There are still gaps in the evaluation and reporting of outcomes of activity to conserve threatened species

In 2009 we recommended the implementation of an evaluation framework and systems to assist in measuring the effectiveness of threatened species conservation. While we recognise it is difficult to prove cause and effect in conservation, we note that NSW has developed a program-wide framework to monitor and report on threatened species. Until recently DBCA has made little progress in this area, but is currently part of a National Environmental Science Program research project looking at options to develop a threatened species index.

DBCA publishes only 1 performance indicator: the proportion of critically endangered and endangered species that have recovery plans. This indicator, agreed with the Department of Treasury, is published in its annual report. While there are some examples of good reporting for particular conservation projects, we found no coordinated approach to evaluation of outcomes, weaknesses in species-level reporting, little output reporting and minimal reporting to senior management.

Understanding outputs and outcomes, and reporting on these results is vital in a large, regionally dispersed organisation like DBCA dealing with complex issues. Western Australians also have a legitimate interest in actions to conserve WA’s biodiversity as it is a major public asset.

We reviewed a sample of 37 recovery plans, which generally included success criteria and annual reporting, but no review processes, performance indicators or reporting requirements. Without these, effectiveness is hard to assess and future improvements to planning rely to a large extent on personal knowledge and subjective impression rather than organisational knowledge.

Of the 36 plans which required reporting, 7 had not reported in the last 12 months. Departmental practice is to only report against success criteria when plans are reviewed, normally after 5 or 10 years. We note that 10 plans written in 1999-2000 have not been revised. Further, we found no evidence that 18 of the 32 active recovery teams had met in the last 12 months.

There were similar issues with regional nature conservation plans. These are the key guides to conservation activity. Until recently there was no expectation of regular reporting against these plans, although 2 regions reported formally when renewing them in 2014. DBCA has recognised this issue, and is currently working on a process for annual reporting against regional plans, which it expects to be in place by June 2018.

We also found that out of 9 nature conservation plans, 5 had not been approved at the regional level and none were approved by the departmental executive. We expected that these plans would be appropriately approved and routinely reported on.

There are some examples of good output and outcome reporting from particular programs:

• The Western Shield program reported on its outcomes, activities and costs in 2016. This built on a Strategic Review in 2013-14 that identified the need to develop good outcome and activity reporting.
• The North-Kimberley Landscape Conservation Initiative includes a broad landscape system of measuring and reporting progress. This was developed following an internal 2013-14 report that identified the need for improved recording of outputs and outcomes, review, analysis and reporting.

DBCA also produces an annual compendium report for all science projects under way. This includes information about work done for some threatened species, but is more about project progress than species status or outcomes.

In 2015, DBCA completed a Biodiversity Audit of the status of threatened species and communities (after a similar audit in 2002). One hundred and twenty people were involved in 96 workshops over 16 months to collate the information. The audit produced significant species-level information to support regional nature conservation plans.

The Biodiversity Audit included 616 species, and has much information that could be analysed for trend information, although DBCA has not done this systematically.

We did some high level analysis which showed that:

• for 3% of species, DBCA’s recovery efforts had exceeded external threats and the number of populations had increased
• for 9%, threats had exceeded DBCA’s recovery efforts and the number of populations had fallen
• the top 5 threats to flora were cropping/horticulture, roads and rail, weeds, invasive herbivores and fire
• the top 5 fauna threats were fire, competition from invasive animals, recreational disturbance, invasive predators and mining
• the top 5 threatened ecological community threats were mining, pastoralism, water abstraction, weeds and climate change.

DBCA also does not routinely report to senior management on the costs of its recovery or conservation efforts for threatened species. There is a ‘bottom-up’ cost coding system at the local and regional level which could be used to review costs, but this is not reported to the Science and Conservation Division management. Such information would help choose which actions to pursue and what to budget for.

DBCA does not make the best use of its substantial information about threatened species

At 30 June 2017, seven DPaW divisions deliver 8 interrelated services through 9 geographic regions (Figure 6). Science and Conservation sets high level threatened species strategy, policy and research, and also carries out some conservation activity. Most on-ground management and recovery activity is undertaken at the regional level, although recovery teams also provide input to inform decisions.

