Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Grantiella picta) Instrument 2022

This Instrument, made by the Minister for the Environment under subsection 269A(2) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), establishes the National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta). The Instrument records the ministerial decision to make a recovery plan, and specifies that the recovery plan will commence on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. The Minister, Sussan Ley, dated and signed the Instrument on 8 April 2022.

Mechanically, the Instrument does three things, as recorded in the source material:

It invokes the statutory power in s 269A(2) EPBC Act to make a recovery plan and announces the recovery plan title: National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta).
It fixes commencement as the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislation.
It incorporates the recovery plan content as the operative guidance for the Painted Honeyeater conservation measures set out in the attached document.

The recovery plan document that the Instrument puts into effect contains substantive prescriptions, objectives, management strategies, priority actions, roles and responsibilities, cost estimates for the first five years, and a timetable for review. Key operative elements in the plan include the long-term vision (removal of the species from listing), two express recovery objectives to be achieved by 2031 (measured against 2020 baseline counts and maintaining or improving habitat extent, condition and connectivity), and a suite of six strategies to achieve those objectives (protection and restoration of habitat; threat monitoring and mitigation; development of population measurement techniques; landscape-scale habitat-use research; stakeholder engagement; and coordination, review and reporting).

Commonwealth of Australia coat of arms

Commonwealth of Australia

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Grantiella picta) Instrument 2022

I, Sussan Ley, Minister for the Environment, under subsection 269A(2) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth), hereby make a recovery plan for the listed threatened species Grantiella picta, entitled National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta).

The recovery plan will commence on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Dated this 8th day of April 2022

Sussan Ley

Minister for the Environment (Commonwealth)

Title page for the National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) with a bird on a branch Description automatically generated with medium confidence

The Species Profile and Threats Database pages linked to this recovery plan is obtainable from: www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl

Publication information pertaining to the National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) View image in the official source View image in the official source

Table of Contents for the National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta)

A Painted Honeyeater perched on a branch amongst leaves

Summary

Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta)

Family: Meliphagidae

Current status of taxon:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth): Vulnerable

• Nature Conservation Act 2014 (Australian Capital Territory): Vulnerable

• Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 (Northern Territory): Vulnerable

• Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland): Vulnerable

• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales): Vulnerable

• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): Vulnerable

• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia): Rare

Distribution and habitat:

The Painted Honeyeater is small (16 cm) and distinctive, with a black head and back and white underparts with dark streaks on the flanks. The wings and tail are black with bright yellow edgings. The distinctive bill is pink with a dark tip. The female is greyer on the upperparts and has less streaking on the flanks.

The Painted Honeyeater is nomadic and occurs at low densities throughout its range. The greatest concentrations of individuals and almost all breeding occurs on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range in New South Wales, Victoria and southern Queensland. During the winter it is more likely to be found in the north of its distribution.

The species’ key habitats include Boree/Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula), Brigalow

(A. harpophylla) woodlands, box-gum woodlands and box-ironbark forests. The species is a specialist feeder on the fruits of mistletoes growing on eucalypts and acacias.

Painted Honeyeaters prefer to feed on mistletoes of the genus Amyema.

Recovery plan Vision, Objective and Strategies:

Long-term Vision

The Painted Honeyeater population has increased in size to such an extent that the species no longer qualifies for listing as threatened under any of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 listing criteria.

Recovery Plan Objective

By 2031, measure and sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Painted Honeyeater.
By 2031, maintain or improve the extent, condition and connectivity of habitat of the Painted Honeyeater.

This will be achieved by implementing the actions set out in this Recovery Plan that minimise threats while protecting and enhancing the species’ habitat throughout its range, adequately monitoring the species, generating new knowledge to guide recovery and increasing public awareness.

Strategies to achieve objective

Protect, manage and restore Painted Honeyeater breeding and foraging habitats at the local, regional and landscape scales.

Monitor, reduce and manage threats and sources of mortality.

Develop and apply techniques to measure changes in population trajectory in order to measure the success of recovery actions.

Improve understanding of habitat use at a landscape scale in order to better target protection and restoration measures.

Engage local communities and stakeholders in Painted Honeyeater conservation. Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress.

Criteria for success:

This recovery plan will be deemed successful if, by 2031, all of the following have

been achieved:

The Painted Honeyeater population has increased from 2020 baseline counts, as a result of recovery actions.

Threats within the range of Painted Honeyeater are managed to avoid and mitigate impacts on their habitats.

There has been an improvement in the quality and extent of Painted Honeyeater habitat throughout the species’ range.

Understanding of the species’ ecology has increased, in particular knowledge of movement patterns, habitat use and post-breeding dispersal.

There is increased participation by key stakeholders and the public in recovery efforts and monitoring.

Recovery team:

Recovery teams provide advice and assist in coordinating actions described in recovery plans. They include representatives from organisations with a direct interest in the recovery of the species, including those involved in funding and those participating

in actions that support the recovery of the species. The national Painted Honeyeater Recovery Team has the responsibility of providing advice, coordinating and directing the implementation of the recovery actions outlined in this recovery plan. The membership of the national Recovery Team includes individuals from relevant government agencies, non-government organisations, industry groups and expertise from independent researchers and community groups.

Graphical user interface Description automatically generated with medium confidence

This document constitutes the ‘National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta)’. The plan considers the conservation requirements of the species across its range and identifies the actions to be taken to ensure the species’ long-term viability in nature, and the responsible agencies that will undertake those actions.

This recovery plan is the first national plan to be developed for the Painted Honeyeater.

The Painted Honeyeater was listed as Vulnerable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (EPBC Act) on 8 July 2015. At the time of listing it was thought that there were fewer than 10,000 mature individuals remaining in the population and the total population had undergone a suspected

decline of 20–29 per cent over three generations based on monitoring, a reduced area of occupancy and deteriorating habitat quality (Garnett et al. 2011; Department of the Environment 2015a).

