{"id":"F2016L00043","name":"Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Section 285 - Instrument revoking and making a wildlife conservation plan","slug":"environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999-section-285-instrument-revoking-and-ma","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":93953,"registerId":"commonwealth-F2016L00043-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-02","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"August 2015","sectionType":"division","heading":"August 2015","content":"![](image.002.png)\n\nWildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds\n\n![](image.003.jpeg)\n\n### ![](image.004.png)August 2015","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Summary","content":"# ![](image.009.png)1 Summary","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Introduction","content":"# 2 Introduction","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"Figure 1. East Asian—Australasian Flyway","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Figure 1. East Asian—Australasian Flyway","content":"#### Figure 1. East Asian—Australasian Flyway\n\n![](image.011.jpeg)\n\nThirty-seven species of migratory shorebird regularly and predictably visit Australia during their non-breeding season, from the Austral spring to autumn. Australia’s coastal and freshwater wetlands are important habitat during the non-breeding season as places for these migratory shorebirds to rest and feed, accumulating energy reserves to travel the long distance (up to 13 000 kilometres) back to their breeding grounds. In the month or two before migrating, migratory shorebirds need to increase their body mass by up to 70 per cent to sustain their journey.\n\n \nShorebirds that migrate from the northern hemisphere reach ‘staging areas’, such as Roebuck Bay and Eighty-mile Beach in north-western Western Australia and the Gulf of Carpentaria in Queensland, by September. From these staging areas, the birds disperse across Australia, reaching the south-eastern states by October. Smaller flocks—cumulatively numbering thousands of birds—take advantage of ephemeral wetlands across inland Australia, while others spread along the coastline. Migratory shorebirds are often gregarious, gathering in mixed flocks, but also occur in single-species flocks or feed and roost with resident shorebird species such as stilts, avocets, oystercatchers and plovers. The picture is further complicated because flocks or individuals of some migratory species remain in Australia during the winter months, such as first-year birds that lack the experience or physical condition to return to their natal sites but often do so in their second year. By March, the birds that have previously dispersed across the country begin to gather at staging areas, once again forming large flocks and feeding virtually round the clock to accumulate energy reserves for their northward migration.\n\nThe ecology of migratory shorebirds is complex, especially in Australia where investigations are continuing to unravel their patterns of movement, roosting and dispersal behaviours through targeted research programs. To be effective, shorebird conservation and management initiatives in Australia must take into account the unique distributions and ecology of shorebirds–and the critical importance of international migratory pathways and staging areas, particularly the Yellow Sea region (Barter 2002; MacKinnon et al. 2012; Iwamura et al. 2013; Murray et al. 2014).\n\nAs some migratory shorebird populations decrease there is a growing need to minimise threats to the remaining habitats that are critical for their ongoing survival (MacKinnon et al. 2012). This need is occurring in the face of ever-increasing human development and loss of habitat. Efforts to conserve migratory shorebirds in one country can only be effective with cooperation and complementary actions in all countries that shorebirds visit.","sortOrder":3},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan","content":"# 3 Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan\n\nThis Wildlife Conservation Plan includes 35 species of migratory shorebird that regularly visit Australia (Appendix A). Little ringed plover has been added to the revised list based on expert opinion and new information. This species is a regular visitor to northern Australia in low numbers (Geering et al. 2007). The plan will cease to apply to any of these species should they become a listed threatened species under the EPBC Act. Instead, threatened species receive separate, approved conservation advice and in some cases a recovery plan which sets out what could appropriately be done to stop the decline or support the recovery of the species. On 26 May 2015, Eastern curlew and Curlew sandpiper were listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act. This decision made them ineligible to be included in the revised Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds. Both species have approved Conservation Advice which sets out species specific actions to support the recovery of these species.\n\nIf any additional migratory shorebird species that are currently considered to be vagrant were to be recorded on a regular basis, monitoring programmes for the species should be supported to determine whether inclusion under the plan is appropriate.