Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Section 285 - Instrument revoking and making a wildlife conservation plan
In ForceCTH
Jurisdiction
Commonwealth
Collection
legislative instrument
Plain English Summary
6/10 complexity
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).
This document is a national Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds, dated August 2015. Mechanically, it sets out: (a) a list of species to which the plan applies (Appendix A, described in Section 3); (b) a vision and four high‑level objectives (Section 4 and Section 5); (c) an identification of the principal threats to those species and habitats (Section 8, including a residual risk matrix at Figure 4); and (d) prescribed categories of actions to achieve the objectives (Section 9), together with a framework for prioritising actions using a qualitative risk assessment and the precautionary principle (Section 8.8 and Figure 4). The plan also places administrative and operational expectations on lead organisations, with the document stating that lead organisations for particular actions are identified in bold type in the actions tables (Section 9 preface).
The plan does not, in the text provided, set out an express schedule of statutory prohibitions, criminal sanctions or civil penalties. Instead, it situates itself within a legal and international policy framework (Section 6, notably Section 6.2) that includes multilateral instruments such as the Bonn Convention, bilateral agreements (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA) and the Ramsar Convention, and the East Asian,Australasian Flyway Partnership. The plan explicitly ties its domestic application to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) in one respect: it states that the plan will cease to apply to any species that becomes a listed threatened species under the EPBC Act, because such species then receive approved Conservation Advice and may receive a recovery plan instead (Section 3). The plan also identifies performance criteria and lead agencies as the mechanisms by which actions will be delivered and evaluated (Sections 9 and 11), and it foresees monitoring programmes for species that move from vagrant to regular visitor status (Section 3).
Current sections
Direct links to the current provisions in Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Section 285 - Instrument revoking and making a wildlife conservation plan.
Thirty-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.
Shorebirds 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.
The 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).
As 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.
3
Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan
3 Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan
This 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.
If 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.
4
Vision
4 Vision
Ecologically sustainable populations of migratory shorebirds remain distributed across their range and diversity of habitats in Australia, and throughout the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.
5
Objectives
5 Objectives
Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF.
Wetland habitats in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, are protected and conserved.
Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised or, where possible, eliminated.
Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public.
6
Legal Framework
6 Legal Framework
6.2
Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds
6.2 Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds
While 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
became increasingly concerned about the conservation status of migratory waterbirds, additional mechanisms have been developed for multilateral cooperation on waterbird conservation throughout the EAAF.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Australia 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.
The 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.
As 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).
East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnersh
East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnership
East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnership
The 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.
The 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.
Flyway 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
7
Important habitat for migratory shorebirds in Australia
7 Important habitat for migratory shorebirds in Australia
Figure 2. Process for identifying import
Figure 2. Process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Latham’s snipe) within Australia.
View image in the official sourceFigure 2. Process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Latham’s snipe) within Australia.
8
Threats
8 Threats
8.1
Habitat loss
8.1 Habitat loss
Infrastructure / coastal development in
Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia
Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia
Habitat 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
commercial 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.
In 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
to 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.
Infrastructure /coastal development in s
Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea
Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea
Of 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.
8.2
Habitat modification
8.2 Habitat modification
Modification of wetland habitats can arise from a range of different activities including fishing or aquaculture, forestry and agricultural practices,
mining, 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
is 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.
Chronic pollution
Chronic pollution
Chronic pollution
Shorebird 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.
Acute pollution
Acute pollution
Acute pollution
Wetlands 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.
Invasive species
Invasive species
Invasive species
Introduced 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.
Outside 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).
Altered hydrological regimes
Altered hydrological regimes
Altered hydrological regimes
Altered 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
and 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.
8.3
Anthropogenic disturbance
8.3 Anthropogenic disturbance
Research 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).
A 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
the 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
for 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.
8.4
Climate variability and change
8.4 Climate variability and change
There 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).
8.6
Fisheries by-catch
8.6 Fisheries by-catch
Competition 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.
8.7
Hunting
8.7 Hunting
Hunting 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
10 000 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
and 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).
There 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).
Tang 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).
