates on
the research and treatments are placed in local papers and on the Parks Australia website. Further information about yellow
crazy ants in North East Arnhem Land is available in the northern and remote Australia theme chapter.
Reducing the impact of vertebrate pest animals
Caring for our Country invested in projects to reduce or manage the impacts of vertebrate pest animals across Australia,
targeting feral pigs, camels, dogs, rabbits, cats, goats, rodents on small islands and cane toads. Feral animals threaten
biodiversity by degrading landscapes and waterways and can have severe economic and social impacts. Investments
prioritised maintaining or improving biodiversity, protecting aquatic ecosystems and World Heritage areas and supporting the
uptake of sustainable farming practices. Vertebrate pests impact on these environments by competing with and preying on
native animals and stock, spreading disease and reducing soil condition and water quality. A report commissioned by the
Invasive Animals CRC in 2009 estimated that foxes, rabbits, wild dogs and feral pigs cost Australia at least $740 million
annually (Gong et al. 2009) in impacts on agriculture, while the cost to the environment has not yet been determined.
A variety of methods were used by project proponents to reduce or manage vertebrate pest populations which had to
comply with relevant codes of practice and standard operating procedures for humane pest animal control. Projects were
guided by the Australian Pest Animal Strategy, threat abatement plans and jurisdictional management plans. Some projects
focused on the regeneration or recovery of critically endangered and endangered species and communities listed under the
EPBC Act.
For example, Caring for our Country funded the large-scale control of feral pigs and wild dogs in Cape York to protect
endangered and vulnerable sea turtles and to support Gnaraloo community monitoring of species recovery. Other projects
included the eradication of goats in the Flinders Chase National Park and Ravine des Casoars Wilderness Protection Area
in South Australia.
A number of projects increased community awareness about the impacts of vertebrate pest animals and knowledge of
control methods. This increase in awareness and control methods will assist with future pest control by local communities. In
the New England region (NSW), a landholder engagement and cooperative management project helped reduce threats to
endangered ecological communities and threatened species by raising awareness about the impact of pest animals on
natural assets and agricultural production. Landholder engagement and effectiveness of vertebrate pest animal treatments
were monitored for all community engagement projects. However, it often takes many years to assess regeneration and
recovery of native habitat and vegetation. Long-term monitoring will be required to determine the effectiveness of vertebrate
pest animal control. In the final year of Caring for our Country, the investment focus is on maintaining or improving
biodiversity and productivity outcomes in buffer zones around World Heritage sites and Ramsar wetlands and on agricultural
land.
Protecting biodiversity from the impact of feral camels in northern and
remote Australia
Caring for our Country funding has reduced the impact of feral camels in northern and remote Australia rangelands over
three years by improving the protection of 18 high conservation aquatic ecosystems and priority refuges for biodiversity (see
map below). This funding was crucial for adequate management and national coordination of a highly dispersed invasive
species. Feral camels cause immense destruction to land and water resources, often depleting or polluting water
and trampling and feeding on native vegetation. They also destroy habitat or resources for threatened native fauna such as
the black-flanked rock-wallaby (Petrogale lateralis lateralis) and greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis). Camels can also degrade
important cultural Indigenous sites, damage infrastructure and pose a safety risk for humans and vehicles.
Feral camel management concentrated on reduction in densities rather than complete removal, which was not feasible in the
time frame of the project. Camel impacts are more a function of population densities than numbers. The project achieved
reductions in the density of camel populations in priority areas and limited camel movement back to high conservation
ecosystems as ephemeral water supplies in the broader landscape dried up.
The project targets were adapted as on-ground operations progressed and aimed to reduce camel numbers to fewer than 0.25
animals per square kilometre. Due to the various impacts of camels, their geographical spread, high mobility and the available
management options, an integrated response was required across jurisdictions and national priority areas. Therefore, Caring
for our Country funding was allocated across three national priority areas: biodivers ity and natural icons, coastal environments
and critical aquatic habitats, and sustainable farm practices.
Camel densities were reduced through aerial culling operations and providing support for ground-shooting for the pet meat
trade and mustering to supply the local and export meat trade. A number of cross-jurisdictional partners were involved in
implementing management activities, including Indigenous land groups, natural resource management bodies, government
agencies, and research institutions such as the CSIRO. A landholder engagement program was important to increase
awareness within pastoralist and Indigenous communities of the adverse impacts of feral camels and to provide assistance
with developing ongoing management strategies and undertaking humane removal of the species. Direct engagement with
relevant land managers was complemented with an active communication program to promote broader community
awareness of the adverse impacts of excessive numbers of feral camels and the costs and benefits of the various removal
options.
Quantitative evidence for the recovery of ecosystems following camel removal will be available at the end of the project in
June 2013. However, there have been some anecdotal reports of ecosystem recovery, including:
“Before [the camel control began] camel used to sit around and make kuna everywhere but that’s not happening anymore.
There’s a drum sitting in that soak to collect the water and its really clean in that drum now”—Lindsey Robinson, on the
state of a soak known as Wyinukuranjunu, in the McKay Range near Parnngurr in WA, April 2012.
“The recovery of the country from the last shoot two years ago is remarkable. Where the Karlamilyi River enters Lake Dora,
there is a massive healthy wetland. Two years ago this area was a muddy hole with at least 1000 camels there”—
Andrew Longbottom, Department of Agriculture and Food WA, on conditions in parts of the Pilbara, June 2012.
At June 2012, the feral camel management project was on track to report end-of-project feral camel densities at or below the
target levels at approximately 50 per cent of the identified biological refugia and high conservation aquatic ecosystems.
Wetlands often act as refugia for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, especially in drought periods, and the reduction of feral
camel densities is likely to have improved the quality of these resources and boosted the resilience of dependent species.
These outcomes are commendable considering the pervasive extent of feral camels and project setbacks such as further
dispersal of the pest as a result of drought conditions followed by unseasonal wet weather. By the end of the project,
significant reductions in camel densities for the remaining priority biological refugia and high conservation aquatic
ecosystems should also be achieved, subject to the continuation of favourable weather conditions. Maintaining these
successes will require adequate resources and a sustained and cooperative effort by all stakeholders over the
long-term to ensure biodiversity is conserved in northern and remote Australia.
Major legacies of the Australian Feral Camel Management Project:

development of monitoring procedures for animal welfare and assessing damage to vegetation

data collection to inform understanding of feral camel behaviour

development of a decision support system to assist with cost-effective culling and mustering operations

use of satellite tracking systems and cameras for monitoring camel behaviour and ecosystem responses

