Analysis of the institutional arrangements for the management of Australia's threatened birds

266 Pages·2014·2.5 MB·English

by  Tim Holmes

Analysis of the institutional arrangements for the management of
Australia’s threatened birds
Tim Q Holmes

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
The University of Queensland in 2013
School of Biological Sciences
Abstract

Despite substantial amounts expended and the efforts of numerous players, the rate of
biodiversity loss is not slowing and Australia’s threatened birds are declining faster than
global rates with 17% of Australia’s bird species requiring conservation action.
Conservation interventions are the result of human decision-making processes and require
changes in human behaviour, both individual and collective, to succeed. Institutional
analysis disentangles all these elements to facilitate an improved understanding of these
influences. In this thesis, I analyse the institutional arrangements established for the
management of Australia’s threatened birds to determine their effectiveness and
efficiency.
I employ both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the institutions and how
they influence outcomes for threatened birds. In Chapter 1, I define the term institution and
describe an established framework that I employ to analyse the different components of
the institutional arrangements for the management of threatened birds. Chapter 2
examines the external variables of the institutional framework for threatened birds, which
includes: the birds, other biophysical components (threats, taxonomy and genetics,
protected areas and other spatial properties), the rules (legislation and policies), non-
governmental programmes, and the community attributes. In Chapter 3 I utilise the
framework described in Chapter 1 and explore six case study birds in greater detail to
determine the conservation objectives and the extent to which they have been met for
each taxon and which aspects of the institutional environment influence each taxon.
How the decision-makers within the institutional arrangements solve collective problems
and interact with each other is critical to the success or failure of management
programmes and requires greater understanding. This is the focus of Chapter 4 and
through the use of case study taxa I explore collaborations including recovery teams and
social networks.
To address the need for prioritising management of the growing number of listed
threatened species with limited resources, governments in the region have independently
developed formal prioritisation processes to assist in decision-making and this important
institutional regime is the subject of Chapter 5. This chapter provides the first systematic
review of these different prioritization approaches. Finally in Chapter 6, I conclude by
i
summarising the key findings of the study that contribute to our understanding of
institutions and how they influence the management of threatened birds.
Overall the institutional arrangements have evolved to be multifaceted involving complex
ecology and threatening processes, multiple scales and many participants with a diversity
of perspectives. They have expanded their capacity for monitoring, research and
implementation of actions, and involved an increasing number of participants. For birds,
the non-government sector has taken the lead on national monitoring and assessment of
conservation status programmes as well as many site-based management projects
specific to threatened birds. The national and state governments have worked on
improving their individual decision-making processes for managing threatened species and
have developed different systems. There is increased knowledge, improved decision-
making processes, increased cooperation and collaboration, and more transparency.
However, the conservation losses far outweigh the gains and the negative outcomes
occur, in part, as a consequence of weaknesses in the institutional framework. These
weaknesses occur at all scales and include: the slow pace at which institutions evolve or
are established; poor or poorly implemented legislation and policies; the disjunction of
planning processes for the management of threatened species; the issue of fit between
institutions and the bio-geophysical contexts within which they operate; and inadequacies
of institutions responding to large scale problems, economic influences and different
cultural values. From a process perspective, effectiveness has been demonstrated by:
taking responsibility for collation and analysis of data; being task-orientated; adaptively
determining actions; coordinating activity; responding quickly to new information; and
communicating decisions to stakeholders. However, there are weaknesses identified in
this study contributing to inefficiencies.
Ultimately, Australia needs to pay more attention to governance of the management of
threatened species and how best to use social and biological science through decision-
making processes. Legislation designed to promote species recovery of all jurisdictions in
Australia needs to be reviewed, strengthened, and fully resourced and implemented, and
this needs to occur within appropriate timeframes. Threatened species conservation
should be a national collaborative commitment to identify a single set of agreed threatened
species objectives and priorities for the nation, then develop projects using recovery plans,
secure funding and implement the actions.