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Vision","content":"# 4 Vision\n\nEcologically sustainable populations of migratory shorebirds remain distributed across their range and diversity of habitats in Australia, and throughout the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"part","heading":"Objectives","content":"# 5 Objectives\n\n1. Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF.\n\n1. Wetland habitats in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, are protected and conserved.\n\n1. Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised or, where possible, eliminated.\n\n1. Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public.","sortOrder":6},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"part","heading":"Legal Framework","content":"# 6 Legal Framework","sortOrder":7},{"sectionNumber":"6.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds","content":"## 6.2 Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds\n\nWhile the Bonn Convention, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA provide mechanisms for pursuing conservation outcomes for migratory birds, they do not encompass all migratory birds and are binding only on a limited number of countries. As Australia\n\nbecame increasingly concerned about the conservation status of migratory waterbirds, additional mechanisms have been developed for multilateral cooperation on waterbird conservation throughout the EAAF.","sortOrder":8},{"sectionNumber":"Ramsar Convention on Wetlands","sectionType":"division","heading":"Ramsar Convention on Wetlands","content":"### Ramsar Convention on Wetlands\n\nAustralia is a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (see www.ramsar.org). The Ramsar Convention, as it is commonly known, is an intergovernmental treaty dedicated to the conservation and ‘wise use’ of wetlands.\n\nThe Ramsar Convention focuses on conservation of important habitats rather than species. Parties are committed to identifying wetlands that qualify as internationally significant against a set of criteria, nominating these wetlands to the List of Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar List) and ensuring the maintenance of the ecological character of each listed Ramsar site.\n\nAs at July 2015, Australia has 65 Wetlands of International Importance that cover a total of approximately 8.1 million hectares. Many of Australia’s Ramsar sites were nominated and listed using waterbird-based criteria, and in some of these cases migratory shorebirds are a major component of the waterbird numbers (e.g. Roebuck Bay and Eighty-mile Beach Ramsar Sites in Western Australia).","sortOrder":9},{"sectionNumber":"East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnersh","sectionType":"division","heading":"East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnership","content":"### East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnership\n\nThe Partnership for the Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds and the Sustainable Use of their Habitats in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (East Asian— Australasian Flyway Partnership) was launched on 6 November 2006. A Ramsar regional initiative, the partnership is an informal and voluntary collaboration of effort focusing on protecting migratory waterbirds, their habitat and the livelihoods of people dependant on them.\n\nThe EAAF is one of nine major migratory waterbird flyways around the globe. It extends from within the Arctic Circle in Russia and Alaska, southwards through East and South-east Asia, to Australia and New Zealand in the south, encompassing 22 countries. Migratory waterbirds share this flyway with 45 per cent of the world’s human population. The EAAF is home to over 50 million migratory waterbirds—including shorebirds, Anatidae (ducks, geese and swans), seabirds and cranes—from 207 species, including 33 globally threatened and 13 near threatened species.\n\n \nFlyway partners include countries, intergovernmental agencies, international non-government organisations and the international business sector. A cornerstone of the partnership is the establishment of a network of internationally important sites for migratory waterbirds throughout the EAAF. The partnership operates via working groups and task forces, one working group and a number of task forces focus on migratory shorebirds. More information about the Partnership is available at: [www.eaaflyway.net](http://www.eaaflyway.net/)","sortOrder":10},{"sectionNumber":"7","sectionType":"part","heading":"Important habitat for migratory shorebirds in Australia","content":"# 7 Important habitat for migratory shorebirds in Australia","sortOrder":11},{"sectionNumber":"Figure 2. Process for identifying import","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Figure 2. Process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Latham’s snipe) within Australia.","content":"#### ![](image.016.png)Figure 2. Process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Latham’s snipe) within Australia.","sortOrder":12},{"sectionNumber":"8","sectionType":"part","heading":"Threats","content":"# 8 Threats","sortOrder":13},{"sectionNumber":"8.1","sectionType":"part","heading":"Habitat loss","content":"## 8.1 Habitat loss","sortOrder":14},{"sectionNumber":"Infrastructure / coastal development in ","sectionType":"division","heading":"Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia","content":"### Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia\n\nHabitat loss occurring as a result of development is the most significant threat currently affecting Australian migratory shorebirds, both in Australia and along the EAAF. It is estimated that since European settlement approximately 50 per cent of Australia’s non-tidal wetlands have been converted to other uses. In some regions the rate of loss has been even higher. On the Swan Coastal Plain of Western Australia 75 per cent of wetlands have been filled or drained. In south-east South Australia 89 per cent has been lost. Urban development in Australia has often involved the draining and filling of wetlands for industrial or\n\n \ncommercial use and waste disposal (Lee et al. 2006). Many watercourses in urban areas have been converted to concrete-lined drains resulting in loss of in-stream habitats, fringing wetlands and streamside vegetation.