Wang 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
1992 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).
8.8
Threat prioritisation
8.8 Threat prioritisation
Each 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.
The risk matrix uses a qualitative assessment drawing on peer reviewed literature and expert opinion.
In 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:
Categories for consequences are defined
Categories for consequences are defined as follows:
Categories for consequences are defined as follows:
Not significant—no long-term effect on individuals or populations
Minor—individuals are adversely affected but no effect at population level
Moderate—population recovery stalls or reduces Major—population decreases Catastrophic—population extinction
Figure 4. Migratory Shorebird Population
Figure 4. Migratory Shorebird Population Residual Risk Matrix
Figure 4. Migratory Shorebird Population Residual Risk Matrix
Actions 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.
View image in the official sourceObjective 1: Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF.
Action Priority Performance Criteria Threat to be mitigated Responsible
agencies1 and potential partners
10
Affected interests
10 Affected interests
11
Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan
11 Organisations/persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan
12
Major benefits to other migratory species, marine species, species of cetacean or conservation dependent species
12 Major benefits to other migratory species, marine species, species of cetacean or conservation dependent species
13
References
13 References
14
Appendix A
14 Appendix A
Migratory shorebird species included under the wildlife conservation plan:
Scientific Name Common Name
Scientific Name Common Name
14 Appendix A
Migratory shorebird species included under the wildlife conservation plan:
Sourced from the Federal Register of Legislation (legislation.gov.au), CC BY 4.0.
August 2015 August 2015
Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds
August 2015
1 Summary
1 Summary
2 Introduction
2 Introduction
Figure 1. East Asian—Australasian Flyway Figure 1. East Asian—Australasian Flyway
Figure 1. East Asian—Australasian Flyway
Thirty-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.
Shorebirds 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.
The 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).
In short, the instrument is a policy plan, not a statute in the provided text. It organises priorities and actions, references international and domestic instruments, names species coverage and threat priorities, and calls for monitoring, partnership cooperation and research. It indicates who should be the lead agencies for actions but does not itself set out discrete statutory duties or penalty provisions in the excerpts provided.
Main concepts
The plan’s organising concepts are: species coverage, habitat protection, threat identification and prioritisation, coordinated action and monitoring, and international cooperation.
Species coverage and scope. Section 3 states that the plan includes 35 migratory shorebird species (Appendix A). The plan notes an amendment process for species status, adding Little ringed plover based on expert opinion and new information, and it makes explicit that any species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act will be removed from this plan’s application and handled under Conservation Advice or recovery planning instead (Section 3). The introduction notes that 37 species regularly visit Australia, demonstrating the distinction between visitor numbers and plan inclusion (Introduction; Section 3).
Habitat as the policy focus. The plan is habitat‑centred. It records Australia’s coastal and freshwater wetlands as critical non‑breeding habitat and emphasises the need to protect wetland habitats both within Australia and across the East Asian,Australasian Flyway (EAAF) (Introduction; Section 4 Vision; Section 5 Objectives 1 and 2). The Ramsar Convention is described as a habitat‑oriented instrument and is treated as a complementary legal framework for the plan (Section 6.2 Ramsar Convention).
Threats and prioritisation. Section 8 lists and explains threats, with infrastructure and coastal development, especially reclamation in the Yellow Sea region, identified as the most significant threat (Section 8.1, subsections on Australia and Yellow Sea). Other principal threats include habitat modification, chronic and acute pollution, invasive species, altered hydrology, anthropogenic disturbance, climate variability and change, fisheries by‑catch, and hunting (Section 8.2-8.7). Section 8.8 sets out a qualitative risk matrix and applies the precautionary principle where consequences or probabilities are uncertain.
Action frameworks. Section 9 promises sets of actions aligned to the objectives, with action priorities, performance criteria and responsible agencies identified (the document states lead organisations appear in bold type). The plan accepts some objectives are long‑term and may not be fully achieved within the plan’s lifetime (Section 9).