Principal threats to the Painted Honeyeater covered by this plan include habitat loss and degradation, competition from Noisy (Manorina melanocephala) and Yellow-throated Miners (M. flavigula) and Australia’s changing climate. Other potential threats to

the species may include predation by invasive species (e.g. Black Rats Rattus rattus); destruction of mistletoe in production forests; exacerbation of tree decline through pasture improvement activities; collision with road vehicles; and nest predation by native predators Pied Currawongs (Strepera graculina), Pied and Grey Butcherbirds (Cracticus nigrogularis and Cracticus torquatus), and crows and ravens (Corvidae)

(Lindsay, pers. comm. 2014; DEPI, 2014).

Threats to the species’ already fragmented habitat are not abating, with habitat continuing to be cleared for agriculture and industrial development and degraded by over-grazing (Garnett et al. 2011; Department of the Environment 2015a, b). This suggests that the population is likely to continue to decline at a substantial rate

without appropriate management interventions. The Painted Honeyeater’s geographic distribution is precarious for its survival as 100 per cent of mature individuals exist in one subpopulation (Garnett et al. 2011).

Accompanying Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) pages provide background information on the biology, population status and threats to the

Painted Honeyeater. SPRAT pages are available from:

http://www.environment.gov.au/ cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl.

View image in the official source

1.1 Conservation status

The Painted Honeyeater is listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and under state legislation (Table 1) in all parts of its range. Table 1 National and state conservation status of the Painted Honeyeater

1.2 Taxonomy

Generally accepted as Grantiella picta, Gould, 1838. The species is endemic to mainland Australia. Taxonomic uniqueness is high, the species is the only one in its genus and there are no subspecies.

A member of the family Meliphagidae, Painted Honeyeater was first described in 1838 by John Gould and given the name Entomophila picta, but it was renamed Grantiella picta

in 1911. Its genus name is in reference to Robert Grant, a Scottish-born taxidermist and collector, while the species name originates from the Latin word for painted, pictus, and refers to the yellow markings on the tail and wing feathers.

1.3 Species description

The Painted Honeyeater has black upperparts, white underparts, black spots on its flanks and yellow edges to the flight and tail feathers. The bill is a deep pink and the eye red. The females are smaller and browner on the back than the male, frequently with fewer streaks or spots on their breast and flanks (Higgins et al. 2001). Juveniles are even paler than the female, appearing more brown than black, with fainter yellow colouring to feathers and with a grey bill rather than the pink seen on adults (Higgins et al. 2001).

The Painted Honeyeater is the only small to medium honeyeater with a wholly or mostly pink bill, and the only yellow-winged honeyeater with almost wholly white underparts (marked only with sparse, fine and short black streaks) (Higgins et al.2001).

1.4 Species distribution

The Painted Honeyeater is endemic to Australia. The species is sparsely distributed from south-eastern Australia to north-western Queensland and eastern Northern Territory (Figure 1). The greatest concentrations and almost all records of breeding come from south of 26°S, on inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range between the Grampians, Victoria and Roma, Queensland (Higgins et al. 2001).

The species exhibits seasonal north-south movements governed principally by the fruiting of mistletoe, with which its breeding season is closely aligned

(Barea and Watson 2007). Many birds move after breeding to semi-arid regions such as north-eastern South Australia, central and western Queensland, and central Northern Territory. Considering its dispersive, nomadic habits, the species is considered to comprise a single population (Garnett et al. 2011).

1.5 Population size and trends

Estimating population size is difficult given the species’ rarity in most of its range. Garnett et al. (2011) estimated the total number of individuals at <10 000, based on an extrapolation of counts undertaken in areas of New South Wales and Victoria. It is thought that the population has undergone long-term decline, likely to have been accelerated by clearance of trees for agriculture, and lack of regeneration resulting from grazing by introduced herbivores. Much of its breeding habitat has become degraded, although it may have benefited from an increase in abundance of mistletoe

in some degraded woodlands (Higgins et al. 2001). The species’ population decline was previously suspected to be 20-29 per cent over the last three generations (17 years), based on monitoring, a reduced area of occupancy and deteriorating habitat quality (Garnett et al. 2011).

Painted Honeyeater perched on a thin branch

Figure 1 Modelled distribution of Painted Honeyeater

1.6 Biology and ecology

Habitat

The Painted Honeyeater is the most specialised of Australia’s honeyeaters. Its diet mainly consists of mistletoe fruits, but also includes nectar (from flowering mistletoe, eucalypts and possibly banksias) and arthropods, especially in the non-breeding season (Higgins et al. 2001; Garnett et al. 2011). Arthropods are an important part of the diet provided to nestlings (Barea and Watson 2007; Barea 2008a; Barea and Herrera 2009).

The species inhabits mistletoes in eucalypt forests, woodlands, riparian woodlands

of Black Box (Eucalyptus largiflorens) and River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), box-ironbark- yellow gum woodlands, acacia-dominated woodlands, paperbarks, casuarinas, callitris, and trees on farmland or gardens. The species prefers woodlands which contain a higher number of mature trees, as these host more mistletoes. It is more common in wider blocks of remnant woodland than in narrower strips (Garnett et al. 2011), although it breeds in quite narrow roadside strips if ample mistletoe fruit is available.

Studies have confirmed that habitat areas which have undergone less fragmentation and land clearing may support a greater number of Painted Honeyeaters present (Oliver et al. 2003). Painted Honeyeaters have also been found to be more abundant in locations where there are a large number of trees present and a high percentage of canopy cover (Oliver et al. 2003).

Breeding biology

The species often occurs singly or in pairs, and less often in small flocks. Breeding occurs from October to March when mistletoe fruits are widely available. Usually 2-3 eggs are laid, and both parents incubate the eggs, brood and feed young (Barea 2008b; Higgins et al. 2001; Garnett et al. 2011; Barea 2012).

