Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (National Recovery Plan for Macadamia Species) Instrument 2023

The Recovery Plan centres around a small set of concrete conservation concepts that structure priorities and interventions.

Species and status

• Four Macadamia species are covered: Macadamia integrifolia, M. jansenii, M. ternifolia and M. tetraphylla. The Plan records their Commonwealth and State listing status (Table 1; Conservation status), noting that they are listed as vulnerable or endangered under relevant State and Commonwealth law and on the IUCN Red List (Executive summary; Conservation status; International obligations).

Threat prioritisation

• The Plan evaluates threats using a probability/consequence matrix (Appendix 2; Table 9; Figure 2). Threats are ranked by expected likelihood and ecological consequence and given time horizons (short, medium, long). Primary threats identified include habitat loss and fragmentation, small population size, invasive weeds (particularly vine weeds), altered fire regimes, climate change, genetic pollution from cultivated Macadamia germplasm, disease (Phytophthora spp.) and feral pigs (Threats; Table 9).

Recovery objectives and adaptive management

• The overall objective is to ensure long‑term viability of all four species by maintaining existing populations and implementing recovery measures (Overall objective; Section 5). The Plan sets specific objectives (continue surveys; reduce and manage threats; increase ecological knowledge; raise awareness; manage, monitor and evaluate the Plan) and links each objective to performance criteria and management actions. The Plan adopts an adaptive management framework with biennial review and a five‑year evaluation target (Actions 5.1-5.2; Evaluation).

Spatial prioritisation and habitat

• The Plan identifies habitat types and regional ecosystems critical to survival (e.g. RE 12.3.1, 12.8.3, 12.11.10, 12.12.16 for M. integrifolia; Table 3). It prioritises specific populations using criteria including population size, proximity to neighbours (pollen transfer distance), and remnant status (Priority populations; Tables 4-8). This produces site‑level priorities ranging from Very High to Medium.

Tools, implementation instruments and roles

• Recommended tools are largely voluntary and collaborative: targeted surveys and data uploads to WildNet/BioNet/ALA, negotiated voluntary conservation agreements with private landholders (Land for Wildlife, nature refuge), seed banks and ex‑situ populations (notably for M. jansenii), provenance protocols for propagation, property management plans, biocontrol release for key weeds and long‑term monitoring plots (Actions 1.1-3.6; 2.3-2.10).

Costs and financing

• The Plan provides a five‑year indicative budget for actions (Table 12). Total indicative cost over five years is $2,317,500, with line items for surveys, landholder engagement, on‑ground works, monitoring and research. The Plan lists potential contributors widely (federal and state agencies, local government, regional NRM bodies, industry bodies, universities, community groups and landholders) rather than specifying committed funding sources.

Institutional structure

• The Macadamia Conservation Committee (MCC) and Macadamia Conservation Research Committee (MCRC) are identified as coordinating bodies with membership listed (Appendix 1; Tables 13-14). The MCC is tasked with coordination, biennial review, maintaining a business plan and recommending actions and membership (Action 5.1).

These concepts interlock: site prioritisation informs which private landholders the Plan seeks agreements with; identification of genetic and pollination risks informs recommendations on provenance protocols and industry liaison; cost estimates frame the practical scale of sourcing resources; monitoring and adaptive review close the loop between research and on‑ground management.

The Plan explicitly lists the range of stakeholders across public, private and community sectors (Affected interests). That list is comprehensive in the document and identifies, among others:

• First Nations peoples, Traditional Owners and Indigenous Land Councils (Consultation with First Nations people; Action 3.4).
• Commonwealth and State Government agencies, including DCCEEW (Commonwealth Department named as publisher and conduit), Queensland Department of Environment and Science (DES), Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) and others (Affected interests; Potential Contributors across actions).
• Local governments across some 15 local government areas that host Macadamia populations (Affected interests).
• Industry bodies and commercial stakeholders: Australian Macadamia Society (AMS), Horticulture Innovation Australia / Horticulture Innovation Australia Ltd now referred to, Macadamia growers and commercial plantation operators (Affected interests; Actions 3.3, 4.4).
• Community and non‑government conservation organisations and landcare groups (Affected interests; Actions 2.8, 2.10).
• Research institutions and universities (CSIRO, Griffith University, University of the Sunshine Coast, University of Queensland, Southern Cross University), which the Plan expects to undertake genetic, ecological and climate modelling research (Affected interests; Actions 3.1-3.3).
• Private landholders and land managers where wild populations occur; the Plan emphasises a substantial portion of populations occur on private land and identifies voluntary agreements, property management plans and provision of on‑ground resources as key mechanisms (Affected interests; Action 2.3; 2.7; 2.8).
• Conservation committees and trusts (Macadamia Conservation Trust, Macadamia Conservation Committee) who coordinate implementation (Action 5.1; Appendix 1).