International cooperation and flyway approach. The plan repeatedly frames conservation as an international problem requiring cooperation across the EAAF. It references multilateral treaties and voluntary partnerships, and it explains that conservation in one country is insufficient unless complemented by actions in others (Introduction; Section 6.2, East Asian,Australasian Flyway Partnership).
Evidence and monitoring. The plan recognises knowledge gaps and calls for monitoring programmes and targeted research to inform decisions (Section 5 Objective 4; Section 3 regarding vagrant species). The risk matrix (Figure 4) is explicitly qualitative and based on peer reviewed literature and expert opinion.
These concepts combine to make the plan a strategic policy instrument rather than a rule book of enforceable prohibitions in the text provided. Its principal mechanisms are coordination, priority setting, monitoring and targeted action delivery through nominated lead organisations and partners.
Who it affects
The plan identifies multiple classes of affected interests by describing threats and the actors associated with them. The groups named or implicitly implicated in the plan text include:
Government agencies and lead organisations. The plan repeatedly expects implementation by government agencies and other named lead organisations, stating that lead organisations for particular actions are identified in bold in the action tables (Section 9). Section 11 references organisations and persons involved in evaluating the plan’s performance. The plan therefore directly affects the administrative workload and budgetary priorities of these public entities.
Land and water users involved in development and infrastructure. Section 8.1 identifies infrastructure and coastal development in Australia, and especially reclamation and development in the Yellow Sea, as the most significant threat to migratory shorebirds. The plan therefore affects developers, local government planning authorities, port and infrastructure proponents, and any private sector entity engaged in coastal reclamation, infill or wetland conversion. The document attributes historical wetland conversion to urban development and agricultural expansion (Section 8.1), linking those sectors to the focal issues.
Primary producers, aquaculture and fisheries. Section 8.2 notes that fishing and aquaculture, forestry, agricultural practices and mining can modify habitat via siltation, pollution and hydrological change. Section 8.6 draws attention to fisheries by‑catch as a source of unquantified mortality. Those sectors therefore face policy attention through habitat‑management and by‑catch mitigation measures envisaged in the plan.
Recreational users and the tourism sector. Section 8.3 lists recreational activities that disturb shorebirds, including unleashed dogs, off‑road driving on beaches, fishing, jet‑skiing and increased recreational use of coastal areas. The plan identifies human disturbance as energetically costly to birds and likely to reduce site capacity for shorebirds.
Industry and shipping. The plan references acute pollution threats from shipping and industrial accidents (Section 8.2 Acute pollution) and identifies shipping‑related vectors for invasive marine pests (Section 8.2 Invasive species). Port operators, shipping companies and industries with potential spill risk are therefore within the plan’s scope of concern.
Scientific and monitoring bodies. The plan calls for targeted research, monitoring programmes and performance evaluation (Objectives 4; Sections 3 and 9). Universities, research institutes, bird survey groups and citizen science programs are intended partners.
International partners and foreign countries along the EAAF. The plan repeatedly frames its goals as requiring cooperation throughout the EAAF, which traverses 22 countries (Section 6.2 East Asian,Australasian Flyway Partnership). It therefore affects diplomatic and multilateral engagement, and the plan identifies flyway partners, working groups and task forces as implementation channels.
Hunters and regulated shooting sectors. Section 8.7 documents historical hunting of some species and notes that hunting of migratory shorebirds in Australia has been prohibited for decades, but the plan also signals hunting activity internationally as a threat.
Reserve and Ramsar site managers. The plan calls out Ramsar sites and identifies Roebuck Bay and Eighty‑mile Beach as examples where shorebirds are a major component of waterbird numbers (Section 6.2 Ramsar). Managers charged with maintaining the ecological character of these wetlands are therefore implicated as actors.
The plan identifies affected interests but does not in the provided text spell out specific compensatory arrangements, statutory constraints, or permit processes binding those groups. Its primary effect on these actors is to allocate priority for conservation action, to guide monitoring and research, and to channel intergovernmental and multilateral cooperation toward habitat protection and threat mitigation.