The species builds a flimsy cup nest made of plant-fibre, spiders’ webs and rootlets in the outer foliage of trees anywhere from 3 m to 20 m above the ground. Although Painted Honeyeaters build nests in a variety of tree species including Eucalyptus spp., many favour Yarran (Acacia homalophylla) and White Cypress-pine (Callitris glaucophylla), both of which are hosts of the hemiparasitic Grey Mistletoe (Amyema quandang) (Barea 2008a; Barea 2012).

Male Painted Honeyeaters generally arrive at the nesting site several weeks before the female. Both sexes leave around the same time about 5 months later when mistletoe berry numbers begin to decline (Barea and Watson 2013). Although the fruit is available all year, it is more plentiful over the warmer months, and dwindles as the temperature drops (Barea and Watson 2013).

Painted Honeyeaters use environmental cues to determine the timing of nesting ensuring that they arrive at sites as food resources are beginning to increase (Barea and Watson 2007; Barea and Watson 2013). The overlap of breeding activity with mistletoe fruiting has additional benefits, as Painted Honeyeaters often display a preference to nest near or amongst mistletoe (Barea and Watson 2007; Barea and Watson 2013).

The species appears to prefer mistletoe as a nest substrate and selects nest sites in habitats where mistletoe prevalence and parasitism rates are high (Barea 2008b). Nesting success is relatively low; in the foliage of trees it is approximately 43 percent and within mistletoe clumps it is only 17 percent, with 83 percent of nest failures caused by predation (Barea and Watson 2013).

Generation time is estimated at 5.8 years, with a maximum longevity in the wild estimated at 10.1 years (Garnett et al. 2011).

Diet and foraging

Most honeyeaters have a mixed diet, consuming nectar, fruits and insects from a range of sources and locations (Oliver 2000). The Painted Honeyeater is a frugivore, a dietary specialist dependent on the presence of mistletoe plants and their fruit.

Painted Honeyeater abundance can usually be determined by the availability of this food source (Oliver et al. 2003).

At least five species of Amyema have been documented as being a food source for the Painted Honeyeater, which in turn assists in dispersal of the mistletoe by excreting the seed (Reid 1987). Fruit of the Grey Mistletoe (Amyema quandang) is a source of carbohydrates, protein and water, and accounts for a significant amount of their diet (Barea and Watson 2013).

Painted Honeyeaters consume nectar and insects when mistletoe fruit is not available (Oliver et al. 2003; Barea and Watson 2007; Barea and Watson 2013). They may also require insects and nectar to compensate for low availability of certain nutrients in the fruits (Barea and Herrera 2009). Mistletoe fruit is known to be low in amino acids and protein, so Painted Honeyeaters must rely on these other food sources to make up the remainder of their dietary requirements (Barea and Herrera 2009).

1.7 Key Biodiversity Areas

The Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) programme aims to identify, map, monitor and conserve the critical sites for global biodiversity across the planet. This process is guided by a Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, the KBA Standard (IUCN 2016). It establishes a consultative, science-based process for the identification of globally important sites for biodiversity worldwide. Sites qualify as KBAs of global importance if they meet one or more of 11 criteria in five categories: threatened biodiversity; geographically restricted biodiversity; ecological integrity; biological processes; and, irreplaceability. The KBA criteria have quantitative thresholds and can be applied to species and ecosystems in terrestrial, inland water and marine

environments. These thresholds ensure that only those sites with significant populations of a species or extent of an ecosystem are identified as global KBAs. Species or ecosystems that are the basis for identifying a KBA are referred to as Trigger species.

The global KBA partnership supports nations to identify KBAs within their country by working with a range of governmental and non-governmental organisations scientific species experts and conservation planners. Defining KBAs and their management within protected areas or through Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMS) will assist the Australian Government to meet its obligations to international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. KBAs are also integrated in industry standards such as those applied by the Forest Stewardship Council or the Equator Principles adopted by financial institutions to determine environmental risk in projects.

View image in the official source

The initial identification of a site as a KBA is tenure-blind and unrelated to its legal status as it is determined primarily based on the distribution of one or more Trigger species

at the site. However, existing protected areas or other delineations such as military training area or a commercial salt works will often inform the final KBA delineation, because KBAs are defined with site management in mind (KBA Standards and Appeals Committee, 2019). In practice, if an existing protected area or other designation roughly matches a KBA, it will generally be used for delineating the KBA. Many KBAs overlap wholly with existing protected area boundaries, including sites designated under international conventions (e.g. Ramsar and World Heritage) and areas protected at national and local levels (e.g. national parks, Indigenous or community conserved areas). However, not all KBAs are protected areas and not all protected areas are KBAs. It is recognised that other management approaches may also be appropriate to safeguard KBAs. In fact, research from Australia and elsewhere demonstrates the value of Other Effective Area-based Conservation measures in conserving KBAs and their Trigger species (Donald et al., 2019) if the site is managed appropriately. The identification of a site as a KBA highlights the site’s exceptional status and critical importance on a global scale for the persistence of the biodiversity values for which it has been declared for (particular Trigger species or habitats) and implies that the site should be managed

in ways that ensure the persistence of these elements. For more information on KBAs visit - http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home.

The global KBA partnership currently recognises seven Key Biodiversity Areas as important for Painted Honeyeater conservation and to support the long-term persistence of the species. KBAs are also undergoing a regular revision to ensure

changes in IUCN red list status, taxonomic changes, local population trends as well as increased knowledge of the species are reflected accurately in the KBA network. As such, over time, additional KBAs may be recognised for their importance for Painted Honeyeater or new KBAs may be declared for this and other taxa. Detailed KBA Factsheets, including boundary maps, population estimates of trigger species and scientific references are for these seven areas (and other KBAs) are available from the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas (BirdLife International 2020). The seven KBAs with Painted Honeyeater as one of their Trigger species were also recognised prior to the introduction of the KBA standard as Important Bird Areas for the species in 2009 based on the analysis BirdLife Australia. They include:

Queensland

Boodjamulla - Boodjamulla National Park, formally known as Lawn Hill National Park, is a national park in the Shire of Burke. The Riversleigh World Heritage Area is within the national park.