\n\nIn Australia, due to the nature of the environment and the distribution of the human population, estuaries and permanent wetlands of the coastal lowlands have experienced most losses, especially in the southern parts of the continent (Lee et al. 2006). Agricultural development and infrastructure has been attributed\n\nto the substantial loss of wetlands on the floodplains of inland and coastal rivers. Drainage and conversion of wetlands for agricultural activities has been a major cause of wetland loss worldwide.","sortOrder":15},{"sectionNumber":"Infrastructure /coastal development in s","sectionType":"division","heading":"Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea","content":"### Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea\n\nOf particular concern in the EAAF is coastal development and intertidal mudflat ‘reclamation’ in the Yellow Sea region, which is bordered by China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea (Murray et al. 2014). A migratory shorebird’s ability to complete long migration flights depends on the availability of suitable habitat at sites throughout the EAAF that provide adequate food and roosting opportunities to build sufficient energy reserves. The Yellow Sea region is a major staging area for several species of shorebird, including significant populations of Great knot (Calidris tenuirostris), which fly between Australia and the east coast of Asia on migration (Barter 2002; Bamford et al. 2008; Iwamura et al. 2013). In a recent study using historical topographical maps, remote sensing and geographical information system (GIS) analysis, Murray et al. (2014) suggest that up to two-thirds (65 per cent) of the tidal flats existing in the Yellow Sea in the 1950s have been lost to development. Losses of such magnitude are likely the key drivers of decreases in biodiversity and ecosystem services in the intertidal zone of the region (MacKinnon et al. 2012). Further reclamation projects are occurring or are in the planning stage in the Yellow Sea region.","sortOrder":16},{"sectionNumber":"8.2","sectionType":"part","heading":"Habitat modification","content":"## 8.2 Habitat modification\n\nModification of wetland habitats can arise from a range of different activities including fishing or aquaculture, forestry and agricultural practices,\n\nmining, changes to hydrology and development near wetlands for housing or industry (Lee et al. 2006; Sutherland et al. 2012). Such activities may result in increased siltation, pollution, weed and pest invasion, all of which can change the ecological character of a shorebird area, potentially leading to deterioration of the quantity and quality of food and other resources available to support migratory shorebirds (Sutherland et al. 2012 and references therein). The notion that migratory shorebirds can continue indefinitely to move to other important habitats as their normal feeding, staging or roosting areas become unusable\n\nis erroneous. As areas become unsuitable to support migratory shorebirds, remaining habitats will attract more birds, in turn creating overcrowding, competition for food and depletion of food resources, and increased risk of disease transmission.","sortOrder":17},{"sectionNumber":"Chronic pollution","sectionType":"division","heading":"Chronic pollution","content":"### Chronic pollution\n\nShorebird habitats are threatened by the chronic accumulation and concentration of pollutants. Chronic pollution may arise from both local and widespread sources. Migratory shorebirds may be exposed to chronic pollution during their time in Australia and along their migration routes, although the extent and implications of this exposure remains largely unknown. In their feeding areas, shorebirds are most at risk from bioaccumulation of human-made chemicals such as organochlorines from herbicides and pesticides and industrial waste. Agricultural, residential and catchment run-off carries excess nutrients, heavy metals, sediments and other pollutants into waterways, and eventually wetlands.","sortOrder":18},{"sectionNumber":"Acute pollution","sectionType":"division","heading":"Acute pollution","content":"### Acute pollution\n\nWetlands and intertidal habitats are threatened by acute pollution caused by, for example, oil or chemical spillage. Acute pollution generally arises from accidents, such as chemical spills from shipping, road or industrial accidents. Generally, migratory shorebirds are not directly affected by oil spills, but important habitat may be affected for many years through catastrophic loss of marine benthic food sources.","sortOrder":19},{"sectionNumber":"Invasive species","sectionType":"division","heading":"Invasive species","content":"### \nInvasive species\n\nIntroduced plant species such as Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Ludwigia peruviana, Salvinia sp. and Mimosa pigra have adversely affected