draft methodology for claiming carbon credits for reducing the impacts of large feral herbivores in northern and
remote Australia

formation of critical partnerships and awareness-raising, with government agencies uniting various stakeholders
across and within jurisdictions.
Australian Feral Camel Management Project, Queensland,
Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia
The Australian Feral Camel Management Project has been set up, with support from the Australian Government’s Caring for
our Country initiative, to reduce the densities of feral camels in areas of known high concentrations and of high conservation
value across Australia.
The project, led by Ninti One Pty Ltd, has brought together range of partners and stakeholders from a number of jurisdictions
(states and territories) to address a common problem that impacts on environmental, social and economic values. The
comprehensive collaboration was needed due to the diverse range of land tenures on which the camels exist.
The project has targeted Indigenous organisations, the pastoral industry and individual landholders to assist them to develop
a shared understanding of feral camel impacts and preferred management options in different areas. The project has also
helped build the capacity of these stakeholders to measure and manage feral camel impacts into the future.
For example, almost 500 Indigenous people have been trained in monitoring and managing feral camel impacts (Ninti One
2012). Indigenous people can now combine their traditional knowledge of the condition of their cultural sites with new
methods such as motion-activated cameras which will provide a better understanding of which animals are dependent on
the water sources, particularly those that visit predominantly at night. This understanding helps maintain an ongoing
commitment to managing feral camels.
The project is expected to leave some lasting legacies. Landholder consents for feral camel removal across more than 1.3
million square kilometres are in place (Ninti One 2012). Land managers are now better equipped to deal with camels
themselves by firstly reducing the population density (so the problem is more manageable) and secondly by equipping land
managers and Indigenous communities to deal with camels (improved skills in mustering, trapping, etc.) for when they enter
land or communities.
The strengthening of relationships between the agencies and land managers that has occurred because of the project is
also expected to have benefits beyond the project.
A comprehensive website (www.feralcamels.com.au) has been developed to provide ready access to information on feral
camel impacts and management approaches. Furthermore, the capacity building that has occurred can be applied by the
project participants to other pest animal management problems in the region.
Reducing the impact of exotic rodents on small islands
Small islands of less than 100 000 hectares are significant for the protection of Australian biodiversity, as they are often less
disturbed then the mainland and offer refuge for threatened species. Australia’s islands have many endemic species or
species that have become extinct on the mainland and are also key breeding and nesting places for marine birds, turtles and
seals. At least 133 of Australia’s small islands are known to have one or more species of exotic rodent. The four species of
exotic rodent found on these small islands are ship or black rats (Rattus rattus), Norway or brown rats (Rattus norvegicus),
Pacific rats (rattus exulans) and house mice (Mus musculus). These rodents impact on the ecology of these islands by
eating native species such as seabird eggs and juvenile birds, competing for food and carrying disease. On some islands,
exotic rodents have caused the extinction of species. Under the EPBC Act, the Australian Government developed a threat
abatement plan to implement targeted actions to minimise the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on small offshore
islands.
Since July 2009, Caring for our Country invested in projects to reduce the impact of exotic rodents on the following nine
small islands:

Lord Howe Island (New South Wales)

Mer Island (Queensland)

Direction Island (Western Australia)

Three Bays Island (Western Australia)

Long Island (Western Australia)

Adele Island (Western Australia)

Sunday Island (Western Australia)

Faure Island (Western Australia)