To ensure appropriate accountability, this decentralised management structure needs effective information architecture to support it. In 2009 we made several recommendations about improving data collection and use. However, while DBCA has improved some aspects of its information/database management, and is currently scoping a redevelopment of its threatened species management system, considerable risks remain.

 

DBCA holds extensive information relevant to threatened species on 9 organisational databases or datasets, of which 3 are core flora, fauna and ecological community databases. We expected that information about each threatened species would be readily accessible to staff, including:

• taxonomic detail
• locations, both geographic and by administrative region/s
• list of key threats
• history of surveys and other monitoring
• recovery plan details, including links to the plan
• recovery team contact details, meeting minutes and annual reports
• recovery activity including outcomes
• planned future activity and timeframes
• links to relevant research papers and requests for future research
• trend information and expert opinion
• references to departmental files (often multiple files in different sites)
• flagging system to enable concerns to be recorded and escalated.

DBCA’s current review of information systems is expected to include all these factors.

While DBCA has most of this information in some form, we were concerned that the approach to managing it was problematic. Our observations in the regions confirmed these concerns.

Threatened species information is scattered across the organisation, and depends on staff knowing who to contact to collect it. We asked at one region for details about 3 threatened species and where this information was held. Information on populations, locations, status, trends, recovery plan details, recovery actions and future management and research requirements was sourced from local files, reports and expert knowledge.

These staff considered central databases were not up to date and lacked sufficient information. Another regional visit confirmed the reliance on local databases rather than the central system. Staff had developed local databases for recording flora and fauna monitoring and management activities.

The reliance on paper files, local networks and local hard drives has resulted in replicated effort and inefficiencies. Incomplete information increases the risk of inappropriate management action. Further, several key personnel with decades of organisational experience are nearing retirement, increasing the risk of losing important knowledge.

DBCA has recognised these issues and in late 2016 it began an exercise to identify the information needs for threatened species and communities. It is scoping a modular system which it expects to begin implementing by June 2018 and expand as resources permit.

DBCA has not made important information about threatened species easily accessible. There is no way for stakeholders to simply search for all threatened species, or what activity has been carried out to protect or conserve them or which species have recovery plans (although these are all available online). This limits transparency for Parliament and the public.

We note that other jurisdictions have considerable online public information, which is often searchable and includes activity and outcome reporting. New South Wales has a series of online outcomes and status reports, while Queensland has online information about individual species. Victoria has an internet-based system for information on the management of threatened species and communities, and has published various action statements online.

Because DBCA has not documented its prioritisation process, it cannot demonstrate that it is being applied or that resources are directed to highest priorities

Our 2009 report recommended that DBCA consider changing how it prioritises species for conservation to ensure existing resources are used to maximum long-term effect. While we acknowledge the difficulty of allocating priorities to elements of complex biological systems, we expected to find a structured management-approved approach for this important activity. However, this was not evident.

DBCA has a strong framework for assessing species and communities. It uses the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria to assess which species warrant listing. This list and process were developed to improve objectivity and transparency in assessing the conservation status of species.

Several levels of administrative, conservation and organisational policies and strategies identify the need to prioritise conservation activity. They also provide a basis for this to occur at regional level, where conservation activity is undertaken. However, there has not been strong guidance on how this should be done. Better articulating how DBCA expects this to be done, and documenting the process, will support regional leaders more effectively, and improve accountability and reporting.

The strategic framework includes high-level goals and principles, and Regional Nature Conservation Plans set further targets and actions. Each region must decide which conservation activity to undertake, in which locations and for which species or ecological communities. Similarly, the Science and Conservation division must decide which plans to write, what research is needed and which surveying to carry out on priority species.

Each region and scientific area makes these prioritisation decisions in different ways. While a number of regions have developed particular prioritisation tools, there is inconsistency across the department. We also noted that prioritisation does not necessarily consider all threatened species and threatened ecological communities and that the reasons for this were not documented.

The South West Nature Conservation Plan refers to significant knowledge gaps causing it to be ineffective in prioritising effort and resources. Similarly, the Western Shield Strategic Review 2013-14 found that Western Shield was operating without a State strategic framework for fauna conservation. It recommended developing a State fauna conservation strategy to set ecological targets for species recovery, priorities and show the project’s net benefit to fauna conservation.