New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory

Binya and Cocoparra – The Cocoparra National Park is a protected national park that is located in the Riverina region of New South Wales. The 8,357 hectare (20,650 acre) national park is situated 25 kilometres northeast of Griffith.
Capertee Valley – The Capertee Valley is the second largest canyon (by width) in the world and largest valley in New South Wales, 135 km north-west of Sydney. One of the most prominent features of the valley is Pantony's Crown, a sandstone butte that is now part of the Gardens of Stone National Park. Parts of the valley are also included in the Wollemi National Park, the second-largest national park in New South Wales.

View image in the official source

Goonoo - The Goonoo Key Biodiversity Area is a 1,034 km2 tract of wooded land in New South Wales. It lies between the towns of Dubbo, Gilgandra and Dunedoo, about 200 km north-west of Sydney. Formerly the Goonoo State Forest, much of the land is now within the Goonoo State Conservation Area (538 km2) and the adjacent Goonoo National Park (91 km2). The KBA also includes 18 km2 of the Coolbaggie Nature Reserve. Goonoo KBA is mainly box-ironbark-callitris woodland with patches of mallee. It is surrounded by farmland. Past forest management involved logging the larger box trees to promote the growth of cypress pine and ironbark, but the site is now managed primarily for conservation. Much of the area was burned in bushfires in 2007.

Pilliga - The Pilliga Forests, sometimes known as the Pilliga Scrub, constitute over 5,000 km2 of semi-arid woodland in temperate north-central New South Wales.

It is the largest such continuous remnant in New South Wales. The forest is located near the towns of Baradine and Narrabri and the villages of Pilliga and Gwabegar. Most land within the Pilliga is in crown tenure, either as State Forest (2,416 km2), Nature Reserve, State Conservation Area or National Park (2,770 km2). A 4,909 km2 tract of land, including the forest and the nearby Warrumbungle National Park, has been identified as a KBA because it supports populations of Painted Honeyeaters and Diamond Firetails (Stagonopleura guttata). It also experiences irregular occurrences of critically endangered Swift Parrots (Lathamus discolor) and Regent Honeyeaters (Anthochaera phrygia), and several other near threatened woodland birds.

South-west Slopes of New South Wales and the ACT - An area of 25,653 km2, largely coincident with the bioregion, has been identified as a KBA because it supports a significant wintering population of the Critically Endangered Swift Parrots and Vulnerable Superb Parrots (Polytelis swainsonii), as well as populations of Painted Honeyeaters and Diamond Firetails. Most of the site is modified wheat-growing and sheep-grazing country with only remnants of its original vegetation. Remnant patches of woodland and scattered large trees, especially of Mugga Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), Apple Box (E. bridgesiana), Grey Box (E. microcarpa), White Box (E. albens), Yellow Box (E. melliodora), Red Box (E. polyanthemos), Yellow Gum (E. leucoxylon), River Red Gum and Blakely's Red Gum (E. blakelyi), still provide habitat for the Painted Honeyeaters. Protected areas within the site include several nature reserves and state forests, as well as the Livingstone and Weddin Mountains National Parks, and Tarcutta Hills Reserve.

Victoria

Warby-Chiltern Box-Ironbark Region - The Warby–Chiltern Box–Ironbark Region comprises a cluster of separate blocks of remnant box-ironbark forest habitat, with

a collective area of 253 km2, in north eastern Victoria. This site lies to the east of the Rushworth Box-Ironbark Region KBA. It includes the Reef Hills and Warby-Ovens National Parks, Killawarra Forest, Chesney Hills, Mount Meg Reserves, Winton
Wetlands Reserve, the Boweya Flora and Fauna Reserve, Rutherglen Conservation Reserve, Mount Lady Franklin Reserve and Chiltern-Mount Pilot National Park.
Most of it lies within protected areas or state forests, encompassing only small blocks
of private land. The site has been identified as an KBA because it provides feeding habitat for relatively large numbers of non-breeding Swift Parrots when flowering conditions are suitable, as well as the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater. It also supports small numbers of Painted Honeyeaters, Diamond Firetails and Flame Robins (Petroica phoenicea). Declining woodland birds still present in the KBA include Brown Treecreepers (Climacteris picumnus), Speckled Warblers (Pyrrholaemus sagittatus), Hooded Robins (Melanodryas cucullata), Grey-crowned Babblers (Pomatostomus temporalis), Gilbert's Whistler (Pachycephala inornata) and, occasionally, migrant Black Honeyeaters (Sugomel nigrum). Crested Bellbirds (Oreoica gutturalis) are locally extinct.

1.8 Habitat critical to the survival of the

Painted Honeyeater

Habitat critical to the survival of a species or ecological community refers to areas that are necessary:

For activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal;
For the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators);
To maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development; or
For the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

Such habitat may be, but is not limited to: habitat identified in a recovery plan for the species or ecological community as habitat critical for that species or ecological

community; and/or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the Minister under the EPBC Act.

Habitat critical to the survival of the Painted Honeyeater includes:

Breeding habitat

Known or likely breeding habitat in Boree/Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula), Brigalow (A. harpophylla) woodlands, box-gum woodlands and box-ironbark forests on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range in New South Wales, Victoria and southern Queensland.

Foraging habitat

All preferred foraging species within known and likely foraging habitat particularly mistletoes of the genus Amyema growing on forest and woodland eucalypts and acacias.