Dirk Hartog Island (Western Australia).
Many of the pest control projects on these small islands were successful at eradicating rodents and monitoring is continuing
to assess the responses of ecosystems as they recover from the impacts of rats and mice.
Lord Howe Island rodent eradication project, New South Wales
The Lord Howe Island Group, comprising of Lord Howe Island, Admiralty Islands, Mutton Bird Islands and Ball’s Pyramid
and their associated coral reefs and marine environments, was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1982. It is located in
the Pacific Ocean approximately 700 kilometres north-east of Sydney. Lord Howe Island is known for its spectacular
landscapes and has a high diversity of native plant species and over 160 bird species, many of which are endemic to the
island. The waters surrounding Lord Howe Island provide an unusual mixture of temperate and tropical species,
with more than 500 species of fish.
Black rats and mice are distributed widely on Lord Howe Island. Rats have been implicated in the decline and extinction
of birds, lizards, snails and several species of plants on the island. Rats have caused the extinction of bird species,
including the Lord Howe vinous-tinted thrush (Turdus poliocephalus vinitinctus), robust white-eye (Zosterops strenua),
Tasman starling (Aplonis fusca), Lord Howe fantail (Rhipidura cervina) and the Lord Howe gerygone (Gerygone insularis).
Rats also caused the local extinction of a rare stick insect, the Lord Howe Island phasmid (Dryococelus australis).
Rats pose an ongoing threat to at least 13 bird species which breed on the island, such as the vulnerable Lord Howe
woodhen (Gallirallus sylvestris) and Lord Howe pied currawong (Strepera graculina crissalis). Rats also affect reptiles such
as the vulnerable Lord Howe Island gecko (Christinus guentheri). Invertebrates such as the critically endangered
Whitelegge’s land snail (Pseudocharopa whiteleggei) and endangered Lord Howe flax snail (Placostylus bivaricosus) are
also eaten by rats. Rats destroy vegetation and are threatening the little mountain palm (Lepidorrhachis mooreana) and the
kentia palm (Howea forsteriana), which is of economic value to the island for its export to plant nurseries around the world.
Mice are also known to eat the eggs of small birds, reduce seedling recruitment and compete with native seed-eating fauna
elsewhere. Rodent infestations, and their effects on ecosystems, also have ramifications for the tourism industry and the
health and wellbeing of residents and visitors.
With the support of Caring for our Country and the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, the Lord Howe
Island Board developed a plan to rid the island of more than 130 000 rodents using poison baits, some of which were
dropped by air. Special ‘arks’ will be constructed to protect endangered species until the rats and mice are removed. The
New South Wales and Commonwealth governments each contributed $4.5 million to implement the eradication plan,
which was endorsed by the CSIRO. Community engagement is central for ensuring support for the ground operations. In
preparation for the baiting, the Lord Howe Island Board will hold information sessions for the 350 residents on the island.
Non-toxic bait trials were also undertaken to ensure minimal risk to wildlife. Project managers will work with landholders and
the community to protect stock and domestic animals during the baiting program. Planning for the captive management of
vulnerable bird species has commenced and other research related to the project is being planned. To date, the project is
progressing well and it is anticipated that removal of rodents will allow populations of threatened species to recover, which is
especially important when Lord Howe Island is their only habitat.
Reducing exotic rodents on small islands in Western Australia
Caring for our Country invested in seven projects over four years in Western Australia to reduce infestations of exotic
rodents on small islands through bait programs and surveys, supported by monitoring. There have been successful
outcomes for the environment and biodiversity on all of these islands.
Reducing the impact of rabbits across Australia
The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) was introduced in Australia in the early 1800s and has since spread
throughout the landscape. Rabbits cause damage to soil and pasture and have impacts on biodiversity, agriculture and the
economy. Soil erosion from burrowing and grazing can lead to problems such as reduced water quality which then require
expensive remediation measures. Grazing rabbits can weaken perennial grasses and eliminate them from pastures, and
degrade horticulture and grain crops, resulting in significantly reduced crop yields in some areas. Competition and land
degradation by feral rabbits is listed as a key threatening process under the EPBC Act. A threat abatement plan was
developed to guide and coordinate a national response to their impacts on biodiversity.
Caring for our Country targeted funding to reduce the impacts of rabbits on the land and more than 300 at-risk species,
including priority Ramsar wetlands and offshore islands. Most importantly, it provided funding to research bio-control options
for other strains of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus (RHDV) to complement those already released in Australia, a strategic
response to the apparent rising genetic resistance of rabbits to the existing strains of RHDV. Several new strains are being
evaluated for efficacy and new release strategies are being developed to maximise impact on rabbit populations.
The successful release of additional effective bio-controls has a calculated net value of over $1.4 billion over 15 years and
will substantially reduce the impacts of rabbits on Australian plant biodiversity (Invasive Animals CRC 2012).
The management of rabbits included mapping their locations, installing fencing and undertaking baiting and ‘warren ripping’
to protect critically endangered and endangered species and communities. For example, removal of rabbits and rodents on
Macquarie Island has resulted in the recovery of vital breeding habitat for a range of burrowing petrel and albatross species
such as the vulnerable wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans). Landholders and community groups were involved in
projects to suppress rabbit populations, and project proponents worked to promote rabbit control programs and techniques
within the wider community.
The Department of Environment and Conservation of Western Australia delivered a range of integrated rabbit control
projects in the West Australian wheat belt agricultural region which improved the protection of remnant native vegetation,
encouraged more sustainable farming and worked towards improving soil quality and reducing erosion. Rabbit control
activities contributed to improved biodiversity and production outcomes delivered within this region. For example,
landholders in the Shire of Mt Marshall managed rabbit and fox populations to help the recovery of threatened species such
as local populations of the vulnerable western spiny‐ tailed skink (Egernia stokesii badia) and malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata).
Rabbit densities were also reduced enough to allow regeneration of native plants.
CASE STUDY
Reducing the impact of exotic rodents on small islands in
Western Australia
(Refer to map on the following page for the island locations off the Western Australian coastline).
A Direction Island (Cocos-Keeling Islands) Black rats were targeted for elimination so that the Cocos
buff-banded rail (Gallirallus philippensis andrewsi) could be re-introduced to the island. Rats contributed to the decline and extinction of
this bird on the islands through predation of eggs and chicks. Ground and tree baiting with an anticoagulant poison was successful at
eliminating the rats from the islands and monitoring will continue
in 2013 to confirm that the rats are no longer present. Quarantine measures will be kept in place to help ensure the rats do not
repopulate the island.
B Adele Island Two ground baiting exercises in 2005 and 2011 have been undertaken on Adele Island to eliminate
the Pacific rat and improve breeding success for seabirds such as frigatebirds (Fregata minor and Fregata ariel),
the brown booby (Sula leucogaster) and the masked booby (Sula dactylatra). Unfortunately, baiting was unsuccessful due to small
pockets of rats not being exposed to the baits.
An aerial baiting program, which is generally considered to be more effective, is now being planned for October 2013. Baseline
information on seabirds has been collected and a hazard assessment will be completed to minimise impacts of baiting on these
species. If Pacific rats are eliminated, it is expected that the island will be an important refuge for seabird nesting in future.
C Long Island An investigation into the presence of black rats on Long Island in 2010 has confirmed that the rats are not present on
the island, and therefore, no eradication action was required.
D Sunday Island A survey for black rats and Pacific rats in 2012 did not find any infestations on Sunday Island. Agreement was
negotiated with the One Arm Point Aboriginal community to undertake a targeted survey of black rats in October 2012. If rats are
detected, an aerial baiting program would be required to protect the native grassland melomys rodent (Melomys burtoni).
E Faure Island On Faure Island, populations of house mice have potential to impact on the threatened
Shark Bay mouse (Pseudomys fieldi), burrowing bettong (Bettongia lesueur lesueur), banded hare-wallaby (Lagostrophus fasciatus
fasciatus) and western barred bandicoot (Perameles bougainville bougainville) by competing for food and habitat.
A trapping program in November 2010 and April 2011 detected no house mice and it is believed that the species has either
declined to very low untrappable numbers, or is extinct. A remote camera survey of the island will be undertaken in April 2013, an
effective method for detecting house mice at low densities in comparison to trapping, which catches numerous other species.
F Dirk Hartog Island An ecological restoration project is being undertaken on this island to remove feral cats and
goats, and reintroduce 12 native mammal species. While the presence of black rats has not been confirmed,
there have been a few recent anecdotal reports. A preliminary survey was undertaken in August 2011 and none were detected. A
follow-up remote camera survey will be undertaken in April 2013 on the island and adjacent mainland areas to determine if black rats
are present. Annual surveys will continue to take place as part of the island’s ecological restoration project. A biosecurity plan will also
implement a coordinated range of measures to prevent the introduction of black rats and other invasive species onto Dirk Hartog
Island.
Black rats have the potential to impact on three threatened bird species by preying on their eggs and young chicks, rufous fieldwren
(Calamanthus campestris), Dirk Hartog Island black and white fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus leucopterus) and Dirk Hartog Island
southern emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurus hartogi), as well as competing for food and predating on the young of the western spinytailed skink (Egernia stokesii badia).
G Three Bays Island The northern most population of King’s skink (Egernia kingii) and nesting seabirds such as the silver gull
(Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae), crested tern (Sterna bergii), and Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia) have been impacted by
house mice predating eggs and newly hatched young on Three Bays Island. Ground baiting with anticoagulant poison was undertaken
during September 2010 and follow-up monitoring has confirmed that house mice have been eliminated from the island, removing one
of the key threats to biodiversity. To reduce the risk of reinfestation by visiting campers, quarantine warning signs are being erected.
National management of the impacts of Weeds of National
Significance
Weeds of National Significance are plants that all jurisdictions agree have a high impact on agriculture and the environment
and will benefit from a nationally coordinated effort. There weeds have negative impacts on many of Australia’s natural and
productive landscapes. It is estimated that the agricultural cost alone of weeds is around $4 billion each year (Australian
Weeds Strategy 2006). However, collaborative national actions can help reduce the impacts, including further spread, of
weeds and are guided by the Australian Weeds Strategy and funded by the Australian Government through Caring for our
Country. For each Weed of National Significance, a national coordinator facilitated multi-jurisdictional activities to implement
strategic plans for each species, ensuring adequate governance oversight, consistency and an ability to deliver landscapescale actions. From July 2008 to June 2013, Caring for our Country funded individual projects to reduce the impact of
Weeds of National Significance on public and private land, including agricultural land. The Australian Government prioritised
projects which focused on collaborative efforts to:

maintain or improve biodiversity

control, or eradicate where feasible, priority outlier weed infestations identified in nationally agreed strategic plans
for each weed

maintain or establish weed containment lines identified in nationally agreed strategic plans for each weed

demonstrate best practice management of core weed infestations to reduce the risk of new infestations.
National coordination support from Caring for our Country led to significant progress in mapping weed distributions,
understanding the issues associated with each weed and implementing control methods. The initiative supported the
establishment of good working relationships with state bodies, local governments, NRM organisations and research bodies,
allowing successful implementation of on-ground actions. Joint workshops were an effective strategy for transferring
individual project knowledge about weeds between relevant stakeholders. Increased community awareness and involvement
was critical for the success of weed treatment, especially building ongoing capacity to protect priority assets. Access to
information about weeds was improved, including best management practices and weed distribution maps. Monitoring
indicated that sites often experienced regrowth of weeds, demonstrating the need for long-term management. Further
monitoring is still required to improve understanding of the effectiveness of management actions and ecosystem responses.
A number of methods were utilised to reduce the impact of weeds on biodiversity, including:

surveying, mapping and identifying weed infestations

weed control and site rehabilitation such as physical removal, pasture systems and grazing methods, knockdown
and residual herbicide, and biological control methods such as beetles, mites and rusts

workshops and field days to develop community knowledge on weed identification, removal methods and
biodiversity protection

monitoring treated areas for the biodiversity response to weed control and regrowth of target weeds and/or new
weed incursions

monitoring high-quality native vegetation to prevent new weed incursions

developing ongoing integrated weed management strategies at a cross-property level

revegetating through natural regeneration from seed banks or through enhancement planting and maintenance of
an appropriate mix of native species in treated areas.
Most projects targeting Weeds of National Significance worked towards protecting habitat of threatened species and
biodiversity from the impact of weeds. Activities included protecting feeding sites or habitat for endangered bird species or
vulnerable native mammals such as the southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus), through to landscape-scale
conservation of threatened grassy woodland ecosystems. Overall, proponents managed high-quality native vegetation to
reduce the impact of Weeds of National Significance on biodiversity. There is currently not enough data to assess
biodiversity changes, although it can be reasonably assumed that enhanced condition of natural assets will improve the
quality of habitat for native species. Landscapes are often affected by multiple interacting threats and, therefore, a number of
projects combined weed control with other aims such as protecting threatened biodiversity from other vertebrate pest
species. In one project, weed control activities were combined with protection of waterways from stock and erosion control.
These multiple activities assisted with protecting the waterway, improving water quality and encouraging more sustainable
farming.
Collaborative efforts
Some projects focused on improving community knowledge, attitudes and skills for implementing effective weed control.
Community groups also developed their ability to map and report weed infestations and planning an integrated weed
management strategy.
An example of successful collaboration was a project to protect Tasmania’s sustainable farming practices and biodiversity
assets from serrated tussock (Nassella trichotama) invasion. Since 2009, the project facilitated engagement of many land
managers impacted by new serrated tussock infestations in the biologically diverse and agriculturally productive southern
and northern Midland grazing areas of Tasmania. As a result of the project, an extensive awareness campaign was
undertaken, several new infestations of serrated tussock were found, detailed mapping of outlying populations and
adjacent searches were completed, enhanced capacity building amongst individual property managers and community
groups, and longer-term coordinated serrated tussock management undertaken via property-based management plans.
The project was able to develop and successfully maintain momentum of strategic and on-ground serrated tussock issues
and facilitate, with local management bodies such as Tasman Landcare and Glamorgan Spring Bay Council and
community groups to help protect Tasmania’s agricultural land and biodiversity assets from the serious impact of serrated
tussock.
Controlling outlier infestations, establishing containment lines and managing core infestations
Outlier infestations of weeds were targeted for elimination in priority areas, as identified in nationally agreed strategic plans
for each weed. Their isolation within particular locations made eradication much more likely to succeed, although ongoing
management is required to prevent reinfestation and dispersal to other areas. In north-west Tasmania, Cradle Coast NRM
controlled outlier infestations of Weeds of National Significance in nine hectares of threatened ecological communities
across their region. In Queensland, projects controlled outlier populations of prickly acacia (Acacia nilotica), mimosa
(Mimosa pigra) and athel pine (Tamarix aphylla) in several regions. Projects in South Australia managed outliers of prickly
acacia and boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) in remote arid lands while, in New South Wales, alligator weed
(Alternanthera philoxeroides) and salvinia (Salvinia molesta) outliers were controlled and monitored. Targeting these outlier
infestations should result in local eradication of these species and prevent them from spreading even further throughout the
landscape. Monitoring programs and adaptive management will assist with ensuring the weeds are adequately controlled.
Wheatbelt Natural Resource Management (WA) worked with landowners and Indigenous communities along the Avon River
between Toodyay and Beverley to manage outlier infestations of athel pine and bridal creeper (Asparagus asparagoides).
The proponent surveyed and mapped infestations of these outlier species.
A desktop Geographic Information System helped prioritise these individual infestations and prepare management plans to
encourage ongoing weed control works and site rehabilitation. On-ground works included chemical control and manual
removal. Workshops are also being held to increase skills and knowledge of local communities and government work
crews, and management materials were produced for private landholders.
Containment was another broad weed management approach which aimed to prevent the spread of Weeds of National
Significance, even across state or territory borders, by reducing the density of infestations and creating broad buffer zones
to limit dispersal of seeds or plant parts. Several projects used containment line strategies in New South Wales, including
preventing the southward spread of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) and lantana (Lantana
camara) towards Victoria; reducing the outwards spread of boneseed from the greater Sydney metropolitan region in New
South Wales; reducing the southward spread of hymenachne (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) from Queensland into northern
New South Wales; and reducing the northward spread of boneseed and alligator weed from northern New South Wales
into Queensland.
A greatly challenging task was to manage core infestations of Weeds of National Significance, well-established selfregenerating populations which cover vast areas of Australia at varying levels of density and patterns of distribution. For
example, lantana infests more than five million hectares along the length of the east coast, mimosa forms dense,
impenetrable thickets covering around 140 000 hectares of floodplain in tropical Northern Territory, and willows (Salix)
occupy thousands of kilometres of waterways across New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. Strategic management of
core infestations is required, with clearly defined and achievable outcomes, prioritisation of actions and regions, and
landscape-scale planning and management. In Tasmania, strategic management of core infestations centred on boneseed,
asparagus weeds and serrated tussock to protect both biodiversity and farming lands. Projects in New South Wales targeted
boneseed to protect biodiversity and serrated tussock to enable sustainable farming. In one project, core mimosa
infestations on Indigenous land in the Northern Territory were treated. Gurruwiling Working on Country rangers monitored 19
sites in the Arafura swamp and focused control efforts on three of the most active sites for producing seedlings and
containing juvenile plants which could spread mimosa infestations in periods of flooding. The project is an example of how
local eradication is feasible within a core infestation zone by applying a strategic management approach.
Outcome 3
By 2013, Caring for our Country will secure management arrangements for all World Heritage areas
that meet the requirements of the World Heritage Convention.
World Heritage properties are recognised under the World Heritage Convention as being of international significance
because of their outstanding universal natural or cultural values. Many of these properties provide sanctuaries for the
conservation of flora and fauna, and are protected as they may contain one or more of the following characteristics:

outstanding examples of major stages of the earth’s ecological, biological or geological processes

significant natural habitats for biodiversity conservation

outstanding natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty

outstanding cultural values.
The Australian Government, in partnership with states and territories, has an international obligation to manage World
Heritage values for current and future generations, including establishing appropriate measures to identify, protect,
conserve, rehabilitate and promote World Heritage properties within Australian territory. World Heritage values are also a
protected matter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, meaning that any action that may have a
significant impact on the heritage values must be referred for environmental assessment of potential impacts. Cooperative
efforts are often required with property managers who have responsibility for the day-to-day management of World Heritage
places.
To meet the requirements of the World Heritage Convention, Caring for our Country secured management arrangements by
investing in four types of activities:

funding World Heritage Management Committees and Executive Officers for governing World Heritage places

protecting, conserving and rehabilitating World Heritage values, including investing in actions to address significant
emerging threats to these values

identifying and enhancing World Heritage values

presenting and celebrating World Heritage values.
Caring for our Country invested in several projects which addressed threats to World Heritage properties, including weed
and pest control, fire and visitor management, and climate change modelling and planning. For example, one project
focused on significantly reducing populations of feral goats and sheep in the Shark Bay World Heritage area in Western
Australia. This should improve vegetation cover, soil composition and habitat for threatened native species. Communication
materials and climate change modelling were also completed for this region, a new management tool to prepare mitigation
strategies for sensitive flora and fauna. It is recognised that World Heritage places need to be celebrated and promoted to
the community to safeguard their protection. Caring for our Country funds were essential to better communicate the values
of Australia’s internationally significant fossil sites through development of interpretation materials for the general public for
the Riversleigh component of the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites in Western Queensland and the lessons learnt from
investigating past climate change at the Naracoorte component (in South Australia).
Caring for our Country contributed to achieving best practice management arrangements by providing financial assistance to
state-managed properties to maintain effective mechanisms for community, scientific and Indigenous engagement through
World Heritage Advisory Committees. These committees are responsible for governing and administering the properties and
developing management plans, and are supported by World Heritage Executive Officers. Funding assisted with either
developing or maintaining World Heritage Advisory Committees and Executive Officers for the Greater Blue Mountains, the
Willandra Lakes Region, Gondwana Rainforests, Fraser Island, Purnululu National Park, Shark Bay, the Ningaloo Coast and
the Riversleigh component of the Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh/Naracoorte). In all of these areas, liaison with
local Indigenous communities was vital for managing the properties. Through Caring for our Country funding, the Australian
Government also continued to work with the Tasmanian and Queensland governments to secure management arrangements
for the Tasmanian Wilderness and Wet Tropics of Queensland. Investments in these two protected areas made significant
achievements in managing World Heritage values.
Management arrangements for the Wet Tropics of Queensland World
Heritage area
The Wet Tropics of Queensland was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988 in recognition of its outstanding natural
universal values. The property lies between Townsville and Cooktown on the north-east coast of Queensland and covers an
area of approximately 894 000 hectares. The Wet Tropics is an example of an exceptionally biodiverse region which is
particularly sensitive to the effects of climate change and biosecurity threats. Management arrangements were secured for
the area through a community-based approach, with increased engagement in management and partnerships with
Indigenous rainforest people, the general community, conservation and tourism organisations. The Wet Tropics
Management Authority also works closely with a range of scientific and academic institutions.
Caring for our Country provided funding between 2009 and 2013 for the day-to-day administration and operation of the Wet
Tropics Management Authority, including sustainable tourism, promoting scientific research and sharing knowledge, and
improving the wellbeing of Indigenous rainforest people. The primary mechanism for engagement with stakeholders was
through statutory advisory groups representing different sectors. In collaboration with other stakeholders, the Wet Tropics
Management Authority accomplished several achievements:

development of a tour guide accreditation program, including for Indigenous tourism

revegetation and weed control to protect biodiversity

active participation in conserving endangered species such as the cassowary and mahogany glider in response to
the impacts of cyclone Yasi

development of programs to monitor and manage emerging threats such as myrtle rust (Uredo rangelii), yellow
crazy ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes) and electric ants (Wasmannia auropunctata)

annual presentation of the Cassowary Awards, which recognise community achievements in rainforest conservation

negotiation of an Indigenous Land Use Agreement with Eastern Kuku Yalanji Traditional Owners to continue to live
on their land within the World Heritage Area

