Threatened Species Scientific Committee
Comments on the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan April 2012
These comments collate input from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), an
independent committee established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The EPBC Act also sets out the functions of the Committee which include directly
advising the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities on
the amendment and updating of lists for threatened species, threatened ecological communities, and
key threatening processes together with the making or adoption of recovery plans and threat
abatement plans.
In response to the Hawke Review, the name of the TSSC is to be changed to the Biodiversity Scientific
Advisory Committee. The new committee will provide scientific advice to the Minister on matters
relating to the conservation of biodiversity (including threatened species and communities and the
ecologically sustainable use of biodiversity resources). The new role of the committee will be clearly
outlined in the amended Act.
The TSSC welcomes the development of a national plan that recognises and supports wildlife corridors
as a key landscape-level initiative in biodiversity conservation. We agree that protecting corridors is a
key conservation measure that should enhance the processes of recovering threatened species and
ecological communities.
The TSSC makes several recommendations about how the Draft Plan could be strengthened to
increase its potential to make a substantive contribution to the national biodiversity conservation
effort.
Statutory arrangements
The Draft Plan proposes the introduction of a Wildlife Corridors Act to establish an
independent assessment procedure which will allow the community to nominate future
National Wildlife Corridors for declaration by the Minister for the Environment, strengthen the
Minister’s ability to monitor and report upon corridor development and to provide guidance on
strategic opportunities for future conservation investments.
Given the importance of prioritising and co-ordinating the national investment in biodiversity
conservation, the TSSC suggests that an amendment to the EPBC Act to include a mechanism
for considering wildlife corridors would be more efficient and effective than developing an
entirely new Act. The links between the Draft Plan and the EPBC Act and most of the other
tools used to protect and recover biodiversity in Australia are weakly developed at best. Indeed
Matters of National Environmental Significance, the key environmental regulation tool for
biodiversity conservation by the Australian Government is mentioned only in the glossary of
the Draft Plan. The Draft Plan is silent on how wildlife corridors could contribute to the
protection and recovery of the habitats of threatened species, remnants of threatened ecological
communities, heritage areas, Ramsar sites etc. In addition, the Draft Plan does not consider the
role the EPBC Act plays in protecting these areas and thus providing linkages across a range of
tenures. The EPBC Act, which is currently in review, has effective powers that should have
been, and need to be, considered in the context of wildlife corridors. The report makes limited
reference to the review and how the government’s responses to the recommendations to Hawke
Review1 could be applied to corridors.
Recommendations
1
Australian Government (2011). Australian Government Response to the report of the independent review of
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The TSSC recommends that:
1. Reference to a Wildlife Corridors Act is removed from the Draft Plan.
1.
2. The EBPC Act is amended to: (1) enable the establishment of an independent assessment procedure
designed to allow the community to nominate future National Wildlife Corridors for declaration by the
Minister for the Environment, (2) strengthen the Minister’s ability to monitor and report upon corridor
development, ecological integrity and effectiveness, and (3) provide guidance on strategic opportunities
for future conservation investments.
2.
3. The Draft Plan is amended to include explicit reference to the ways in which wildlife corridors could
contribute to the protection and recovery of Matters of National Environmental Significance including: (1)
habitats of threatened species, (2) remnants of threatened ecological communities, (3) heritage areas,
(4) Ramsar sites etc.
The report is largely silent on what listing National Corridors will actually do to protect the
environment. Will the legislative arrangements include a mechanism for assessing impacts? At
the very least, the relationship between the protection offered by National Corridors and that
from EPBC listing (of wetlands, heritage, threatened ecological communities, threatened
species etc.) should be considered and explained.
In addition, the Draft Plan is largely silent on how a National Corridors Plan would be funded.
How would this initiative intersect with the range of Australian Government and other
environmental funding incentives, such as Environmental Stewardship, Caring for Our
Country, the Biodiversity Fund and local catchment programs?
Recommendation
The TSSC recommends that:
4. The Draft Plan is amended to include explicit explanation of the relationship between
the protection offered by National Corridors versus protection from EPBC listing (of
wetlands, heritage sites, threatened ecological communities and threatened species
etc.) and how such initiatives might be integrated.
3.
5. The Draft Plan considers options for funding the proposed initiative.
4.
There were several areas in which the TSSC considered that the Draft Plan would be improved
by including more information. The areas include:
1. Need for national strategic planning of corridors to define spatial and temporal priorities in
relation for example to: (1) matters of National Environmental Significance, and (2) the other
initiatives to conserve biodiversity, especially for ecosystems and species for which habitat
fragmentation is a major threat to their protection and recovery.
2. Ways in which riverine corridors could be protected and recovered. The Draft Plan mentions the
value of rivers as ecological pathways for migrating fish and the importance of wetland
corridors to flyways for waterbirds , but is largely silent on how such areas could be included in
a national wildlife corridors initiative.
3. Wildlife corridors are also important in the marine environment. Much of the protection
provided by ‘no-take’ Marine Protected Areas assumes that the species protected will not be
impacted when moving between protected areas. Some migratory marine wildlife species move
in defined corridors and are subject to multiple impacts in different jurisdictions, and there is
often limited coordination of protection. Such protection could be better coordinated if marine
2
corridors were included in a National Plan, an initiative that would be consistent with the
Australian Government’s commitment to a more strategic approach to managing the
environment.
4. The risk that corridors will promote spread of invasive species, fire and disease is given cursory
treatment. The Draft Plan merely acknowledges that specific management regimes and
initiatives to control invasive species are an essential component of good corridor design.
5.
Recommendation
The TSSC recommends that:
6. The scope of the National Plan for Wildlife Corridors is expanded to include riverine and coastal marine
environments.
7. A national strategic plan to define spatial and temporal priorities for wildlife corridors is developed in
relation for example to: (1) matters of National Environmental Significance and (2) the various other
national and state initiatives to conserve biodiversity, especially for ecosystems and species for which
habitat fragmentation is a major threat to their protection and recovery.
8. The discussion of the risk that corridors will promote spread of invasive species, fire and disease and
ways to ameliorate this risk are strengthened in the Draft Plan.
3