Habitat for the long-term maintenance of the species

All Key Biodiversity Areas with Painted Honeyeater as a Trigger species.
Suitable habitat in future climate niches as information becomes available.

Key considerations in environmental impact assessments

Painted Honeyeaters occur across a large area and are known to be highly mobile. However, knowledge of their movement is still not fully understood. It has been suggested that seasonal movements are linked to plant productivity, food supply and drought impacts (Higgins 1999).

Habitat critical to the survival of the Painted Honeyeater occurs across a wide range of land tenures, including on freehold land, travelling stock routes and reserves, publicly owned forests and state reserves, and national parks. It is important that suitable habitat is retained and that any enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites.

When considering habitat loss, alteration or degradation to habitat in any part of

the Painted Honeyeater’s range, including in areas where the species ‘may occur’,

surveys for occupancy at the appropriate times of the year and identifying preferred foraging species are an important tool in refining understanding of the area’s relative importance for Painted Honeyeaters. In addition, it is also important to note that Painted Honeyeaters opportunistically use areas depending on the occurrence of eucalypt flowering and mistletoe flowering/fruiting. This means that areas that constitute habitat critical to the survival might not have birds in any one given year. This pattern of habitat use means that both recent survey data and historical records need to be considered when assessing the relative importance of a local area or region for Painted Honeyeaters.

Whenever possible, habitat critical to the survival of the species should not be destroyed or modified. Actions that have indirect impacts on habitat critical to the survival should be minimised and adequately mitigated (e.g. noise and light pollution). Actions that compromise adult and juvenile survival should also be avoided, for example, the transmission and introduction of diseases, and actions that might increase predation threat from both native and introduced predators. Actions should not be assessed in isolation and consideration must be given to existing and future activities that may impact the species to ensure conservation outcomes on a landscape scale are achieved.

Actions that remove habitat critical to the survival would interfere with the recovery of the Painted Honeyeater and reduce the area of occupancy of the species. It is important to retain both breeding and foraging habitats described above. If removal of habitat critical to the survival cannot be avoided or mitigated, then an offset should be provided.

Chapter 2, Threats.

2.1 Historical causes of decline

Habitat loss and degradation have been the key drivers of declines in the abundance of the Painted Honeyeater. Much of its breeding habitat has been cleared or has been reduced to ageing, widely-spaced trees, particularly in box-ironbark and boree

woodlands of New South Wales and Victoria. Its non-breeding habitat also continues to be cleared for agriculture (Barea 2008a). Some acacia and casuarina woodlands

(e.g. brigalow and buloke) in which the species occurs, have been heavily cleared and

degraded to the extent that they are now nationally endangered ecological communities (Department of the Environment 2015a; Garnett et al. 2011).

2.1 Current threatening processes

Habitat loss is the key threat to this species. In its breeding strongholds of south-eastern Australia, woodlands are being cleared at a greater rate than they are being restored.

Regrowth woodland in particular, is viewed as having little conservation value and is being cleared at an unsustainable rate (Lindsay, pers. comm., 2014). This is a particular issue for the Painted Honeyeater as regrowth woodland contains similar or higher densities of mistletoe than remnant woodland.

2.2.1 Habitat loss

Ongoing clearing of woodland and forest containing the key acacia and eucalypt

species preferred by Painted Honeyeaters is a major threat. For example, 83 percent of box-ironbark habitat has been cleared in Victoria, and 70 percent has been cleared in

New South Wales (Siversten 1993; Robinson and Traill 1996; Environment Conservation Council 2001). White Box-Yellow Gum-Blakely's Red Gum woodland, another important habitat in New South Wales, has been reduced to less than 4 percent of its pre-European extent on the south-western slopes and southern tablelands of New South Wales (Saunders 2003). The historical clearance of foraging and nesting habitat has been extensive and dramatic in many areas of Victoria and New South Wales, reducing the available nesting and foraging habitat to small remnants. These remnants continue to decline in size as a result of residential, agricultural and industrial developments.

Impacts on woodland bird habitat in New South Wales have been so severe that only

5 to 30 percent of the original vegetation now remains and what is left is often degraded (Saunders and Russell 2016). With such extensive losses of habitat there is an increased risk that the remaining areas may fail to produce the necessary food resources in any one year, which may lead to rapid population decline of woodland birds due to the accumulated extinction debt (Saunders and Russell 2016). Habitat clearance could increase nest predation as individuals could be forced to nest near habitat edges

(Boulton and Clarke 2003).

The widespread loss of mature paddock trees throughout agricultural areas of the

Painted Honeyeater’s range represents another threat to the species. Many records

of the species are from scattered paddock trees or stands, and loss of these from the landscape will likely impact the ability of the birds to disperse.

2.2.2 Habitat degradation

Remaining Painted Honeyeater habitat faces ongoing degradation, particularly on agricultural land in central and north-east Victoria and on the western slopes of

New South Wales. Loss of mature trees occurs through senescence, eucalypt dieback,

harvesting for fence posts or firewood, or drought-induced stress. Illegal felling of key species for firewood and fence posts has been noted in travelling stock reserves and important remnant blocks (Tzaros 2005).

Most of the Painted Honeyeater’s remaining habitat is on private land which

continues to be degraded by grazing by livestock, native macropods and rabbits

(Oryctolagus cuniculus) (Garnett et al. 2011). Grazing inhibits tree recruitment through

the consumption of seedlings and suckers, meaning that when mature trees die there is insufficient recruitment to replace them (Lindsay pers. comm. 2014). Grazing therefore results in an uneven age structure of mistletoe host trees and promotion of future

collapse of mistletoe resources. Limited host tree recruitment results in host trees

that are all roughly the same age. Consequently, when these host trees senesce there

will be no host trees remaining for mistletoe to persist. Grazing thresholds supporting non-significant effects to mistletoe resources are unknown but may be very low

(Barea pers. comm. 2014). Additionally, many landholders remove mistletoes from trees as they view it as a pest. Mistletoe becomes more abundant on trees that have become

isolated as a result of land disturbance or clearing (Lindsay pers. comm. 2014).