Key duties and rights
The plan’s operative obligations are managerial and programmatic rather than framed as statutory duties in the text provided. The plan creates expectations for certain actions and responsibilities; the rights or legal entitlements of parties are not expanded upon in this excerpt. Key duties and rights (as described or implied in the plan text) are:
Duties on lead organisations to implement actions. Section 9 presents the action framework and states that actions have identified lead organisations (in bold). This creates an administrative duty for those organisations to deliver on assigned tasks, apply performance criteria and report for evaluation (Sections 9 and 11). The plan also notes some objectives are long term and may not be achieved within the plan’s lifetime, signalling continuing obligations to pursue outcomes.
Duty to monitor and adapt. Section 3 requires monitoring programmes for vagrant species that may become regular visitors to determine whether inclusion under the plan is appropriate. Objective 4 (Section 5) commits to identifying and addressing knowledge gaps to inform decision makers, land managers and the public. Those statements create a duty to conduct and use monitoring and research.
Duty to prioritise threats according to the risk matrix. Section 8.8 explains that each threat is assessed through a qualitative risk matrix to determine action priority and that the precautionary principle is applied where data are lacking. Practically, this requires action designers to prioritise threats with the highest risk and to adopt precaution where consequences are uncertain.
Duty to cooperate internationally. The plan frames protection as a flyway problem and repeatedly calls for coordinated protection throughout the EAAF (Introduction; Section 6.2). Lead agencies and partners are therefore charged with a duty to engage with international partners, participate in working groups and task forces, and support flyway‑level site networks.
Right of species to move into threatened‑species processes. The plan explicitly states that it will cease to apply to any species that becomes listed as threatened under the EPBC Act; these species will instead receive approved Conservation Advice and possibly a recovery plan (Section 3). This is a procedural rule: an obligation to shift conservation management for listed species into the EPBC Act processes.
Expectation of performance measurement. The plan indicates actions will have priority levels, performance criteria and responsible agencies (Section 9). The existence of performance criteria implies a right of oversight and evaluation by the agencies and stakeholders named in Section 11.
Duty to manage human activities that cause disturbance, degradation or loss of habitat. While the plan does not itself prescribe legal prohibition text in the provided excerpts, Section 8 identifies specific human activities,coastal development, recreational disturbance, fishing practices, alteration of hydrology,that must be addressed by the actions to achieve objectives 1-3 (Section 5). The plan therefore expects implementing agencies and partners to take steps to minimise these activities' impacts.
Notably absent from the provided text are explicit new statutory rights for private parties, compensation provisions for landholders, or new criminal or civil penalties created by the plan itself. Where legal force or enforcement is necessary, the plan refers to other frameworks (for example, the EPBC Act and international conventions), which are covered elsewhere in the document (Section 6).
Penalties and enforcement
The text provided does not set out penalties or an enforcement regime inside the Wildlife Conservation Plan itself. There is no schedule of fines, criminal offences, civil penalties or administrative sanctions in the excerpts. Instead, the plan positions itself as a policy and management instrument that operates within a broader legal framework.
What the plan does state about enforcement‑relevant legal instruments is limited but instructive:
Interaction with the EPBC Act. Section 3 specifies that any species that becomes listed as a threatened species under the EPBC Act will be removed from the scope of this plan and managed instead under approved Conservation Advice and recovery planning processes. This implies that enforcement and compliance for listed species is the domain of the EPBC Act framework rather than the plan itself.
International conventions and obligations. Section 6.2 describes Australia’s commitments under treaties and partnerships such as the Bonn Convention, bilateral migratory bird agreements (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA), Ramsar and the East Asian,Australasian Flyway Partnership. The text expressly notes some of those treaties are binding only on a limited number of countries (Section 6.2). The plan uses these instruments as mechanisms for pursuing conservation outcomes but does not itself contain enforcement measures derived from them.
Performance criteria and evaluation. The plan includes performance criteria for actions and identifies organisations and persons who will evaluate plan performance (Sections 9 and 11). Evaluation processes imply monitoring and reporting obligations, and non‑performance would be visible through those processes. However, the text does not convert evaluation outcomes into penalties.