the ecological character and biodiversity of wetlands across Australia; introduced animals such as pigs (Sus sp.), cane toads (Rhinella marina) and European carp (Cyprinus carpio) are also well known for their destructive impacts on wetland areas. There is also a constant risk of new introductions of exotic pasture, aquarium and garden species, such as Sea spurge (Euphorbia paralias), and exotic marine pests from ballast water and hull transport. Of specific concern for migratory shorebirds is the introduction of exotic marine pests resulting in loss of benthic food sources at important intertidal habitat (Neira et al. 2006). Predation by invasive animals, such as cats (Felix catus) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Australia has not been quantified, but anecdotal evidence suggests some individuals are taken as prey.\n\nOutside Australia, invasive species are negatively affecting coastal habitat, causing local species to be displaced by species accidentally or deliberately introduced from other areas. With an increase in global shipping trade the influx of such species is increasing, especially in the coastal zone. Examples include Spartina grass in China, Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), and Tilapia (Tilapia spp.) in wetlands and estuaries and along coasts (MacKinnon et al. 2012).","sortOrder":20},{"sectionNumber":"Altered hydrological regimes","sectionType":"division","heading":"Altered hydrological regimes","content":"### Altered hydrological regimes\n\nAltered hydrological regimes can directly and indirectly threaten migratory shorebird habitats. Water regulation, including extraction of surface and ground water (for example, diversions upstream for consumptive or agricultural use), can lead to significant changes to flow regime, water depth and water temperature. Changes to flows can lead to permanent inundation or drying down of connected wetlands, and changes to the timing, frequency\n\nand duration of floods. These changes affect both habitat availability and type (for example, loss of access to mudflats through permanent higher water levels, or a shift from freshwater to salt-tolerant vegetation communities), and the disruption of lifecycles of plants and animals in the food chain for migratory shorebirds.","sortOrder":21},{"sectionNumber":"8.3","sectionType":"part","heading":"Anthropogenic disturbance","content":"## 8.3 Anthropogenic disturbance\n\nResearch suggests that disturbance from human activities has a high energetic cost to shorebirds and may compromise their capacity to build sufficient energy reserves to undertake migration (Goss-Custard et al. 2006; Weston et al. 2012). Disturbance which renders an area unusable is equivalent to habitat loss and can exacerbate population declines. Disturbance is greatest where increasing human populations and development pressures may have an impact on important habitats. Migratory shorebirds are most susceptible to disturbance during daytime roosting and foraging periods. As an example, disturbance of migratory shorebirds in Australia is known to result from aircraft over-flights, industrial operations and construction, artificial lighting, and recreational activities such as fishing, off-road driving on beaches, unleashed dogs and jet-skiing (Weston et al. 2012).\n\nA recent study by Martin et al. (2014) examined the responses to human presence of an abundant shorebird species in an important coastal migration staging area. Long-term census data were used to assess the relationship between bird abundances and human densities and to determine population trends. In addition, changes in individual bird behaviour in relation to human presence were evaluated by direct observation of a shorebird resident species. The results showed that a rapid increase in the recreational use of the study area in summer dramatically reduced\n\n \nthe number of shorebirds and gulls which occurred, limiting the capacity of the site as a post-breeding stop-over area. In addition, the presence of people at the beach significantly reduced the time that resident species spent consuming prey. The study found negative effects of human presence on bird abundance remained constant over the research period, indicating no habituation to human disturbance in any of the studied species. Moreover, although intense human disturbance occurred mainly in summer, the human presence observed was sufficient to have a negative impact on the long-term trends of a resident shorebird species. The authors suggested that the impacts of disturbance detected on shorebirds and gulls may be reversible through management actions that decrease human presence. They suggest minimum distances\n\nfor any track or walkway from those areas where shorebirds are usually present, particularly during spring and summer, as well as an appropriate fencing in the most sensitive areas.","sortOrder":22},{"sectionNumber":"8.4","sectionType":"part","heading":"Climate variability and change","content":"## 8.4 Climate variability and change\n\nThere is strong scientific evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing changes to the world’s climate (Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013). As such, ‘Loss of habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases’ has been declared a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act. Such changes have the potential to affect migratory shorebirds and their habitats by reducing the extent of coastal and inland wetlands or through a poleward shift in the