ii
Declaration by author

This thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published
or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I
have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included
in my thesis.
I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical
assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional
editorial advice, and any other original research work used or reported in my thesis. The
content of my thesis is the result of work I have carried out since the commencement of
my research higher degree candidature and does not include a substantial part of work
that has been submitted to qualify for the award of any other degree or diploma in any
university or other tertiary institution. I have clearly stated which parts of my thesis, if any,
have been submitted to qualify for another award.
I acknowledge that an electronic copy of my thesis must be lodged with the University
Library and, subject to the General Award Rules of The University of Queensland,
immediately made available for research and study in accordance with the Copyright Act
1968.
I acknowledge that copyright of all material contained in my thesis resides with the
copyright holder(s) of that material. Where appropriate I have obtained copyright
permission from the copyright holder to reproduce material in this thesis.

iii
Publications during candidature

Holmes T.Q., Joseph L., Watson J.E.M., Maloney R., Latch, P., Auerbach N., Possingham,
H. A review and assessment of threatened species prioritisation processes in Australia
and New Zealand. Submitted for review.

Publications included in this thesis

Holmes T.Q., Joseph L., Watson J.E.M., Maloney R., Latch, P., Auerbach N., Possingham,
H. in prep. A review and assessment of threatened species prioritisation processes in
Australia and New Zealand. Submitted for review. Incorporated as Chapter 5.
This chapter is taken from a manuscript by the Candidate, Liana Joseph, James Watson,
Richard Maloney, Peter Latch, Nancy Auerbach and Hugh Possingham. The idea for the
paper was conceived by the Candidate, Nancy Auerbach, Hugh Possingham and Liana
Joseph. The Candidate collected the data and carried out the analysis and wrote the paper
with the editorial input of all other authors.

iv
Contributions by others to the thesis

No contributions by others.

Statement of parts of the thesis submitted to qualify for the award of another degree

None.

v
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors, Hugh Possingham, Brian Head and Stephen Garnett
for their quality input and time throughout the process.
I am indebted to the following interviewees, other practitioners and researchers from
across Australia working on the recovery of threatened birds for their voluntary
participation and for sharing their perspectives and experiences. Graeme Armstrong,
Nancy Auerbach, Barry Baker, John Bailey, Mike Bamford, Geoff Barrett, Brad Barton,
Craig Baru, Brett Beecham, Bob Black, Allan Briggs, James Brazil-Boast, Allan Burbidge,
Sarah Comer, Peter Copley, Rick Dawson, Glenn Emke, Murray Evans, Hugh Finn, Lee
Fontanini, Sharon Gillam, Cheryl Gole, Liz Gould, Bob Green, Angela Guerrero, Joclyn
Hockley, Mark Holdsworth, Wayne Houston, Kath Howard, Penny Hussey, Peter Johnson,
Ron Johnstone, Liana Joseph, Tony Kirkby, Peter Latch, Anna le Souef, Richard Loyn,
Richard Maloney, Martine Maron, Peter Mawson, John McCabe, Peter McGlone, Michael
McGrath, Peter Menkhorst, David Mitchell, David Murphy, Neil Murray, Simon Nally,
James O’Connor, Penny Olsen, Marg Owen, Chris Parnell, Paula Peeters, Rachel
Pritchard, Libby Robins, Debbie Saunders, Denis Saunders, Michael Saxon, Raana Scott,
Tracey Scroop, Will Stock, Judit Szabo, Chris Tzaros, Leonie Valentine, James Watson,
Sam Vine, Terry Walsh, Kim Williams, Moira Williams, Rebecca Williams, Simon Ward,
Matt Webb, Steve Windelich and Nicole White.
I am much obliged to Susan Clark at Yale University for sharing her wealth of knowledge
and experience. I am also grateful to Jim Nichols, Jeff Spendelow and other staff at the
Patuxant Wildlife Research Centre for their insights on threatened species management.
To Gill Ainsworth, I thank for the engaging conversations and companionship during
travels around the country to interview conservation practitioners.
A special mention goes to the late Geoffrey Shaw for his enthusiasm and support that was
continued by Margaret Shaw.
And finally, a special thank you to Rosie, my wife, for her constant support,
encouragement and love throughout the process.
I am grateful for financial support from the following organisations: the Australian Research
Council (Australian Postgraduate Award Industry Scholarship), Birds Queensland
(Research Grant), Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (Research Grant) and the
UQ School of Biological Sciences (Travel award).