Practical enforcement therefore appears to be indirect and distributed. Enforcement of on‑ground compliance with statutory obligations is left to other laws and instruments referenced by the plan, and to the administrative measures, agreements and performance monitoring specified by the implementing agencies. The plan functions as a coordinating and prioritising policy tool, directing agencies and partners towards actions that will mitigate threats, but the text does not itself create a standalone enforcement code.
This has two operational implications, both set out in the document: first, achieving the plan’s objectives depends on the willingness and capacity of lead organisations and partners to act and to apply existing legal instruments where appropriate; second, the plan accepts uncertainty and uses a qualitative risk matrix and the precautionary principle to guide action priorities in the absence of binding new sanctions (Section 8.8 and Figure 4).
How it interacts with other laws
The plan explicitly situates itself in a constellation of international and domestic instruments and institutions. The document states that migratory shorebird conservation depends on coordinated national and international actions and notes the limitations of particular instruments, which shapes how the plan is intended to interact with those instruments.
EPBC Act relationship. Section 3 makes an explicit operational link to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are excluded from application under this plan and instead receive Conservation Advice or a recovery plan. The plan therefore functions as a complementary instrument, governing species that are not presently listed as threatened, and yields to the statutory mechanisms of the EPBC Act for species that cross the threshold into threatened status.
International conventions and bilateral agreements. Section 6.2 identifies multiple international commitments: the Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals), JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA. The plan cautions that these instruments do not encompass all migratory birds and are binding only on a limited number of countries. The plan therefore uses these agreements as mechanisms for pursuing conservation outcomes but recognises their limited geographic or species coverage.
Ramsar Convention. The plan treats Ramsar as a habitat‑focused instrument: parties are committed to nominating internationally significant wetlands and maintaining their ecological character (Section 6.2 Ramsar Convention). The text records Australia’s 65 Ramsar sites and approximately 8.1 million hectares of Ramsar wetlands as at July 2015, and it cites specific Ramsar sites (Roebuck Bay and Eighty‑mile Beach) where migratory shorebirds are a major component. The plan therefore aligns site‑based conservation actions with Ramsar listing and management obligations.
East Asian,Australasian Flyway Partnership. The plan identifies the EAAF Partnership as a voluntary, non‑binding regional initiative and a practical mechanism for working with other countries in the flyway (Section 6.2). It notes the Partnership operates via working groups and task forces and aims to establish a network of important sites across the flyway.
Complementary domestic instruments. While the provided text does not itemise other Australian statutes, it references the concept of "Key Threatening Process" under the EPBC Act in the context of climate change (Section 8.4). The plan’s actions therefore anticipate interaction with broader domestic environmental law and policy instruments that regulate development, pollution, hydrological change and invasive species.
Mechanically, the plan is designed to operate alongside these laws and instruments: it provides priority setting, actions and monitoring for species not listed as threatened while acknowledging statutory processes for threatened species and international processes for transboundary conservation. The plan’s effectiveness therefore depends on the interfaces between policy, domestic statutory regulation and international cooperation, including the ability of implementing organisations to use existing regulatory tools, planning controls, Ramsar site management and flyway partnerships to carry out the actions the plan identifies.
Amendment history
The document itself is labelled August 2015. The plan records recent changes and the triggers that determine its applicability:
Revision and species list adjustments. Section 3 describes that the revised Wildlife Conservation Plan includes 35 species (Appendix A) and that Little ringed plover has been added to the revised list based on expert opinion and new information. This indicates at least one recent amendment to species coverage leading into the August 2015 edition.
Species removed due to threatened listings. Section 3 specifically records that on 26 May 2015 Eastern curlew and Curlew sandpiper were listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act and that this listing made them ineligible for inclusion under the revised Wildlife Conservation Plan. The plan states that listed threatened species receive separate approved Conservation Advice and in some cases a recovery plan. Therefore, the plan’s scope changes mechanically as species are moved into the statutory threatened‑species framework.