Even with no further loss or degradation of habitat, the species is likely to continue to decline at some of the edges of its distribution (Ford et al. 2009). It is likely that numbers

of Painted Honeyeaters breeding in southern and central Queensland are already

extremely low, and the species is also becoming increasingly uncommon in north-west Queensland. Under current trends, the Painted Honeyeater may become extinct or

absent from the extremes of its northern distribution (Lindsay, pers. comm. 2014).

2.2.3 Competition

Painted Honeyeaters compete for food resources with larger and/or more aggressive honeyeaters such as the Noisy Miner, Yellow-throated Miner, Noisy Friarbird and the

Red Wattlebird. While the impacts from greater levels of competition with these other aggressive honeyeaters is unclear, anecdotal evidence of their impact on other woodland birds suggests it is likely to negatively affect Painted Honeyeater breeding success

and survival.

Red Wattlebirds appear to be increasing in numbers across their eastern Australian range (Birds Australia 2008), which may effectively reduce habitat availability for Painted Honeyeaters. The Noisy Miner is common in fragmented and degraded

habitat due to its preference for open areas adjoining eucalypt woodland, and may

occupy areas up to 300 m from a forest edge. In areas occupied by Noisy Miners, the abundance and species richness of other bird species are about half that recorded at

nearby areas unoccupied by Noisy Miners (Piper and Catterall 2003; Clarke and Oldland 2007; Maron et al. 2013; Thomson et al. 2015). Aggressive exclusion of other birds by Noisy Miners is now listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act, as well as in Victoria and New South Wales under the respective state legislation, and their impact on woodland birds was one of the factors in those determinations.

Honeybees may also compete with woodland birds such as the Painted Honeyeater for nectar (Menkhorst 1993), although the significance of this for the Painted Honeyeater

is unknown and requires further investigation. Competition from feral honeybees

(Apis mellifera) is listed as a ‘Key Threatening Process’ for nectivorous species in

New South Wales and Victoria.

2.2.4 Climate variability and change

Australia’s changing climate threatens the Painted Honeyeater’s habitat through both increased risk of drought, fire and altered flowering or fruiting phenology, potentially leading to further habitat loss and degradation. Threats from climate change can be addressed through efforts to make Painted Honeyeater populations and their habitat more resilient by identifying and protecting important drought refuges and improving drought refuges.

VanDerWal et al. (2013) indicate that birds in the Australian temperate zone have experienced a net poleward (south-east) shift in their climatic niche, away from increasing temperatures, since 1950. Approximately 50 per cent of these temperate species would have experienced range contraction (rather than shift or expansion)

due to the east coastal limits of their range. For Painted Honeyeaters, this means that refuge at the regional scale is likely to occur in the south-east of their current extent such that southern KBAs (i.e. South-west slopes and Warby-Chiltern) may carry the greatest responsibility for adaptive habitat enhancement.

Implementation of appropriate burning practices - including cool cultural burns

to reduce the incidence of intense, hot wildfires which burn the tree canopy and

result in mistletoe mortality - is an important part of climate change adaptation and management.

Climate change limitation, adaptation and management requires both domestic and international action to prevent further accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Although management of this global issue is beyond the scope of this plan, long-term monitoring of the Painted Honeyeater and its habitat in relation to climate data may assist in mitigating the impacts on the species. A long-term monitoring program would allow better understanding of the specific sensitivities of the Painted Honeyeater as a nomadic species to climate change, and provide a basis for future adaptive conservation management strategies. Furthermore, the cumulative effects of other threats together with climate change need to be considered for effective and adaptive long-term management of the Painted Honeyeater.

2.2.5 Other potential threatening processes

Other threats to the Painted Honeyeater include predation by invasive species

(e.g. Black Rats Rattus rattus); deliberate destruction of mistletoe in production

forests; exacerbation of tree decline through pasture improvement activities; collision with road vehicles; and nest predation by over-abundant Pied Currawongs (Strepera graculina), Pied and Grey Butcherbirds (Cracticus nigrogularis and Cracticus torquatus), and crows and ravens (Corvidae) (Lindsay, pers. comm. 2014; DEPI 2014). In addition, pathogens affecting mistletoe directly or the host tree (e.g. Myrtle rust) further threaten the persistence of Painted Honeyeater habitat. As mentioned above, wildfires that are hotter and more frequent, are an indirect threat of climate change.

The scale and severity of these potential threats are generally unknown and form the

basis of important research questions. If, during the life of this recovery plan, new or emerging threats are identified, then additional actions should be developed to address these threatening processes.

2.3 Threat prioritization

Each of the threats outlined above has been assessed to determine the risk posed to the Painted Honeyeater population using a risk matrix. This, in turn, determines the priority for actions outlined below. The risk matrix considers the likelihood of an incident occurring and the consequences of that incident. Threats may act differently in different parts of the species range and at different times of year, but the precautionary principle dictates that the threat category is determined by the subpopulation 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:

Very High – immediate mitigation action required
High – mitigation action and an adaptive management plan required, the precautionary principle should be applied
Moderate – obtain additional information and develop mitigation action if required
Low – monitor the threat occurrence and reassess threat level if likelihood or consequences change

Table 2 indicating the Risk prioritisation by likelihood of occurrence and consequences.

Categories for likelihood are defined as follows:

Almost certain – expected to occur every year
Likely – expected to occur at least once every five years
Possible – might occur at some time
Unlikely – such events are known to have occurred on a worldwide basis but

only a few times

Rare or Unknown – may occur only in exceptional circumstances; OR it is

currently unknown how often the incident will occur

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

Table 3 indicating the Painted Honeyeater risk matrix by likelihood of occurrence and consequences

Chapter 3, populations under particular pressure.