vegetation mapping of the entire Wet Tropics World Heritage Area

revision of the Wet Tropics Management Plan.
In 2013, the Wet Tropics Management Authority will continue to provide management and protection of the outstanding
universal values of the property and will continue to engage with stakeholders. In particular, partnerships will be developed
with government agencies and research organisations for further research and to raise community awareness of biosecurity
threats to the Wet Tropics from tramp ants and myrtle rust. The authority will promote the Wet Tropics as a ‘learning
landscape’ and centre of excellence for the management of tropical rainforests through engagement with research centres
and academic institutions and multi-media.
The recovery of endangered species and rehabilitation projects will provide a lasting legacy for this unique and rich
wilderness area, although some efforts may require ongoing maintenance such as weed management. Increased
awareness and education within local communities should also help ensure the long-term survival of the rainforest.
Furthermore, engagement with Indigenous communities should result in lasting benefits for those communities. Further
information about management of the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage area is available at
www.wettropics.gov.au.
Management arrangements for the Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage area
The Tasmanian Wilderness is one of the three largest temperate wilderness areas remaining in the southern hemisphere. It
is renowned for its diversity of flora and is a stronghold for several animals that are either extinct or threatened on mainland
Australia, such as the critically endangered orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chryogaster). It also contains unique
Pleistocene archaeological sites of human settlements and extensive limestone cave systems containing Indigenous rock art
sites which are thousands of years old. The Tasmanian Wilderness was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1982 and
covers about 20 per cent of Tasmania.
Through the Caring for our Country program, the Australian Government provides significant financial support for the
management of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area. Management methods include the cessation of mining
activity within the property as well as successful expansion of the property to incorporate the Melaleuca–Cox Bight area and
work to support Australia’s proposal to the World Heritage Committee that further areas be added as a result of the
Tasmanian Forests Agreement process. Caring for our Country’s financial contributions were in addition to base funding
from the Tasmanian Government, generous contributions from philanthropists and fundraising activities by the NGO
volunteer conservation group, Wildcare Inc.
Caring for our Country funding was used for identifying, protecting, conserving, presenting and rehabilitating World Heritage
values and providing support for engagement with stakeholders.
Wildcare is the primary volunteer partnership organisation involved in on-ground works to protect the Tasmanian Wilderness
World Heritage property. It is the umbrella organisation for the following groups:

Friends of Cradle Mountain–Lake St Clair

Overland Track Hut Wardens

Cradle Valley Volunteers

Friends of Claytons House

Sea Spurge Remote Action Teams

Friends of Melaleuca

Campground hosts—Melaleuca and Cockle Creek

Friends of the Orange Bellied Parrot

Friends of Maatsuyker Island

Caretakers on Maatsuyker Island

Friends of Macquarie Harbour Historic Site.
On-ground management of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area is led by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife
Service. Caring for our Country helped invest in actions to address significant emerging threats such as protecting frogs from
chytrid fungus, birds from psittacine circoviral disease, Tasmanian Devils from devil facial tumour disease, and platypuses
from mucormycosis disease. A strategic fire management plan was also developed to prevent destructive bushfires within
the World Heritage property.
A volunteer weed removal program was undertaken in partnership with Wildcare Inc. The fast-spreading weed sea spurge
(Euphorbia paralias) was removed along the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area coastline and other nearby
wilderness coast. This weed can have a devastating impact on coastal landforms, Indigenous cultural sites and coastal
herbfields, grasslands and shrublands. The weed also affects habitats for shorebird species such as the little tern (Sternula
albifrons), fairy tern (Sterna nereis) (vulnerable), hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis), red-capped plover (Charadrius
ruficapillus), pied oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris) and the orange-bellied parrot (Neophema chrysogaster) (critically
endangered). Over five seasons, 200 volunteers contributed 3500 person days to treat
13 million sea spurge plants. Some five million plants have been removed by hand at 530 sites and the rest were removed
by herbicide spraying. Follow-up work is depleting residual seed banks by removing seedlings. Now 63 per cent of all sites
treated are weed free.
In 2010, WILDCARE–SPRATS hand-pulled 2.2 million plants and the count has declined in the following two volunteer
seasons. Until seed banks are depleted, the threat can quickly re-establish, as seedlings turn into adult plants, with each
of these producing thousands of new seedlings. Removal of this weed will help the recovery of native vegetation and
shorebird habitat. Other weeds such as marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) were also removed.
Wildcare Inc. was also involved in general rehabilitation of parks through activities such as litter collection along the southern
coast. Walker education programs were delivered on the Overland Track and at Melaleuca. Public amenities and visitor
centres were improved, recognising that tourism and public access help promote the significant values of the region.
Caring for our Country contributions to other Tasmanian Wilderness projects:

Resource Management and Conservation Division Research and Monitoring in the Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage area

Climate change and coastal risk assessment project

Monitoring the impact of climate change on the flora and fauna values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage
area

Strategy for managing wildlife disease in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area
Projects supported by Caring of our Country, including fauna surveys, cave mapping and climate change impact studies,
have increased our knowledge about World Heritage values. Introduced species are being managed to prevent damage to
the landscape and threatened species. Indigenous cultural values are another important element to protect, and heritage
values were interpreted to enhance visitor understanding.
Other educational products such as maps, walking guides, interpretative notes, DVDs, fact sheets, posters, smartphone
interactive applications and website materials have helped to promote and celebrate the significant values of the Tasmanian
Wilderness. For example, the Needwonnee Walk project was a collaboration between the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife
Service (with support from Caring for our Country) and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council.
The Parks and Wildlife Service interpretation officer involved in the project developed an excellent interpretive walking
booklet and DVD for Melaleuca in Tasmania’s remote south-west and also fostered an ongoing partnership with the local
Needwonnee Indigenous community. The project was a successful model for engaging with Indigenous communities in
meaningful ways. It won both the Judges’ Choice and the Gold Award for projects worth more than $30 000 at the 2012
Interpretation Australia National Awards for Excellence and also won an Excellence in Parks Award at the 2012 Parks
Forum.
Smartphone applications:

60 great short walks provides details of Tasmania’s most popular short walks and is accompanied by photographs
and maps.

Frog log can be used to record occurrences of wild frogs for later scientific study.