Mechanism for future inclusion and removal. The plan articulates a rule for future change: any additional migratory shorebird species that are currently considered vagrant but are recorded regularly should be supported with monitoring programmes to determine whether inclusion under the plan is appropriate (Section 3). Conversely, species that become threatened under the EPBC Act are removed from the plan’s application (Section 3). This establishes a standing amendment mechanism linked to monitoring and statutory listing.
No explicit legislative amendment schedule published in the excerpts. The provided text does not record a formal amendment register or legislative enactment mechanism for the plan itself. It also does not list previous versions by date beyond the August 2015 publication and the 26 May 2015 reference to threatened listings. Where the plan relies on external statutory processes (for example, the EPBC Act listing process) the plan anticipates being adjusted when such processes operate.
Long‑term objectives and iterative review. Section 9 notes that some objectives are long‑term and may not be fully achieved during the lifetime of the plan. Section 11 names organisations and persons involved in evaluating plan performance, implying scheduled review and adaptive management, although no formal amendment timetable is provided in the excerpts.
In practice, amendment history within the plan is driven by species listing decisions under the EPBC Act and by the outputs of surveillance and monitoring programmes that may justify adding vagrant species into the plan. The document therefore contemplates continuing revision driven by empirical monitoring and statutory listings rather than by a fixed amendment clause contained in the plan excerpts.
Litigation history
The provided document contains no record of litigation. There are no cited cases, no references to judicial review of the plan, and no mention of court challenges to the plan’s provisions or to decisions made under it. The text includes references to scientific literature and surveys but does not recount legal proceedings.
Given the plan’s form in the provided excerpts , a policy and action framework rather than a text purporting to create new statutory offences or permit requirements , the document itself appears less likely, on its face, to be the immediate subject of litigation. However, several features of the plan could be implicated in litigation under other instruments named in the plan (for example, disputes about development approvals that impact Ramsar sites or species listed under the EPBC Act). Those potential litigation pathways are not described in this plan excerpt.
Concretely, the document does record one administrative decision of relevance to planning and regulation: the listing of Eastern curlew and Curlew sandpiper as critically endangered under the EPBC Act on 26 May 2015, with the consequence that they are excluded from the plan (Section 3). The plan does not describe any legal disputes about that listing decision within the provided text.
In summary, no litigation history is recorded or discussed in the provided material. The plan instead cites scientific studies and survey reports as the evidence base for its threat assessments and priorities.
Gotchas
The document contains several operational and interpretive features that may be easily missed or misunderstood if read superficially:
Plan applicability shifts with EPBC listings. The plan expressly states that it will cease to apply to any species that becomes a listed threatened species under the EPBC Act (Section 3). Practitioners should not assume the plan covers a species regardless of its statutory status. A species' management may shift abruptly from this plan to statutory Conservation Advice and a recovery plan when a listing decision is made.
Species count inconsistency and the distinction between visitors and coverage. The Introduction notes thirty‑seven species regularly visit Australia during their non‑breeding season. Section 3 then states the plan includes 35 species and that Little ringed plover has been added in the revision. The difference in numbers arises because two species (Eastern curlew and Curlew sandpiper) were listed as critically endangered and therefore excluded from the plan (Section 3). Users should not assume the plan’s species list is static; it is actively adjusted by monitoring and by statutory listings.
The plan is policy not a directly binding prohibition list in the provided text. The instrument identifies actions, priorities and lead organisations (Section 9) but does not itself set out fines, criminal offences or administrative penalties in the text provided. Enforcement of legal obligations will depend on other instruments mentioned in the plan, in particular the EPBC Act, Ramsar obligations and relevant domestic planning and environmental laws (Section 6.2). Relying on the plan alone to establish a legal position about permitted or prohibited conduct risks error.
Many threats are outside Australia’s jurisdiction yet are ranked as highest priority. Figure 4 and Section 8 note that coastal development and reclamation in the Yellow Sea region , activities outside Australia , are among the highest residual risks to migratory shorebird populations. This creates a practical constraint: the plan can set priorities and pursue international cooperation, but it cannot directly regulate land‑use actions in other sovereign states. Implementation depends on diplomacy and on the effectiveness of voluntary or bilateral agreements (Section 6.2).