The Painted Honeyeater’s geographic distribution is precarious for its survival,

as 100 per cent of mature individuals exist in one subpopulation (Garnett et al.

2011). The actions described in this recovery plan are designed to provide ongoing protection for the Painted Honeyeater throughout its range.

Painted Honeyeater perched on a branch

Chapter 4, Recovery plan vision, objectives and strategies

Long-term Vision

Recovery Plan Objective

By 2031, measure and sustain a positive population trend (compared to 2020 baseline counts) in the number of mature individuals of the Painted Honeyeater.

By 2031, maintain or improve the extent, condition and connectivity of habitat of the Painted Honeyeater.

This will be achieved by implementing the actions set out in this Recovery Plan that minimise threats while protecting and enhancing the species’ habitat throughout its

range, adequately monitoring the species, generating new knowledge to guide recovery

and increasing public awareness.

Strategies to achieve objective

Protect, manage and restore Painted Honeyeater breeding and foraging habitats at the local, regional and landscape scales
Monitor, reduce and manage threats and sources of mortality
Develop and apply techniques to measure changes in population trajectory in order to measure the success of recovery actions
Improve understanding of habitat use at a landscape scale in order to better target protection and restoration measures
Engage local communities and stakeholders in Painted Honeyeater conservation
Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress

Chapter 5, actions to achieve the specific objectives

Actions identified for the recovery of Painted Honeyeater are described below. It should be noted that some of the objectives are long-term and may not be achieved prior to the scheduled five-year review of the Recovery Plan. Priorities assigned to actions should be interpreted as follows:

Priority 1: Taking prompt action is necessary in order to mitigate the key threats

to Painted Honeyeater and also provide valuable information to help

identify long-term population trends.

Priority 2: Action would provide a more informed basis for the long-term

management and recovery of Painted Honeyeater.

Priority 3: Action is desirable, but not critical to the recovery of Painted

Honeyeater or assessment of trends in that recovery.

Table of strategy 1 which seeks to protect, manage and restore painted honeyeater breeding and foraging habitats at the local, regional and landscape scales.

Continuation of table of strategy 1 which seeks to protect, manage and restore painted honeyeater breeding and foraging habitats at the local, regional and landscape scales.

Table of strategy 2 which seeks to monitor, reduce and manage threats and sources of mortality.

Continuation of table of strategy 2 which seeks to monitor, reduce and manage threats and sources of mortality.

Table of strategy 3 which seeks to develop and apply techniques to measure changes in population trajectory in order to measure the success of recovery actions.

Table of strategy 4 which seeks to improve understanding of use at a landscape scale in order to better target protection and restoration measures.

Table of strategy 5 which seeks to engage local communities and stakeholders in painted honeyeater conservation.

Table of strategy 6 which seeks to coordinate, review and report on recovery progress.

View image in the official source

Chapter 6, duration and cost of the recovery process

It is anticipated that the recovery process will not be achieved prior to the scheduled five-year review of the recovery plan. The cost of implementation of this plan should be incorporated into the core business expenditure of the affected organisations

and through additional funds obtained for the explicit purpose of implementing this recovery plan. It is expected that state and Commonwealth agencies will use this plan

to prioritise actions to protect the species and enhance their recovery, and that projects will be undertaken according to agency priorities and available resources. All actions are considered important steps towards ensuring the long-term survival of the species. The indicative cost of recovery actions was derived from expert elicitation and public comments received in 2020.

Table 4 Summary of recovery actions and estimated costs in for the first five years of implementation (these estimated costs do not take into account inflation over time)

Chapter 7, effects on other native species and biodiversity benefits.

The management of fragmented landscapes with a high concentration of mistletoe is vitally important for the conservation of the Painted Honeyeater, as its breeding success is affected by mistletoe abundance (Watson 2002; Bowen et al. 2009). Conserving mistletoe in remnant vegetation will also benefit a wide range of other species. Although mistletoe is perceived as a pest in agricultural landscapes and remnant vegetation, it plays an important role in helping to maintain the populations of many threatened and declining species as well as increasing overall biodiversity (Watson 2002; Bowen et al. 2009).

The conservation and management of woodland habitats which support species

such as the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia) and

Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) may also aid in the conservation of the Painted Honeyeater (Oliver 2000). Similarly, protection of areas relevant for Painted Honeyeater conservation are likely to benefit other threatened native species. The Key Biodiversity Areas triggered by Painted Honeyeaters for instance list a total of 21 other species as Triggers.

Threatened Ecological Communities listed under the EPBC Act that are of importance

to the Painted Honeyeater include White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland, Grey Box Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia and Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain. There are also a number of Ecological Communities listed

at the state level that will benefit from increased efforts to protect and conserve

Painted Honeyeater habitat. Many mammals, invertebrates and plants will also

receive benefits as a result of measures put in place to protect and rejuvenate

Painted Honeyeater habitat.

Chapter 8, social and economic considerations

The major social and economic impacts of this recovery plan will be on those who require approval to remove or modify Painted Honeyeater habitat and are prevented from doing so, or are required to modify their proposal by a consent authority. This may include increased costs due to the assessment processes, requirement to provide offset funding, to secure or rehabilitate habitat, or for other threat mitigation work.

Restrictions on further clearing of Painted Honeyeater habitat may impact some landowners, managers and developers. These restrictions may not significantly impact agricultural industries, however, since many of the more fertile areas have already been cleared and remnant vegetation is generally located on less fertile soils that are relatively less attractive for grazing or cropping.

A large network of community volunteers across eastern Australia actively participate

in BirdLife Australia’s coordinated surveys for woodland birds. Involvement can

provide social benefits with community members and engaged groups having a sense

of achievement, inclusion, community spirit and pride whilst gaining enjoyment and appreciation of their surrounding natural environment. The community education components of the program also promote community ownership, provide community support and encourage active involvement in protecting local natural resources.