Who pays: Table 12 sets indicative costs for actions but does not identify committed funders. The Plan repeatedly signals that costs are to be shared across Australian Government, state agencies, local governments, industry, philanthropic organisations and landholders (Actions 2.8, 2.1 and the Cost Table footers). The Plan therefore shifts implementation burden to a coalition of public agencies, industry groups and civil society; private landholders are expected to participate but most interventions on private land (fencing, weed control, covenanting) are proposed as voluntary, with resources to be sought or provided through various grants and partnership programs (Action 2.8; 2.3; 2.7).

Who decides: the Macadamia Conservation Committee is the Plan’s coordinating body and its membership and terms of reference are described (Action 5.1; Appendix 1). State and local governments retain statutory planning and vegetation management decision authority; the Plan seeks to influence those processes by providing habitat data and advocating incorporation of Plan outcomes into planning schemes (Action 2.1; 2.2; 4.4). Industry bodies such as the AMS are named as partners in research and extension, implying they will be consulted for measures like cultivar planting guidance (Action 3.3).

Behavioural change required: landholders are asked to enter voluntary agreements, adopt property‑management and threat‑mitigation practices, and host ex‑situ populations where relevant. Industry actors are asked to consider provenance protocols and changes to codes of practice to reduce pollen transfer into wild populations (Action 3.3; Action 2.6). Public land managers and local government are asked to incorporate Macadamia data into planning decisions and to assist with on‑ground management (Action 2.1; 4.4). Researchers are asked to fill specific knowledge gaps that directly inform conservation prioritisation (Actions 3.1-3.3).

Geographic and tenure scope: the Plan covers north‑east New South Wales and south‑east Queensland populations, including National Parks, state forests, reserves, road reserves and private lands (Species distribution sections; Tables 5-8). Implementation thus requires cross‑jurisdictional coordination (Action 4.4), and the Plan repeatedly notes that differing state laws, resourcing and priorities complicate a consistent response (Uncoordinated conservation).

The Recovery Plan is formatted as a set of recommended actions, priorities and contributors; it does not, within its own text, create novel statutory duties, licensing requirements or civil liabilities. The key operative features for practitioners are:

• Recommendations and expectations: the Plan assigns "Potential Contributors" to actions (for example, MCC, DES, DPIE, LLS, local governments, regional NRM organisations, researchers, landholders) and sets priorities (High, Medium, Low) and timelines (implicit in the five‑year budget and biennial review provisions). These are guidance and convening instruments (Actions 1.1-5.2; Table 12).
• Information obligations: the Plan expects data gathered by surveys be submitted to government databases (National Forest Inventory/ABARES, Tree Seed Centre/CSIRO, WildNet, BioNet, Atlas of Living Australia and relevant local governments) (Actions 1.1-1.3; Action 2.1). That creates an operational duty for surveyors and contributing bodies to provide data to specific platforms identified in the Plan.
• Property management and voluntary agreements: the Plan promotes negotiation of voluntary conservation agreements, covenants and participation in programs such as Land for Wildlife and nature refuge schemes (Action 2.3; 2.7). Those are legal instruments under state law (not created by this instrument), but the Plan explicitly encourages use of them.
• Coordination and oversight: the MCC has a continuing coordination role, is to meet regularly, review progress biennially and maintain a business plan for the Trust (Action 5.1; Evaluation). That creates an internal governance duty for MCC members to oversee Plan implementation.
• Data‑driven prioritisation: the Plan requires prioritisation decisions to be made on the basis of survey results and genetic and ecological research (Action 1.4; 3.2). That imposes an internal decision discipline on the MCC and contributors to use particular data inputs for resource allocation.
• No new sanctions: the text does not set fines, enforcement mechanisms or criminal offences attaching to non‑compliance with the Plan’s recommendations. Enforcement activities referenced are those under existing State or Commonwealth legislation (for listed threatening processes, and for species listed under state Acts) rather than the Plan itself (Threats; Conservation status).

