• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Who is directly affected

• Commonwealth, state and territory agencies responsible for environment, parks, fisheries, and offshore approvals (named throughout Sections 2, 6.1 and 5.3).
• Commercial and recreational fishers and fisheries managers where bycatch mitigation or reporting changes are recommended (Sections 4F and A7).
• Coastal and offshore developers and operators (ports, dredging, oil & gas, aquaculture, shipping) where the plan identifies management needs for habitat, lighting, noise, spill response and offsets (Sections 4H, 4G, 4K, 5.3 A4, A8, A9, 6.5).
• Indigenous communities and ranger groups: plan recognises customary use and supports sustainable Indigenous management and capacity building (Section 2.2, Action Area A10).
• Conservation NGOs, research institutes and volunteers engaged in monitoring, debris removal and restoration (Sections 5.3, 6.1).

Why it matters (policy function and practical effect)

• The recovery plan does not itself create criminal offences beyond existing EPBC provisions, but it is an authoritative, statutory recovery plan under the EPBC Act that will inform: (a) assessment and conditions under the EPBC referral/approval system for actions that may have a significant impact on the listed turtles; (b) prioritisation of Commonwealth and state funding and programs; and (c) inter‑jurisdictional cooperation and international engagement. (Sections 2.2, 4.3, 5.3, 6.1.)

Official purpose claims and testing them against practical trade‑offs

• Official claim: the plan aims to reduce anthropogenic threats and measure recovery using targets and monitoring. (Section 1.2; Action Areas B1–B3.)

  • Trade‑offs and implementation cost: the plan relies on multiple funding sources (Commonwealth, states, industry, NGOs, Indigenous programs) and explicitly states costs are not fully quantified and many actions will be delivered as part of existing agency programs (Section 5.2, 6.2). That creates a dependence on continuing appropriations and voluntary industry contributions; where funding is limited, monitoring and on‑ground interventions may be under‑resourced.
  • Implementation risk: the plan notes coordination across jurisdictions is difficult and cumulative impacts are hard to apportion (Section 5.3 A1; Section 4.2). Success therefore depends on effective cross‑jurisdiction governance and data sharing.

• Official claim: legal and management protections will be maintained or strengthened domestically and across migratory ranges (Target 1.1; Action Area A1, A5). (Section 1.2, 5.3.)

  • Practical limits: many key threats occur outside Australian jurisdiction (international take, high‑seas bycatch, ghost nets). The plan requires diplomatic, RFMO and bilateral engagement rather than unilateral domestic regulation (Section 2.1, Action Area A5). That means outcomes depend on other states’ capacity and willingness to act.

• Official claim: the plan will reduce specific threats (e.g. fisheries bycatch, marine debris, predation, light) via targeted actions (Action Areas A3, A6, A7, A8). (Section 5.3.)

  • Costs and incentives: mitigation measures (TEDs, bycatch devices, spatial/temporal fishery closures, lighting retrofits, predator control) impose direct compliance and capital costs on fishers, developers and local councils (Sections 4F, 4G, 4H). The plan anticipates industry involvement and some industry funding (e.g. Northwest Shelf Flatback program) but does not mandate funding sources—so burden allocation is often left to approvals, offset conditions or voluntary programs (Section 6.2, 6.5).
  • Substitution effects: restrictions in one area (e.g. gear closures or protected zones) may shift fishing effort or development pressure elsewhere unless coordinated spatially (Section 4.2 and A7). The plan recognises the need to quantify cumulative and cross‑fishery impacts (Action A7).

Compliance burden and bureaucratic discretion

• The plan creates expectations of monitoring, reporting and adaptive management that agencies and stakeholders must meet (Action Areas B1–B3; Sections 5.3 and 6.6). Where EPBC referrals are triggered, the plan will be used as a benchmark for “significant impact” decisions and approval conditions—introducing potential compliance costs for proponents (Section 2.2). The plan leaves details of many interventions to agencies and proponents, which creates implementation discretion and potential variability in outcomes (Section 5.3 descriptions and Responsible Agencies columns).