range of many species (Chambers et al. 2005; Iwamura et al. 2013). Climate change projections for Australia suggest likely increased temperatures, rising sea levels and an overall drying trend for much of the continent, together with more frequent and/or intense extreme climate events resulting in likely species loss and habitat degradation (Chambers et al. 2005, 2011; Iwamura et al. 2013).","sortOrder":23},{"sectionNumber":"8.6","sectionType":"part","heading":"Fisheries by-catch","content":"## 8.6 Fisheries by\\-catch\n\nCompetition for food by human fishers together with associated disturbance by humans and boats has continued to put pressure on waterbirds along the EAAF (MacKinnon et al. 2012). Fishing nets, set for shrimp or fish species, accidentally kill shorebirds if left on intertidal flats at low tide. Birds caught in the nets drown when the tide rises. The significance of this threat is presently not quantified and requires further investigation.","sortOrder":24},{"sectionNumber":"8.7","sectionType":"part","heading":"Hunting","content":"## 8.7 Hunting\n\nHunting of migratory shorebirds in Australia has been prohibited for a number of decades. It is unclear if illegal hunting occurs during the annual duck hunting season in certain states. Historically, Latham’s snipe was particularly vulnerable to hunting. The species was formerly hunted, legally, in all states in eastern Australia. It has been estimated that up to\n\n10 000 birds (including 6000 birds in Victoria and 1000 birds in Tasmania) were killed annually by hunters before bans on shooting were introduced in 1976 (New South Wales), 1983 (Tasmania) and 1984 (Victoria). Shooting is also banned in Queensland\n\n \nand South Australia, but the dates at which bans were introduced are unknown (Naarding 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986). Eastern curlews were also shot for food in Tasmania (Park 1983; Marchant & Higgins 1993) and have been hunted intensively on their breeding grounds in Russia and at stopover points while on migration (Marchant & Higgins 1993).\n\nThere have been a number of investigations into hunting activity at international sites, including in the Chang Jiang Estuary, China (Tang & Wang 1991, 1992, 1995; Barter et al. 1997; Ma et al. 1998).\n\nTang and Wang (1992) estimated that approximately 30 000 shorebirds in 1991 and 9 000 shorebirds in 1992 were captured with clap nets during northward migrations. They suggested that the decrease between the two years was due to decreasing hunter numbers, increasing incomes from alternative activities and/or reduction in shorebird habitat due to reclamation. However, a study during the 1996 northward migration showed that hunter numbers had not decreased since 1991 and that the number of shorebirds caught was similar (Barter et al. 1997). Studies during the 2000-2001 period indicate that hunting activity had declined at Chongming Dao, China (Ma et al. 2002).\n\nWang et al. (1991, 1992) also reported hunting activity in the Yellow River Delta, estimating that 18 000 to 20 000 shorebirds were caught with clap nets during northward migration in\n\n1992 and probably a higher number during southward migration in 1991. However, no hunting was observed in the Delta during surveys in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 northward migrations (Barter 2002). With the exception of the Chang Jiang Estuary, no hunting activity has been detected in China during recent shorebird surveys that covered about one-third of Chinese intertidal areas between 1996 and 2001 (Barter 2002). Hunting also appears to be decreasing in South Korea, with the only reported instance being minor hunting activity in Mangyeung Gang Hagu (Barter 2002).","sortOrder":25},{"sectionNumber":"8.8","sectionType":"part","heading":"Threat prioritisation","content":"## 8.8 Threat prioritisation\n\nEach of the threats outlined above has been assessed to determine the risk posed to migratory shorebird populations using a risk matrix. This determines the priority for actions outlined in Section 9. The risk matrix considers the likelihood of an incident occurring and the consequences of that incident. Threats may act differently on different species and populations at different times of year, but the precautionary principle dictates that the threat category is determined by the group at highest risk. Population-wide threats are generally considered to present a higher risk.\n\n \nThe risk matrix uses a qualitative assessment drawing on peer reviewed literature and expert opinion.\n\nIn some cases the consequences of activities are unknown. In these cases, the precautionary principle has been applied. Levels of risk and the associated priority for action are defined as follows:","sortOrder":26},{"sectionNumber":"Categories for consequences are defined ","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Categories for consequences are defined as follows:","content":"#### \nCategories for consequences are defined as follows:\n\nNot significant—no long-term effect on individuals or populations\n\nMinor—individuals are adversely affected but no effect at population level\n\nModerate—population recovery stalls or reduces Major—population decreases Catastrophic—population extinction","sortOrder":27},{"sectionNumber":"Figure 4. Migratory Shorebird Population","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Figure 4. Migratory Shorebird Population Residual Risk Matrix","content":"#### Figure 4. Migratory Shorebird Population Residual Risk Matrix\n\n```html\n