vi
Keywords

Threatened species management, institutional analysis, conservation, evaluation, birds,
prioritisation, Australia

Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classifications (ANZSRC)

ANZSRC code: 960605 Institutional Arrangements for Environmental Protection, 40%
ANZSRC code: 050202 Conservation and Biodiversity, 30%
ANZSRC code: 050211 Wildlife and Habitat Management, 30%

Fields of Research (FoR) Classification

FoR code: 0502 Environmental Science and Management, 50%
FoR code: 1605 Policy and Administration, 50%

vii
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Institutions .............................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Institutional framework ............................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 External variables ............................................................................................. 5
1.2.2 Action situation - the social process within the institutional framework ............ 7
1.2.3 Outcomes and evaluation................................................................................. 8
1.3 Methods ................................................................................................................ 11
1.4 Structural overview of thesis ................................................................................. 12
Chapter 2 A review of the institutional framework across the management of
Australia’s threatened birds ........................................................................................... 14
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14
2.2 The birds and other biophysical components ....................................................... 14
2.2.1 Threatened birds ............................................................................................ 15
2.2.2 Threats to birds .............................................................................................. 16
2.2.3 Taxonomy and genetics ................................................................................. 18
2.2.4 Spatial properties ........................................................................................... 20
2.3 Formal institutions ................................................................................................. 22
2.3.1 International agreements................................................................................ 22
2.3.2 National and state legislation ......................................................................... 31
2.3.3 National and state policies ............................................................................. 42
2.4 Informal institutions ............................................................................................... 48
2.4.1 Global non-government institutions ................................................................ 49
2.4.2 National non-governmental institutions .......................................................... 52
2.5 Attributes of the community .................................................................................. 53
2.6 The participants within action situations ............................................................... 55
2.6.1 National and state government departments ...................................................... 55
2.6.2 Natural resource management groups ............................................................... 56
2.6.3 Research organisations ...................................................................................... 57
2.6.4 Local government ............................................................................................... 60
2.6.5 National and regional recovery teams and other support groups ....................... 61
2.6.6 Public participation ............................................................................................. 61
2.7 Outcomes and evaluation ..................................................................................... 63
viii
2.8 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 67
Chapter 3 Analysis of the rules of the institutional framework and outcomes for the
management of Australian threatened birds ................................................................. 71
3.1 Introduction and methods ..................................................................................... 71
3.2 The case study birds ............................................................................................. 74
3.2.1 Yellow Chat (Alligator Rivers) ......................................................................... 74
3.2.2 Yellow Chat (Capricorn) ................................................................................. 75
3.2.3 Orange-bellied Parrot ..................................................................................... 75
3.2.4 Swift Parrot ..................................................................................................... 76
3.2.5 Carnaby’s Cockatoo ....................................................................................... 77
3.2.6 Baudin’s Cockatoo ......................................................................................... 78
3.3 Results .................................................................................................................. 79
3.3.1 Analysis of international institutions ............................................................... 81
3.3.2 Analysis of national and state institutions ....................................................... 83
3.3.3 Attributes of the community ............................................................................ 94
3.4 Outcomes and evaluation using recovery plans ................................................... 97
3.4.1 Summary of evaluation of recovery plans .................................................... 101
3.5 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 105
3.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 109
Chapter 4 Analysis of social processes of the institutional framework for the
management of Australian threatened birds ............................................................... 112
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 112
4.2 Methods .............................................................................................................. 115
4.3 Collaborations ..................................................................................................... 116
4.3.1 Recovery teams ........................................................................................... 117
4.3.2 Other collaborations ..................................................................................... 135
4.3.3 Analysis of case study social networks ........................................................ 138
4.4 Discussion .......................................................................................................... 148
4.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 148
Chapter 5 A review and assessment of threatened species prioritisation processes
in Australia and New Zealand ....................................................................................... 152
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 152
5.2 Methods .............................................................................................................. 154
5.3 Species prioritisation processes ......................................................................... 154
5.4 Assessment of prioritisation processes ............................................................... 157
ix