A bird in the hand contains detailed information, photographs and audio for many of Tasmania’s common and
endemic birdlife.
Caring for our Country investments in the Tasmanian Wilderness helped protect and promote the unique values of this
rugged and spectacular landscape. Ongoing commitment is needed to ensure that this significant region remains intact for
future generations. The relationships developed with partner organisations, Indigenous engagement, collection of
information through monitoring and threat mitigation planning are important legacies for the future management of the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.
Further information about Australia’s World Heritage is available at: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/about/world.
Outcome 4
By 2013, Caring for our Country will improve the protection and management of Ningaloo Reef.
The Ningaloo Coast is located on Western Australia’s remote coast along the East Indian Ocean. The Ningaloo Coast was
inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2011 for its outstanding universal value. It has diverse and abundant marine life,
internationally significant habitat for the vulnerable whale shark (Rhincodon typus), unique subterranean and terrestrial
ecosystems and fauna and exceptional underwater scenery, including coral reef structures contrasting with the vivid colours
of the arid terrestrial landscape. The Ningaloo Coast is also treasured for its rich record of past life and geological
landscapes which are hundreds of millions of years old. The rich biology of the property reveals a long record of continental
assemblage and oceanic change, climate change and evolution and plays an internationally significant role in the protection
of marine species. Caring for our Country committed funding over two years to support the heritage listing, in collaboration
with the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation, which recognised the success of existing
management arrangements in protecting the World Heritage values.
Ningaloo provides habitat for diverse marine life. Eight cetacean species regularly visit the coastline and it is a migration
pathway for vulnerable humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). It also features the largest known aggregations of
whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) in the world. The nationally protected dugong (Dugong dugon) feeds on the seagrass beds
of Norwegian Bay and the lagoon north of Bruboodjoo Point. The Ningaloo Coast shelters one of the largest populations of
vulnerable hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata bissa) remaining in the Indian Ocean. Several species of sea turtles
nest along the coastline, predominantly vulnerable green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and endangered loggerhead turtles
(Caretta caretta). A range of subterranean fauna such as beetles and shrimp have evolved in the network of limestone
caves and waterways around the coastline. These species are valuable for scientific studies on the history of the region’s
geology and climate. The terrestrial environment of the Cape Range National Park is included in the heritage listing and
contains a rich diversity of plant species, from eucalypt woodlands and acacia shrublands to spinifex grasslands and
mangrove communities.
The World Heritage nomination process for the Ningaloo Coast increased scientific understanding of the area and
contributed to greater public awareness of its heritage. The World Heritage listing will have a long-lasting legacy by
ensuring the ongoing protection of the property’s biodiversity and aesthetic values, while allowing for tourism and
recreational activities to continue.
Outcome 5
By 2013, Caring for our Country will maintain viable Tasmanian Devil populations.
The Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) is the world’s largest surviving marsupial carnivore. It is recently endangered
after dramatic population declines from a rare and contagious cancer: devil facial tumour disease or DFTD. The disease has
spread rapidly in a south-west direction across Tasmania and has resulted in an 84 per cent decline in Tasmanian Devil
sightings. The disease is always fatal and no cure or vaccine has yet been found. The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program is
a joint initiative between the Australian and Tasmanian governments with the long-term strategic goal of an enduring and
ecologically functional population of Tasmanian Devils in the wild. At the completion of the first phase in 2008, both
governments committed to a second five-year phase from 2008 to 2013, with an investment of $10 million from Caring for
our Country. The program is managed and delivered by the Tasmanian Government in partnership with the Zoo
and Aquarium Association, along with a network of national experts.
The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program has made substantial progress in conserving the species from extinction by
establishing an insurance population, investigating novel approaches to manage populations in the wild, funding scientific
research to advance understanding of the disease and establishing major partnerships. Investments in infrastructure and
knowledge will be a critical foundation to secure this species in the wild. A major focus and achievement
of the program was establishing an insurance population of disease-free and genetically-diverse wild animals to prevent the
immediate extinction of Tasmanian Devils and to source animals for release back into the wild at an appropriate time.
This component of the conservation strategy relied heavily on partnerships with the Zoo and Aquarium Association and 20
mainland zoos, the community fundraising group Devil Island Project and Tasmanian wildlife parks. The insurance
population is currently in excess of 500 individuals and has very high genetic diversity. A range of innovative and costeffective strategies have been trialled for supporting the insurance population and maintaining natural behaviours among the
captive Tasmanian Devils, including free-range enclosures, island translocations and landscape isolation by fencing.
Maintaining healthy Tasmanian Devil populations in the wild and managing the ecological impacts of population declines
over its natural range is an enormous challenge. In areas that are currently disease-free, the program is planning the
construction of a range of fences and barriers that, along with natural landscape features, will significantly slow or prevent
the spread of disease. Funding has enabled a significant monitoring program to assess the spread of the disease in the wild,
the impact on Tasmanian Devil populations and ecological responses to reduced populations. While there have been no
local extinctions, camera monitoring indicates the disease is spreading across west and south Tasmania and it is impossible
to halt its continued spread. Researchers are exploring the potential development of a vaccine, cancer treatment drugs and
selective breeding for inherited resistance. Several significant projects have advanced understanding of the disease,
including research on immune responses, genetic diversity of the population and identification of multiple strains of the
disease across the state.
A highly successful community engagement activity was a public campaign to collect information on the extent and trends of
Tasmanian Devil roadkill across Tasmania. Since 2009, more than 700 reports of roadkill have helped to inform ongoing
management of Tasmanian Devils in the wild.
With support from Caring for our Country, the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program had several conservation achievements
for the endangered species. Building on these successes, the next steps will be to maintain and enhance the insurance
population, secure as many disease-free Tasmanian Devils in the wild as possible and develop ways to manage diseased
populations. The program has built partnerships and provided opportunities for community involvement in conservation
efforts. It has ensured that the risk of extinction has been averted—a critical step in achieving the eventual recovery of the
species in the wild.
CASE STUDY
Investing in information products to improve biodiversity
management
Prioritising covenanting agreements on private land was a key strategy for protecting high-value environments through Caring
for our Country projects. The Australian Government worked collaboratively with project partners from various state
government agencies and several non-government environmental organisations such as the New South Wales Nature
Conservation Trust, Victorian Trust for Nature and National Trust of Western Australia to develop an agreed national framework
for the collation of covenant data. The National Conservation Lands Database provides a national picture of covenanted lands
and includes data on covenants between 1970 and 30 June 2009, including the landscape-scale values and occurrence of
matters of national environmental significance on the covenanted lands.
The Australian rangelands comprise 81 per cent of mainland Australia and contain relatively intact ecosystems, are home to
many Indigenous people and have important cultural values for most Australians. The Australian Collaborative Rangeland
Information System (ACRIS) was formed in 2002 and is a partnership between the Australian Government and those agencies
in Western Australia, South Australia, the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales responsible for natural
resource management and biodiversity conservation in Australia’s rangelands. Since 2008, ACRIS has been funded through
the Caring for our Country initiative. ACRIS collates information contributed by participating agencies and from other sources
such as the Bureau of Meteorology and Australian Bureau of Statistics.
In August 2008, ACRIS published Rangelands 2008—Taking the Pulse, which brought together, for the first time, disparate
datasets at a national and regional scale to report change in Australia’s rangelands on climate, landscape function, sustainable
agricultural management, total grazing pressure, fire and dust, water resources, biodiversity and socio-economic change. Much
of this information has been since updated with further reports. A key achievement of ACRIS’s work was to commence a
national trial of a biodiversity monitoring framework for the rangelands, based on monitoring target species and broader
systematic surveillance at a landscape scale. The trial is due for completion in 2013 and will inform future ongoing monitoring of
biodiversity in the rangelands. Furthermore, ACRIS and the Queensland Government are collaborating to develop methods for
measuring the impacts of grazing on ground cover and separating these impacts from seasonal rainfall variability. Remotesensing satellite imagery is now being analysed across approximately 700 000 square kilometres of Queensland’s rangelands,
and further testing is underway to extend the method to western New South Wales.
Information and monitoring are essential for managing biodiversity and ensuring investments are having expected results.
Caring for our Country recognised the importance of having the right information to prioritise activities and measure progress,
often requiring cooperation and relationship-building with other stakeholders. Investments in knowledge, monitoring and
partnerships contributed to advancing objectives for the biodiversity and natural icons national priority area.
Continuing to protect Australia’s biodiversity—Phase II Caring for our
Country 2013–2018
Conservation and protection of the environment will continue to be a high priority for the Australian Government, as will the
development of community skills, knowledge and engagement in biodiversity conservation and natural resource
management. Delivery of conservation outcomes will be achieved through a range of programs to meet the challenges and
opportunities posed by natural resource management and in recognition of regional differences. The second phase of
Caring for our Country will focus on investments in critical areas across Australia, including biodiversity and the conservation
estate. Australia’s biodiversity is important nationally and globally because of its uniqueness and richness, including plant
and animal species, ecosystems and cultural heritage.
Conserving biodiversity is also essential to safeguard the biological systems needed for oxygen to breathe, clean water to
drink, fertile soil for food production and physical materials for shelter and fuel. In addition to Caring for our Country, the
Biodiversity Fund will invest in biodiverse plantings, protecting and enhancing existing vegetation and managing invasive
species. Delivery of successful outcomes is dependent on effective partnerships with community groups, Indigenous
communities, and regional natural resource management organisations.
Building upon the progress already made, the Sustainable Environment stream of the second phase of Caring for our
Country will focus on three strategic objectives as outlined in the table below, all of which will contribute to
healthier and more robust natural environments. A number of pressures will require carefully managed responses—
from land clearing and fragmentation of native ecosystems to invasive species and pathogens, inappropriate fire
regimes, grazing pressure and changes to hydrology. Caring for our Country investments will continue to help mitigate
these threats to Australia’s valuable ecosystems and unique species, also assisting with meeting international
commitments to conserve biodiversity and Australia’s extraordinarily diverse natural heritage.
Overview of the Caring for our Country Sustainable Environment stream
Strategic objectives
Maintenance of
ecosystem services,
including ecological and
cultural values, now and
into the future
Protection of our
conservation estate
Enhanced capacity of
Indigenous communities
to conserve and protect
natural resources
Investment themes