The risk matrix is qualitative and precautionary. Section 8.8 explains that threat assessment relies on a qualitative risk matrix, peer reviewed literature and expert opinion, and applies the precautionary principle where consequences are unknown. This is an explicit methodological choice; it means decision makers must be prepared to justify priority choices on qualitative grounds and to deal with uncertainty in performance reporting.
Performance criteria and lead organisations are promised but are not reproduced in full in the excerpts. Section 9 says actions have priorities and performance criteria and that lead organisations are identified in bold. The absence of the fully detailed action tables in the excerpts means readers must consult the full plan to identify concrete assigned responsibilities, timeframes and measurable indicators.
Long time horizons and incomplete achievement. Section 9 candidly states some objectives are long‑term and may not be achieved during the plan’s lifetime. Operational planning and budgeting therefore need to account for multi‑year commitments and the possibility of intergenerational objectives.
Data gaps and monitoring dependencies. The plan both prioritises action and acknowledges significant knowledge gaps (Objective 4, Section 5). Some actions therefore depend on new monitoring and research; until these are in place, action priorities may change or remain contested.
The plan assumes cooperative implementation. Many of the plan’s key measures presume coordinated action across governments, NGOs, research institutions and local managers. Where cooperation falters, the plan’s effectiveness may be compromised; the plan contains no direct coercive instrument to force participation.
These practical caveats highlight that the plan is a prioritisation and coordination instrument whose effects on rights and obligations are mediated through other laws, administrative action and international cooperation. Practitioners should verify species lists, consult the full action tables for lead agencies and performance criteria, and check statutory frameworks (for example EPBC listings and Ramsar site documentation) to determine concrete legal obligations.
How to comply
Compliance in the context of this plan is an administrative and practical matter: the document sets expectations for actions, monitoring and coordination rather than prescribing single statutory compliance mechanisms in the excerpts provided. The following is a practical checklist, grounded in the plan text, for agencies, land managers, developers and other affected parties to align with the plan’s objectives.
Check species status and plan applicability (Section 3). Confirm whether a species is included in Appendix A, and whether it has been listed under the EPBC Act (the plan ceases to apply to listed threatened species). For species that are vagrant but recorded regularly, support and participate in monitoring programmes to determine whether formal inclusion is appropriate.
Use the plan’s threat prioritisation. The plan’s risk matrix (Section 8.8 and Figure 4) identifies highest residual risks such as coastal development (domestic) and reclamation in the Yellow Sea (international). Implementing bodies should follow the plan’s rationale to prioritise mitigation measures for threats assessed as Major or Catastrophic in consequence.
Align site management with Ramsar and flyway obligations (Section 6.2). Where wetlands are Ramsar listed or candidate sites, integrate Ramsar obligations to maintain ecological character in planning and management. Participate in the EAAF Partnership working groups and task forces where appropriate to contribute to flyway‑level site network actions.
Implement on‑site measures to reduce anthropogenic disturbance (Section 8.3). The plan identifies specific disturbance sources: aircraft over‑flights, industrial operations, artificial lighting, off‑road driving, unleashed dogs and jet‑skiing. Practical measures identified or implied by the plan include restricting public access near roosting and feeding sites during sensitive periods, establishing minimum distances for walkways and tracks, fencing or otherwise protecting sensitive areas, and implementing signage and education campaigns. The plan cites a study recommending minimum distances and fencing for the most sensitive areas.
Address habitat loss and modification in planning decisions (Section 8.1 and 8.2). For development proponents and planning authorities, the plan signals that conversion, reclamation and hydrological modification are primary drivers of habitat loss. Compliance should therefore involve integrating shorebird habitat considerations into environmental impact assessment processes, avoiding irreversible reclamation of intertidal flats, and designing projects to minimise siltation, pollution and altered hydrological regimes.
Control invasive species and pollution sources (Section 8.2). Coordinate with pest management and catchment authorities to reduce invasive plant and animal impacts and to control nutrient and chemical runoff. For shipping and port operators, implement ballast and hull management to reduce marine pest introductions. For industrial operators, reinforce spill prevention and rapid response planning to minimise acute pollution risks.