Rights or entitlements flowing from the Plan are similarly programmatic rather than statutory. For instance, landholders may be offered "resources and incentives" to support protection (Action 2.8), but the Plan does not itself appropriate funds, nor does it create entitlement to funding. The Plan does create an expectation that data will be used to inform statutory planning decisions (Action 2.1), and that conservation liaison will be pursued with land managers and industry , this may affect land‑use assessments and planning outcomes indirectly through information provision, but the Plan itself does not alter statutory planning powers.

For practitioners, the practical "duties" to watch for are: obligations to upload survey data to specified databases; expectations to participate in MCC‑led monitoring and review; and the operational requirement to adopt recommended management practices if an organisation or landholder chooses to participate (Actions 1.1-1.4; 3.5; 2.7-2.9). The Plan formalises these as expectations and coordination tasks rather than statutory commands.

The Recovery Plan document itself contains no expressed penalty regime or enforcement provisions. It is framed as guidance: priorities, actions and potential contributors are listed as recommendations to be implemented through cooperative arrangements (Actions 1.1-5.2). Specific points in the Plan that are relevant to enforcement practice and regulatory interaction include:

• The Plan repeatedly acknowledges existing statutory protections and listed Key Threatening Processes. Several threats referred to in the Plan are already Listed Key Threatening Processes under the EPBC Act (for example, land clearing, dieback caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi, inappropriate fire regimes, feral pigs), and the Plan references these listings when setting priorities for action (Threats; Table 9). Those listings sit in other statutory instruments that carry existing legal consequences; the Recovery Plan itself does not modify those regimes.
• The Plan flags detection and monitoring limitations, notably that "loss of individual trees or small populations from private land particularly is difficult to detect, reducing the effectiveness of the legislative protection afforded to Macadamia species" (Affected interests; Habitat and distribution summary). Practically, that highlights an enforcement risk: existing statutory prohibitions may be hard to apply where populations are scattered and unmonitored.
• Implementation of the Plan’s recommended actions relies on voluntary agreements, negotiation with landholders, grant funding and cooperation among jurisdictions (Actions 2.3; 2.8; 4.4). Enforcement, insofar as it exists, will therefore depend on contractual and funding arrangements concluded between parties and on enforcement of pre‑existing environmental laws by the relevant agencies.

For compliance advisers and lawyers, the immediate consequences are:

• The Plan can be an evidentiary source and policy document used by agencies and local governments to justify planning or funding decisions. It instructs which habitat mapping and data should be used (Action 2.1), and that could influence statutory approvals or conservation assessments, but any legally enforceable outcome will derive from separate statutory instruments.
• The Plan may be referenced in discretionary administrative decision‑making (for example, when an agency is deciding whether to fund a remediation project or to require offsetting) , again, the Plan’s status is advisory and supplementary to statutory duties imposed elsewhere.

In short, the instrument does not create new penalties; enforcement of conservation objectives will continue to operate through existing laws and through the practical leverage of funding, landholder agreements and planning processes. The Plan emphasises monitoring and data submission to strengthen enforcement capability indirectly, but does not itself provide enforcement tools.

The Recovery Plan is expressly framed to sit alongside and inform existing state and Commonwealth legal instruments rather than to replace or amend them. Explicit interactions set out in the text include:

• Statutory provenance: the Plan is made under subsection 269A(3) of the EPBC Act (2.1C). The Plan references the EPBC Act and lists threatening processes that are statutory constructs under that Act (Threats sections; Table 9). The Plan therefore functions as an EPBC recovery plan authorised by the Commonwealth, which agencies and decision‑makers may treat as a policy document when implementing the EPBC Act and related obligations.
• State threatened species legislation: the Plan records that the species are listed under State legislation (Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW)) and refers to those laws when describing conservation status and management contexts (Conservation status; Table 1). The Plan anticipates cooperation with state agencies (Potential Contributors: DES, DPIE, etc.) and requests that its habitat mapping and priorities be used to inform state and local planning decisions (Action 2.1; 4.4).
• Planning and vegetation management: the Plan requests that Macadamia population data and modelled climate projections be made available and incorporated into planning schemes and policies (Action 2.2; 2.1). This is an evidentiary and informational interaction: the Plan supplies data and models for use within statutory planning processes, but it does not modify statutory planning instruments.
• On‑ground biosecurity and biocontrol: the Plan calls for coordinated biocontrol release and monitoring in partnership with Biosecurity Queensland and other plant pest authorities (Action 2.10). That indicates the Plan expects to work within existing biosecurity frameworks and regulatory approvals for release of biological control agents.
• Landholder legal instruments: the Plan endorses voluntary conservation agreements and covenants such as Land for Wildlife, nature refuges or conservation covenants (Action 2.3). These are state‑based legal instruments; the Plan explicitly proposes their use as mechanisms to secure habitat on private land.
• Research and genetic resources regimes: the Plan notes Australia’s obligations under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the need to conserve genetic resources of Macadamia for food and agriculture (International obligations). Proposed seed banks and ex‑situ populations (Action 2.5; 2.4) may interact with biosecurity, quarantine, and seed‑exchange rules, and with intellectual property or access and benefit‑sharing frameworks , although the Plan does not spell out legal mechanisms for those interactions.

The Plan also recognises cross‑jurisdictional friction and implementation risk: "Variations in legislation, resourcing and prioritisation of threatened species management between the States and local governments can result in significant discrepancies in the ability of public agencies to assist" (Uncoordinated conservation). That text flags a practical legal interaction: while the Plan is a Commonwealth‑made recovery plan, much of the management work and statutory authority for land use sits with states and local governments; thus the Plan depends on cooperative translation into state/local regulatory and funding decisions.

For practitioners advising clients, immediate legal intersections to consider are: whether the presence of priority habitat or a population recorded under Plan surveys alters statutory obligations for land‑use approvals under state laws; whether voluntary conservation agreements will impose enforceable terms; whether seed collection, translocation or ex‑situ propagation will trigger biosecurity, seed bank or access‑and‑benefit‑sharing rules. The Plan provides the data and recommended practices but leaves statutory tools and enforcement to separate regimes.

The instrument text itself contains the replacement and making history for the Recovery Plan:

• It explicitly replaces the former Southern Macadamia Species Recovery Plan (Executive summary).
• The Instrument is dated and signed: Tanya Plibersek, Minister for the Environment and Water (Commonwealth), dated 4 October 2023; Meaghan Scanlon, Queensland Minister for the Environment and the Great Barrier Reef (Queensland), dated 7 March 2023 (front matter and signatures). The instrument states it is made under subsection 269A(3) of the EPBC Act (2.1C).
• Commencement is prescribed as the day after registration (2.1B), so the plan’s practical effect as a published recovery plan follows the registration event.

Internal evolution recorded within the plan

• The Plan documents that it builds on extensive work under the previous SMSRP and incorporates survey and research findings generated during implementation of that plan (Executive summary; Evaluation of previous Recovery Plan). It records that the Macadamia Conservation Committee and the Macadamia Conservation Trust were established and that the Macadamia Conservation Research Network was renamed to Macadamia Conservation Research Committee in 2018 (Evaluation; Appendix 1).
• The Plan lists the research papers and studies completed since the earlier plan and notes advances in genetic and climate modelling work (Evaluation; Bibliography).

No textual amendment process is specified inside the plan beyond the governance arrangements: the MCC will review the Recovery Plan biennially and will evaluate progress and revise priorities as required, with a five‑year evaluation target (Action 5.2; Evaluation of Recovery Plan). The Plan therefore anticipates iterative revision rather than legislative amendment. It does not set out a formal schedule for Commonwealth amendment of the instrument text itself or procedural steps for substituting or varying the instrument beyond the biennial/5‑year review process.

Copyright and licensing

• The Plan is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (front matter), and copyright is owned by the Commonwealth unless otherwise noted (front matter). That affects reuse and dissemination of the Plan’s content.

Practically, the documented history indicates the Plan is a successor, consolidating prior work and signalling ongoing review by the MCC; legal amendment of the underlying EPBC instrument would follow the Commonwealth’s instrument‑making practices, with no further amendment history recorded in the published text.

The published Recovery Plan contains no litigation history and does not mention court decisions or disputes concerning its content, implementation, or the covered species. The Bibliography cites scientific literature, government reports and media articles, but no judicial authorities or administrative law determinations are referenced in the document.