Likelihood of occurrence

Consequences

Not significant

Minor

Moderate

Major

Catastrophic

Almost certain

• Harvesting of shorebird prey

• Coastal development in Australia

• Coastal development, particularly in the Yellow Sea*

Likely

• Hunting*

• Fisheries by-catch*

• Anthropogenic disturbance

• Altered hydrological regimes

• Invasive species

• Climate variability and change

Possible

Unlikely

• Chronic pollution

Rare or Unknown

• Acute pollution

\n```\n\n\\* threat occurs mostly outside Australia.","sortOrder":28},{"sectionNumber":"9","sectionType":"part","heading":"Actions to achieve the Specific Objectives","content":"# 9 Actions to achieve the Specific Objectives\n\nActions identified for the protection, conservation and management of the species covered by this plan are described below. Some of the objectives are long-term and may not be fully achieved during the lifetime of this wildlife conservation plan.1 Lead organisations are identified in bold type.\n\n![](image.021.png)Objective 1: Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF.\n\nAction Priority Performance Criteria Threat to be mitigated Responsible\n\nagencies1 and potential partners","sortOrder":29},{"sectionNumber":"10","sectionType":"part","heading":"Affected interests","content":"# 10 Affected interests","sortOrder":30},{"sectionNumber":"11","sectionType":"part","heading":"Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan","content":"# 11 Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan","sortOrder":31},{"sectionNumber":"12","sectionType":"part","heading":"Major benefits to other migratory species, marine species, species of cetacean or conservation dependent species","content":"# 12 Major benefits to other migratory species, marine species, species of cetacean or conservation dependent species","sortOrder":32},{"sectionNumber":"13","sectionType":"part","heading":"References","content":"# 13 References","sortOrder":33},{"sectionNumber":"14","sectionType":"part","heading":"Appendix A","content":"# 14 Appendix A\n\nMigratory shorebird species included under the wildlife conservation plan:","sortOrder":34},{"sectionNumber":"Scientific Name Common Name","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Scientific Name Common Name","content":"# 14 Appendix A\n\nMigratory shorebird species included under the wildlife conservation plan:\n\n#### Scientific Name Common Name\n\n#### Charadriidae Plovers and Lapwings\n\n![](image.030.png)![](image.029.png)Pluvialis fulva Pacific golden plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius dubius Little ringed plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius mongolus Lesser sand plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius leschenaultii Greater sand plover\n\n![](image.031.png)Charadrius veredus Oriental plover\n\n#### Scolopacidae Sandpipers\n\n![](image.030.png)Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe\n\n![](image.030.png)Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed snipe\n\n![](image.030.png)Gallinago megala Swinhoe’s snipe\n\n![](image.030.png)Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit\n\n![](image.030.png)Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit\n\n![](image.030.png)Numenius minutus Little curlew\n\n![](image.030.png)Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel\n\n![](image.030.png)Xenus cinereus Terek sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa brevipes Grey-tailed tattler\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa incana Wandering tattler\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa nebularia Common greenshank\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa stagnatilis Marsh sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa totanus Common redshank\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa glareola Wood sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone\n\n![](image.030.png)Limnodromus semipalmatus Asian dowitcher\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris tenuirostris Great knot\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris canutus Red knot\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris alba Sanderling\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris subminuta Long-toed stint\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris melanotos Pectoral sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Philomachus pugnax Ruff\n\n![](image.031.png)Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope\n\n#### Glareolidae Pratincoles\n\n![](image.030.png)Glareola maldivarum Oriental pratincole","sortOrder":35},{"sectionNumber":"Charadriidae Plovers and Lapwings","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Charadriidae Plovers and Lapwings","content":"#### Charadriidae Plovers and Lapwings\n\n![](image.030.png)![](image.029.png)Pluvialis fulva Pacific golden plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius dubius Little ringed plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius mongolus Lesser sand plover\n\n![](image.030.png)Charadrius leschenaultii Greater sand plover\n\n![](image.031.png)Charadrius veredus Oriental plover","sortOrder":36},{"sectionNumber":"Scolopacidae Sandpipers","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Scolopacidae Sandpipers","content":"#### Scolopacidae Sandpipers\n\n![](image.030.png)Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe\n\n![](image.030.png)Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed snipe\n\n![](image.030.png)Gallinago megala Swinhoe’s snipe\n\n![](image.030.png)Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit\n\n![](image.030.png)Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit\n\n![](image.030.png)Numenius minutus Little curlew\n\n![](image.030.png)Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel\n\n![](image.030.png)Xenus cinereus Terek sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa brevipes Grey-tailed tattler\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa incana Wandering tattler\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa nebularia Common greenshank\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa stagnatilis Marsh sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa totanus Common redshank\n\n![](image.030.png)Tringa glareola Wood sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone\n\n![](image.030.png)Limnodromus semipalmatus Asian dowitcher\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris tenuirostris Great knot\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris canutus Red knot\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris alba Sanderling\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris subminuta Long-toed stint\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris melanotos Pectoral sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed sandpiper\n\n![](image.030.png)Philomachus pugnax Ruff\n\n![](image.031.png)Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope","sortOrder":37},{"sectionNumber":"Glareolidae Pratincoles","sectionType":"subdivision","heading":"Glareolidae Pratincoles","content":"#### Glareolidae Pratincoles\n\n![](image.030.png)Glareola maldivarum Oriental pratincole","sortOrder":38}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":6,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The revised plan updates the species coverage and operational focus: one species (Little ringed plover) was added while species listed as threatened (Eastern curlew, Curlew sandpiper) were removed because threatened species receive separate conservation advice or recovery plans. The instrument therefore alters who the plan covers and delegates actions to named lead organisations (section 3; Appendix A; section 9)."},"complexity_factors":["Multi‑jurisdictional and international coordination across the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (Legal Framework, section 6.2)","Large species list with dynamic eligibility (35 species; plan ceases for species listed threatened) (section 3, Appendix A)","Technical ecological content and monitoring requirements across varied habitats and seasons (Introduction, sections 2, 7)","Qualitative risk assessment and priority‑setting (risk matrix and Figure 4; section 8.8) requiring expert judgement","Assignment of actions to lead organisations without detailed funding or enforcement mechanisms (section 9)","Cross‑border threats (e.g. Yellow Sea reclamation) that the plan can only influence indirectly (sections 2, 8.1)","Implementation ambiguity: reliance on voluntary partnerships and existing conventions rather than new statutory powers (Legal Framework, section 6)"],"plain_english_summary":"This instrument revokes the earlier instrument and makes the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (August 2015) under s285 of the EPBC Act. It sets a 35‑species list, conservation objectives, a qualitative risk matrix of threats and a set of actions with named lead organisations to guide government and partner activity (sections 3, 9, 8.8). It primarily affects federal/state agencies, land managers and parties whose activities impact shorebird habitat; costs and operational duties fall to the identified lead organisations and partners, and coverage changes if species become listed threatened (section 3)."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This document represents a wildlife conservation plan made under section 285 of the EPBC Act, which is precisely its intended purpose. The scope aligns with the original legislative intent: to provide strategic guidance for the conservation of migratory species listed under the Act. The plan does not expand beyond its statutory mandate; it excludes species that have graduated to threatened status (as required by the Act) and focuses specifically on the 35 non-threatened migratory shorebird species. The international scope reflects the inherently transboundary nature of migratory bird conservation, which was always contemplated by the EPBC Act's framework for wildlife conservation plans."},"complexity_factors":["The document is a policy/planning instrument rather than legislative text—no binding legal prohibitions or enforcement mechanisms are included","Contains extensive descriptive and contextual material (ecology, migration patterns, international agreements) rather than operative legal provisions","Cross-references multiple international treaties (Bonn Convention, JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA, Ramsar Convention) and domestic legislative frameworks (EPBC Act)","Includes a detailed risk assessment matrix with qualitative criteria for likelihood and consequence categories","Contains defined lists (35 species in Appendix A) with taxonomic classifications","Structure is narrative and explanatory rather than codified with numbered sections typical of statutes","No complex conditional logic, exceptions, or nested legislative provisions"],"plain_english_summary":"This plan is Australia’s national strategy to protect 35 migratory shorebird species that use the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, addressing rapid population declines driven mainly by coastal habitat loss. It sets objectives and priority actions to safeguard feeding and staging sites in Australia while recognising survival depends on international cooperation across the flyway.\n\nIt affects government agencies, developers, wetland managers, researchers, community groups and overseas partners engaged in habitat protection, monitoring and threat reduction."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999-section-285-instrument-revoking-and-ma","history":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999-section-285-instrument-revoking-and-ma/history","analysis":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999-section-285-instrument-revoking-and-ma/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999-section-285-instrument-revoking-and-ma/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999-section-285-instrument-revoking-and-ma/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999-section-285-instrument-revoking-and-ma/documents"}}