Effects on private enterprise, markets and independent operators

• Fishers: encouraged/required to use bycatch mitigation and improved reporting (Action A7). This may raise operating costs (equipment, monitoring) and change catch practices; the plan seeks innovation and industry collaboration but does not prescribe uniform cost recovery mechanisms (Section 5.3 A7).
• Coastal and offshore developers: advised to manage light, noise, dredging, spills, and habitat impacts, and to consider offsets where impacts are unavoidable (Action Areas A4, A8, A9; Section 6.5). This can affect project design, timing and approval conditions; costs will be borne by proponents or offset programs.
• Tourism and local businesses: the plan supports ecotourism opportunities (Section 6.4) but also may impose seasonal restrictions to protect nesting/hatchlings (Sections 4L, A8), changing business practices.
• Overall effect on competition/productivity: measures aimed at lowering ecological risk typically increase compliance costs for affected operators; the plan relies on regulatory approvals and voluntary arrangements rather than creating new market instruments.

Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs and governance risks

• Concentrated benefits: particular turtle stocks, local Indigenous communities, and tourism operators in nesting areas receive direct, concentrated benefits from targeted actions (Sections 5.4 and 6.4).
• Diffuse costs: costs of monitoring, debris programs, fisheries modification and compliance may be spread across governments, industry and the public; the plan notes uncertainty about who will fund which actions (Section 6.2).
• Capture and rent‑seeking risk: the plan involves industry partnerships and offset arrangements (Sections 5.3 and 6.5). The document records industry contributions (e.g. Gorgon Joint Venturers) but does not set transparent cost‑sharing rules; where offsets are allowed, the plan warns offset outcomes are uncertain and should be a last resort (Section 6.5).

Implementation hazards and unintended consequences noted in the plan

• The plan flags practical problems with marine debris clean‑up (logistics, burning collected waste creating new hazards) and emphasises source reduction as primary strategy (Section 4B and A3).
• It recognises offsets are imperfect and that some habitat losses (seagrass, natal nesting sites) cannot be fully replaced (Section 6.5).
• It flags that incomplete data, jurisdictional gaps and unquantified international threats reduce the plan’s capacity to guarantee recovery, hence the adaptive management and review provisions (Sections 4.2, 5.3, 6.6).

Who pays, who decides, and expected behaviour change (short)

• Who pays: a mix of Commonwealth and state/territory budgets, industry contributions, NGOs and community groups; many costs are anticipated to be covered by agencies’ core programs but additional funding is required for new work (Sections 5.2, 6.2).
• Who decides: Commonwealth Minister and Department implement plan coordination; state/territory agencies, local councils, fisheries managers and proponents make many on‑ground decisions guided by the plan (Sections 6.1, 5.3).
• Behaviour changes expected: improved monitoring and data sharing; adoption of bycatch mitigation and reporting; targeted predator control and debris retrieval; management of lighting, noise and coastal development to avoid key habitats; increased Indigenous ranger activity and community management (Action Areas A1–A10 and B1–B3). (Sections 5.3 and 5.4.)

Bottom line (practical takeaways)

• Mechanically, this instrument gives statutory force to the 2017 Recovery Plan and replaces the 2003 plan. The plan provides a detailed, multi‑jurisdictional program (2017–2027) with targets, priority threats and specified action areas, but it depends on coordinated funding, monitoring and cooperation across government, industry and traditional owners to be effective. The plan explicitly recognises gaps—especially threats beyond Australian jurisdiction—and builds adaptive management and review into its design (Sections 1.2, 4.2, 5.3, 6.6).

Josh Frydenberg

Minister for the Environment and Energy (Commonwealth)

This instrument will come into force on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

2017-2027

Acknowledgments

The Department of the Environment and Energy (the Department) would like to acknowledge those who contributed to the development of this Recovery Plan.

This Recovery Plan is based on the draft written by Michelle Boyle, Nancy FitzSimmons and Jason van de Merwe of Blue Planet Marine.

Maps were produced by the Department’s Environmental Resources and Information Branch.

The Department acknowledges the traditional owners of country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to them and their cultures and to their elders both past and present.

© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia, 2017.

The Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia is licensed by the Commonwealth of Australia for use under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence with the exception of the Coat of Arms of the Commonwealth of Australia, the logo of the agency responsible for publishing the report, content supplied by third parties, and any images depicting people. For licence conditions see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This report should be attributed as ‘Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia, Commonwealth of Australia 2017’.

The Commonwealth of Australia has made all reasonable efforts to identify content supplied by third parties using the following format ‘© Copyright, [name of third party] ’.

Image credit

Front cover: Green turtle, Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef. © Copyright David Harasti.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Introduction

Recovery Objective

Interim Recovery Objectives

Biology

Threats

Actions

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Review of the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia - July 2003

1.2 Objectives, targets and performance indicators of the plan

Long-term recovery objective

Interim recovery objectives (2017-2027)

Targets for interim recovery objectives

Performance of the plan

2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 International conventions and agreements

2.2 National legislation and conservation status of marine turtle species

3 BIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY

3.1 General biology and ecology of marine turtles

Generalised life cycle

Generalised diet

3.2 Australian stocks

3.3 Protected marine turtle habitats

Habitat critical to the survival of a species

Biologically important areas for marine turtles in Australia

Tools for assessing important marine turtle habitats

4 THREATS

4.1 Description of threats

4A Climate change and variability

4B Marine debris

4C Chemical and terrestrial discharge

4D International take

4E Terrestrial predation

4F Fisheries bycatch

4G Light pollution

4H Habitat modification

4I Indigenous take

4J Vessel disturbance

4K Noise interference

4L Recreational activities

4M Diseases and pathogens

4.2 Cumulative impact of threats

4.3 Existing management

4.4 Threat prioritisation

5 RECOVERING MARINE TURTLES

5.1 Recovering a stock

5.2 Summary of actions to be implemented

Indicative cost of implementing actions

5.3 Assessing and addressing key threats

Enabling and measuring recovery

5.4 Individual stocks

Stock trends

Measure of success

Specific actions to recover each stock

5.5 Stocks at highest risk

6 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOVERY PLAN

6.1 Responsible agencies and partners

Consultation process

6.2 Duration and cost of the recovery process

6.3 Biodiversity benefits

6.4 Social and economic considerations

6.5 Offsetting

6.6 Reporting process

Monitoring the stocks

Appendix A – Key stakeholders

Appendix B – Individual stock risk matrices

REFERENCES

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of overarching action areas

Table 2. Performance measures for the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia.

Table 3. Global conservation status of marine turtles under international instruments

Table 4. Conservation status of marine turtles under Australian Commonwealth, state and territory legislation

Table 5. Marine turtle dietary preferences by species

Table 6. Nesting and internesting areas identified as habitat critical to the survival of marine turtles listed for each stock.

Table 7. Risk assessment matrix framework

Table 8. Summary of the threat risk assessment process undertaken for each genetic stock

List of Figures

Figure 1: Adult green turtle tracks, Raine Island, Queensland.

Figure 2. The generalised life cycle of marine turtles

Figure 3. Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) nesting sites in Australia and surrounding regions.

Figure 4. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting sites in Australia and surrounding regions.

Figure 5. Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting sites in Australia and surrounding regions.

Figure 6. Flatback turtle (Natator depressus) nesting sites in Australia and surrounding regions.

Figure 7. Olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nesting sites in Australia and surrounding regions.

Figure 8. Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting sites in Australia and surrounding regions

Figure 9. Indicative dispersal for northern Great Barrier Reef and North West Shelf green turtle (Chelonia mydas) stocks

Figure 10. Indicative dispersal for Coral Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Ashmore Reef green turtle (Chelonia mydas) stocks

Figure 11. Indicative dispersal for southern Great Barrier Reef, Scott-Browse, Cocos Keeling and Cobourg green turtle (Chelonia mydas) stocks

Figure 12. Indicative dispersal for the south-west Pacific and Western Australia loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) stocks

Figure 13. Indicative dispersal for the north-east Arnhem Land and north Queensland hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) stocks

Figure 14. Indicative dispersal for the Arafura Sea, Cape Domett, eastern Queensland and Pilbara flatback turtle (Natator depressus) stocks

Figure 15. Indicative dispersal for the Northern Territory and north-western Cape York olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) stocks

Executive Summary

Introduction

Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtles occur in Australian waters and are protected under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). These species are the EPBC Act listed threatened ‘endangered’ loggerhead (Caretta caretta), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles, and ‘vulnerable’ green (Chelonia mydas), flatback (Natator depressus) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles.