For practitioners, this absence is itself relevant: the Plan has not been described in the text as arising from litigation or a court‑ordered remedy, nor does it reference case law that interprets recovery plan duties under the EPBC Act. Accordingly, there is no litigation precedent cited within the instrument that clarifies how courts or tribunals may treat recovery plans for enforcement or statutory interpretation. Any litigation or judicial reliance on the Plan would therefore be matters external to the text and should be researched separately if needed.

If users require whether the Plan has been the subject of legal challenge or judicial reference in other materials, the Recovery Plan provides no such history; the Plan functions as an executive policy instrument rather than a product of litigation.

The Plan contains a number of operational and legal gotchas that advisers and implementers should be alert to; the Plan is explicit about many of them.

Funding is indicative, not committed

• Table 12 provides line‑by‑line cost estimates and a grand total ($2,317,500 over five years). The document repeatedly refers to seeking resources (Action 2.8; 2.1; Summary of actions), and names potential contributors, but it does not appropriate funds or create funding entitlements. Implementation thus depends on future funding decisions by multiple parties. Expect implementation risk where funding priorities shift.

Voluntary instruments and private land reliance

• Many populations are on private land; the Plan relies heavily on voluntary conservation agreements, property management plans, and landholder cooperation (Action 2.3; 2.7). This reliance creates potential gaps: private landholders may decline to participate, or practical costs (fencing, weed control, on‑going maintenance) may exceed available incentives. The Plan acknowledges this by recommending sourcing of resources and incentives, but the document leaves delivery mechanisms open.

Data gaps, detection problems and mapping error

• The Plan records data deficiencies (Action 1.3) and notes that many remnant patches are not mapped at standard scales; some populations are recorded as "non remnant" or are within 50 m of remnant vegetation (Priority criteria). Practically, this means regulators and planners may not notice or account for Macadamia habitat unless the survey data is uploaded and accessed (Action 1.1; 2.1). Failure to upload or maintain data could materially reduce the Plan’s protective effect.

Cross‑jurisdictional friction

• The Plan covers two states and many local governments, and it explicitly notes that variations in legislation and resourcing complicate coordinated conservation (Uncoordinated conservation). Practitioners should not assume uniform treatment across jurisdictions; implementation pathways, incentives and statutory protections will vary.

Genome and industry interactions

• The Plan recognises genetic pollution risks from cultivars and calls for research and outreach to the Macadamia industry and growers to develop provenance protocols and possible changes to codes of practice (Action 3.3; 2.6). However, until protocols are developed and adopted, planting of commercial cultivars may continue to pose hybridisation risks. That creates a timing mismatch between threat recognition and operational mitigation.

No enforcement mechanism in the Plan itself

• As noted above, the Plan does not create new legal offences or enforcement powers; it strengthens the evidence base and recommends voluntary measures. Conservation outcomes therefore depend on voluntary cooperation and the leverage of funding and planning processes rather than on direct statutory enforcement stemming from the Plan text.

Time horizons may be long

• Some measures are long term (ex‑situ population establishment for M. jansenii "expected to take a decade or more" (Action 2.4); monitoring and adaptive management cycles are multi‑year). Expect opportunity costs for agencies and landholders who must allocate staff time and resources over long periods before self‑sustaining populations are achieved.

Operational complexity for on‑ground work

• Some management actions require technical expertise (biocontrol release, Phytophthora management, provenance protocol design); the Plan frequently calls for partnerships and research to inform applied practice (Actions 2.10; 3.1-3.3). Implementers should budget for specialist input and regulatory approvals (e.g. for biocontrol releases).

Data flows and confidentiality

• The Plan requires data to be shared with public databases (WildNet, BioNet, ALA). Landholders might have confidentiality concerns over exact locations; implementers should plan for data‑sharing agreements, metadata standards and possible restrictions on precise location disclosure where appropriate.

In sum, the Plan is a robust technical roadmap, but it is not a self‑executing funding or enforcement instrument. Practitioners must plan for funding contingencies, voluntary uptake strategies, cross‑agency coordination, and time‑lagged biological outcomes.