Reduce by‑catch and fishing impacts (Section 8.6). Where fishing gear operates near intertidal flats, implement gear modifications, temporal closures or gear retrieval protocols to avoid nets being stranded at low tide. Support research into the scale and mechanism of fisheries by‑catch and apply mitigation techniques as evidence emerges.
Support monitoring, research and adaptive management (Sections 3 and 5). Implement monitoring programs that collect abundance, distribution and condition data. Use those data to trigger reassessment under the plan’s qualitative risk matrix and to provide inputs for performance criteria. Research priorities include migration ecology, staging area dependence, pollutant accumulation and by‑catch quantification.
Engage in international coordination. For activities affected by threats outside Australia (notably Yellow Sea reclamation), Australian agencies should invest effort in multilateral and bilateral diplomacy, funding flyway‑scale projects, and participating in the EAAF Partnership and Ramsar fora, as the plan emphasises that conservation in one country is ineffective without complementary actions elsewhere (Introduction; Section 6.2).
Use the plan’s performance criteria and evaluation mechanisms (Section 9 and Section 11). Where lead organisations are identified, ensure they document, implement and report against the performance criteria in the plan’s action tables. Participate in the evaluation of plan performance and be prepared to adapt actions based on monitoring, new evidence and the plan’s priority settings.
Apply the precautionary principle in decision‑making, as the plan prescribes (Section 8.8). Where a threat’s consequences or likelihood are not well quantified, favour measures that avoid irreversible habitat loss or species decline until sufficient data justify a different approach.
Coordinate native and statutory regulatory obligations. Where a project or action engages statutory law (for example an activity that may impact a Ramsar site or a species listed under the EPBC Act), ensure compliance with the relevant statutory processes and consult the plan for additional policy priorities that may guide mitigation and offset design.
This compliance list reflects the plan’s emphasis on habitat protection, threat mitigation and monitoring. Because the plan itself does not create new penalties in the provided excerpts, compliance involves aligning administrative practice, project design and inter‑agency cooperation with the plan’s priorities, and using the existing statutory tools and international partnership mechanisms the plan references to achieve on‑ground outcomes.
Part 3Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan
As 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.
3 Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan
3 Species covered under the Wildlife Conservation Plan
This 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.
If 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.
4 Vision
4 Vision
Ecologically sustainable populations of migratory shorebirds remain distributed across their range and diversity of habitats in Australia, and throughout the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.
5 Objectives
5 Objectives
Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF.
Wetland habitats in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, are protected and conserved.
Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised or, where possible, eliminated.
Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public.
6 Legal Framework
6 Legal Framework
6.2 Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds
6.2 Other Australian commitments relevant to migratory shorebirds
While 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
became increasingly concerned about the conservation status of migratory waterbirds, additional mechanisms have been developed for multilateral cooperation on waterbird conservation throughout the EAAF.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
Australia 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.
The 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.
As 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).
East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnersh East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnership
East Asian—Australasian Flyway Partnership
The 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.
The 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.
Flyway 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
7 Important habitat for migratory shorebirds in Australia
7 Important habitat for migratory shorebirds in Australia
Figure 2. Process for identifying import Figure 2. Process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Latham’s snipe) within Australia.
Figure 2. Process for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Latham’s snipe) within Australia.
8 Threats
8 Threats
8.1 Habitat loss
8.1 Habitat loss
Infrastructure / coastal development in Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia
Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia
Habitat 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
commercial 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.
In 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
to 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.
Infrastructure /coastal development in s Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea
Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea
Of 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.
8.2 Habitat modification
8.2 Habitat modification
Modification of wetland habitats can arise from a range of different activities including fishing or aquaculture, forestry and agricultural practices,
mining, 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
is 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.
Chronic pollution Chronic pollution
Chronic pollution
Shorebird 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.
Acute pollution Acute pollution
Acute pollution
Wetlands 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.
Invasive species Invasive species
Invasive species
Introduced 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.
Outside 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 (Tila
This is an opening excerpt, not the complete document.