Marine turtles are found throughout Australia’s marine environment and are most common across northern Australia. Australia has some of the largest marine turtle nesting rookeries in the Indo-Pacific region and is the only country where flatback turtles nest.

Anecdotal evidence from European explorers indicates that marine turtles were abundant in Australian waters in the early 1800s[44, 82]. From the mid-1800s turtles became subject to commercial harvest by European settlers for general consumption (meat and eggs), canned turtle soup, meat export, and for the tortoiseshell trade. Although commercial harvest ceased in the mid-1900s, it contributed to an observable decline in nesting numbers. Contemporary threats, including habitat degradation, fisheries bycatch, nest predation and marine debris, have also contributed to the decline in marine turtles in recent decades.

Coastal Aboriginal people across northern Australia and Torres Strait Islander communities have cultural, social and spiritual ties to marine turtles and manage land and sea country with marine turtle conservation and ongoing customary use as a high priority.

The first Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia was adopted in July 2003. The Australian Government reviewed the 2003 plan and recommended that it be remade. This new Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia (the plan) has been developed in conjunction with state and territory governments, Indigenous communities and other stakeholders.

Recovery Objective

The long-term recovery objective for marine turtles is to minimise anthropogenic threats to allow for the conservation status of marine turtles to improve so that they can be removed from the EPBC Act threatened species list. 

Interim Recovery Objectives

Recognising that the long-term recovery objective is unlikely to be achieved during the ten year life of this plan, the following interim objectives and targets have been set for the life of this plan. The effectiveness of this plan will be measured, and progress towards long-term objectives assessed on the basis of how well the following targets for interim recovery objectives are met: 

1.       Current levels of legal and management protection for marine turtles are maintained or improved both domestically and throughout the migratory range of Australia’s marine turtles.
2.       The management of marine turtles is supported.
3.       Anthropogenic threats are demonstrably minimised.
4.       Trends at index beaches, and population demographics at important foraging grounds are described.

Biology

The life history traits of marine turtles make them vulnerable to a wide range of anthropogenic threats. These traits include late maturation, high natural mortality of hatchlings and small juveniles, strong fidelity to breeding areas, migrating over long distances, and use of both terrestrial and marine environments to complete their lifecycle.

Marine turtles return to the region where they hatched to breed. This trait has resulted in discrete genetic stocks within each species. Each genetic stock represents a unique evolutionary history, which, if lost, cannot be replaced[63, 168]. As such, while the plan identifies the overarching priority actions for the protection of all species (Section 5.3), it also specifically identifies threats, actions and research requirements that are unique to each stock (Section 5.4). In doing so, the plan will also ensure the conservation of genetic diversity. Amongst the six species of marine turtle found in Australia, this plan considers 22 genetic stocks that nest or forage in Australian waters. The identified threats and subsequent management measures also encompass those turtles that forage in Australia and nest elsewhere (see maps in Section 3.2 and individual stock tables, Section 5.4).

Threats

There are a range of anthropogenic threats that may inhibit the recovery of Australian marine turtles (see Section 4). The risk posed by these threats to the 22 marine turtle stocks varies depending on the habitats they occupy, timing of habitat occupancy, life cycle stage affected, abundance and trends in nesting and foraging numbers, and the management and mitigation currently in place. Threats were assessed through a risk assessment process (outlined in Section 4.4) and are as follows: climate change and variability; marine debris; chemical and terrestrial discharge; international take; terrestrial predation; fisheries bycatch; light pollution; habitat modification through infrastructure/coastal development and dredging and trawling; Indigenous take; vessel disturbance; noise interference; recreational activities; and disease and pathogens.

While the plan considers these threats in isolation, for most of the identified marine turtle stocks, it is the cumulative impacts of multiple threats that need to be addressed to secure their recovery.

Actions

Actions were prioritised based on the number of stocks found to have a ‘high’ or ‘very high’ rating for the threat risk as

This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.