protecting the Great Barrier Reef

conserving and protecting species and ecosystems (matters of national
environmental significance)

restoring and maintaining urban waterways and coastal environments

building natural resource management community skills, knowledge and
engagement

building the National Reserve System

protecting Ramsar sites and values

protecting World Heritage sites’ outstanding universal value and integrity

building natural resource management community skills, knowledge and
engagement

building Indigenous peoples’ capacity for natural resource management

building natural resource management community skills, knowledge and
engagement
References
Australian Biosecurity Group (2005). Invasive Weeds, Pests and Diseases: Solutions to Secure Australia. CRC for Pest
Animal Control, CRC for Australian Weed Management and WWF, Canberra.
Caring for our Country Business Plan (2011).
www.nrm.gov.au/funding/previous/business-plan/index.html.
Chapman, A.D. 2009. Numbers of Living Species in Australia and the World 2nd edition. Report for the Australian Biological
Resources Study Canberra, Australia. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/other/speciesnumbers/2009/pubs/nlsaw-2nd-complete.pdf.
COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water (2012). Australia’s Native Vegetation Framework. Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra:
www.environment.gov.au/land/vegetation/nvf/pubs/native-vegetation-framework.pdf.
CSIRO (2003). The Cane Toad: www.csiro.au/proprietaryDocuments/CSE_ctfacts.pdf.
DSEWPAC (2006). Threat Abatement Plan for reduction in impacts of tramp ants on biodiversity in Australia and its
territories: www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/trampants.html.
DSEWPaC (2005). The biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by Cane Toads (Bufo marinus)—12 April
2005. Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) on
Amendments to the List of Key Threatening Processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act): www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ktp/cane-toads.html.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act): www.environment.gov.au/epbc.
Environmental Stewardship Program: www.nrm.gov.au/funding/stewardship.
Eyre, T.J. et al. (2011). Measure it to better manage it: a biodiversity monitoring framework for the Australian rangelands.
The Rangeland Journal. 33.3: 239–253. September.
Gong, W., Sinden, J., Braysher, M. and Jones, R. (2009). The economic impacts of vertebrate pests in Australia. Invasive
Animals Cooperative Research Centre:www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive.
Invasive Animals CRC (2012). RHD Boost. Dr Glen Saunders, Industry and Investment NSW:
www.invasiveanimals.com/research/phase1/goals/goal-7/7t12e.
Lindenmayer, D.B. et al. (2012). A novel and cost-effective monitoring approach for outcomes in an Australian biodiversity
conservation incentive program. PLOS ONE. 7.12: 1–11. December.
National Electric Ant Eradication Program: www.daff.qld.gov.au/4790_5778.htm.
National Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program: www.daff.qld.gov.au/4790_20965.htm.
National Reserve System: www.environment.gov.au/parks/nrs.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2006). Australian Weeds Strategy—A national strategy for weed
management in Australia. Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra.
Ninti One (2012). Ninti One report for the Year 2011–12: www.nintione.com.au/sites/default/files/upload/201112_ninti_one_annual_report.pdf.
Threat abatement plans: www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/tap.html.
Tramp ants: www.csiro.au/en/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/TropicalPestAnts.aspx.
Weeds of National Significance: www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/ and
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html.
World Heritage: www.environment.gov.au/heritage/about/world.
Yellow crazy ants: www.environment.gov.au/parks/christmas/nature/fauna/crazy-ants.html.