"Compliance" in the context of a recovery plan is largely about aligning actions with the Plan’s recommendations, participating in coordination mechanisms and ensuring that data and management practices conform to the Plan’s expectations. For the key actor groups, practical steps grounded in the Plan are:

For private landholders and on‑ground managers

• Identify whether your property contains known Macadamia populations by consulting WildNet/BioNet/ALA and the Macadamia database referenced in the Plan (Actions 1.1; 4.2).
• Where populations exist, consider entering voluntary conservation agreements (Land for Wildlife, nature refuge, conservation covenants), as the Plan recommends (Action 2.3). These are state instruments that provide secure tenure‑appropriate protection; the Plan lists QTfN and BCT as potential partners (Affected interests; Action 2.3).
• Develop a property‑level management plan that addresses the Plan’s threat priorities: weed control (notably cat’s claw creeper and Madeira vine), livestock exclusion, fire management at ecotones, and local monitoring (Action 2.7; Table 11).
• Participate in monitoring plots and submit monitoring data to the MCC and to the specified databases (Action 3.5; 1.2-1.3). The Plan specifies submission targets (National Forest Inventory, Tree Seed Centre/CSIRO, WildNet, BioNet, ALA).
• Seek and apply for resources and incentives identified in the Plan (Action 2.8), understanding the Plan’s funding table is indicative and that actual grants must be secured from government, philanthropic or industry partners.

For local and state government planning and environment officers

• Integrate the Plan’s habitat mapping, priority population lists, and climate modelling outputs into planning decisions and threat assessments (Action 2.1; 2.2). Use the Plan’s recommended habitat datasets when assessing development impacts.
• Promote and facilitate voluntary protection mechanisms with landowners (Action 2.3) and provide targeted on‑ground assistance for weed and fire management on reserves holding priority populations (Action 2.9).
• Collaborate with MCC and MCRN on monitoring and research priorities, and ensure that statutory conservation processes are aware of the Plan’s prioritisation logic (Action 4.4).

For Commonwealth agencies and funding bodies

• Use the Plan’s prioritisation and cost estimates as a basis for grant and partnership funding decisions (Table 12). Note the Plan expects the Commonwealth to be a potential contributor across many actions (Potential Contributors noted per action).
• Coordinate with state agencies to reduce cross‑jurisdictional friction and to translate Plan recommendations into statutory planning advice and funding programs (Action 4.4; Action 2.1).

For industry (Macadamia growers and AMS)

• Engage with research on pollen flow and genetic pollution and adopt provenance protocols and code of practice modifications where evidence supports mitigation measures (Action 3.3; Action 2.6).
• Avoid planting commercial cultivars in close proximity to priority wild populations until provenance protocols are available; participate in joint outreach to growers as the Plan recommends (Action 4.2; 3.3).

For researchers and universities

• Prioritise research gaps identified in the Plan: population genetics, pollen flow and fitness of hybrids, Phytophthora impacts, climate change phenology impacts and viable translocation options (Actions 3.1-3.3). The Plan lists specific research priorities and potential contributors.
• Ensure survey and genetic data are shared with the MCC and public databases as per the Plan (Actions 1.1-1.4; 3.2).

Cross‑cutting operational steps

• Ensure data standards: when undertaking surveys, record population size, structure, reproductive viability, nearest neighbour distances and threats, and submit to the databases named by the Plan (Actions 1.2-1.3).
• Coordinate early with MCC and the Macadamia Conservation Trust to align actions with the Plan’s prioritisation and to participate in biennial review cycles (Action 5.1-5.2).
• If planning biocontrol releases or seed movement, consult Biosecurity Queensland, DAFF and relevant state authorities for required permits and risk assessments; the Plan recommends coordinated biocontrol programs and monitoring (Action 2.10).

Practical compliance checklist (short)

• Check presence of priority populations on your land or in your operational area.
• If present, register and share survey data with WildNet/BioNet/ALA and notify MCC.
• Where appropriate, enter voluntary conservation agreements and develop a property management plan addressing weeds, fire and livestock.
• Participate in monitoring plots and research partnerships; provide data for prioritisation.
• Seek funding from the sources suggested by the Plan and, where you are a funder, align grants to the Plan’s priorities.

The Plan frames these steps as collaborative expectations rather than statutory commands. For clients requiring legal certainty about duties and liabilities, the Plan should be read in parallel with the EPBC Act, the relevant state threatened species and vegetation management laws, and local planning instruments. The Plan’s value for practitioners is as a technical and policy roadmap that will inform statutory decision‑making and funding allocation, and a convening document to coordinate cross‑sector action.