In addition, there is the potential for financial gains through ecotourism ventures and holiday accommodation operators in areas where Painted Honeyeaters are reliably

seen. Such areas are more likely to be in regional areas of New South Wales and Victoria through the summer breeding season. Additional social benefits include encouraging passive recreation, appreciation of natural aesthetic values and increased awareness

and appreciation of Indigenous cultural values

Chapter 9 affected interests

Organisations and individuals likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this

plan include government agencies (Commonwealth, state and territory, local), particularly those involved with woodland and forest environments and conservation

programs; private landholders; Indigenous land management groups (including ranger programmes); researchers; bird watching groups; conservation groups; wildlife interest groups; camping, 4WD and fishing groups; environmental consulting companies;

tourism operators; industry and commercial bodies; and, proponents of agricultural development in the vicinity of important habitat. However, this list should not be considered exhaustive, as there may be other interest groups that may like to be included in the future or need to be considered when specialised tasks are required.

The following table lists some of the interest groups, how they could contribute to

the success of the plan and the potential benefits/impacts that may emerge from the Plan’s implementation:

Table 5 Affected interests and their contribution to the Recovery Plan

Table 5 continued. Affected interests and their contribution to the Recovery Plan

Chapter 10, consultation

The National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater has been developed through extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. The consultation process brought together key species experts and conservation managers, from a range of

different organizations, to categorize ongoing threats to the Painted Honeyeater, and identify knowledge gaps and potential management options. Consultation included representatives from government agencies, non-government organisations, researchers and local community groups. During the drafting process the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (Cwlth) continued to work closely with key stakeholders.

Notice of the draft plan was made available for public comment for a minimum of three months between 17 December 2020 and 16 April 2021. Any comments received that were relevant to the survival of the species were considered by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee as part of its assessment process.

View image in the official source

Chapter 11, organisations and persons involved in evaluating the performance of the plan.

This plan should be reviewed no later than five years from when it was endorsed and made publicly available. The review will determine the performance of the plan and assess:

whether the plan continues unchanged, is varied to remove completed actions, or varied to include new conservation priorities
whether a recovery plan is no longer necessary for the species’ as either conservation advice will suffice, or the species’ are removed from the threatened species list.

As part of this review, the listing status of the species’ will be assessed against the EPBC Act species listing criteria.

The review will be coordinated by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment in association with relevant Australian and state government agencies and key stakeholder groups such as non-governmental organisations, local community groups and scientific research organisations.

Key stakeholders who may be involved in the review of the performance of the National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater, include organisations likely to be affected by the actions proposed in this plan and are expected to include:

Australian Government

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

State/territory governments

Victoria – Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning
New South Wales – Department of Planning, Industry and Environment Queensland – Department of Environment and Science
South Australia – Department for Environment and Water
Northern Territory – Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Australian Capital Territory – Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate
Natural Resource Management bodies
Local government

Non-government organisations

BirdLife Australia
Local conservation groups
Local communities
Private landholders
Indigenous communities
Industry
Universities and other research organisations
Painted Honeyeater Recovery Team

Picture of native Australian flora

View image in the official source

A picture containing background pattern Description automatically generated

Barea LP (2008a). Interactions Between Frugivores and their Resources: Case Studies with the Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta. PhD Thesis, Charles Sturt University.

Barea LP (2008b). Nest-site selection by the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta), a mistletoe specialist. Emu 108: 213-220.

Barea LP (2012) Habitat influences on nest-site selection by the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta): do food resources matter? Emu 112: 39–45.

Barea LP (2014). Personal communication by email, 17 December 2014. New Zealand Department of Conservation.

Barea LP and Herrera MLG (2009). Sources of protein in two semi-arid zone mistletoe specialists: Insights from stable isotopes. Austral Ecology 34: 821–828.

Barea LP and Watson DM (2007). Temporal variation in food resources determines onset of breeding in an Australian mistletoe specialist. Emu 107: 203–209.

Barea LP and Watson DM (2013). Trapped between popular fruit and preferred nest location – cafeterias are poor places to raise a family. Functional Ecology 27(3): 766-774.

BirdLife International (2020) The World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. Developed by the Key Biodiversity Areas Partnership: BirdLife International, IUCN, Amphibian Survival Alliance, Conservation International, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, Global Environment Facility, Global Wildlife Conservation, NatureServe, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, World Wildlife Fund and Wildlife Conservation Society.

Downloaded from http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org on 10/08/2020.

Boulton, R.L. and Clarke, M.F. (2003) Do yellow-faced honeyeater (Lichenostomus chrysops) nests experience higher predation at forest edges? Emu 30: 119-125.

Bowen, M.E., McAlpine, C.A., House, A.P., and Smith, G.C. (2009). Agricultural landscape modification increases the abundance of an important food resources: Mistletoes, birds and brigalow. Biological Conservation 142: 122-133.

Clarke, M.F. and Oldland, J.M. (2007). Penetration of remnant edges by noisy miners (Manorina melanocephala) and implications for habitat restoration. Wildlife Research 34: 253-261.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) (2014). Submission in response to the listing nomination for the painted honeyeater. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Scientific Advisory Committee, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria.

Department of the Environment (2015). ‘Species Profile and Threats Database: EPBC Act List of Threatened Ecological Communities’. Available on the internet at: http://www. environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publiclookupcommunities.pl

Department of the Environment (2015). Conservation Advice Grantiella picta painted honeyeater. Canberra: Department of the Environment. Available from: http://www. environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/470-conservation-advice. pdf. In effect under the EPBC Act from 08-Jul-2015.

Donald, P., Buchanan, G., Balmford, A., Bingham, H., Couturier, A., La, G., Gacheru, P., Herzog, S., Jathar, G., Kingston, N., Marnewick, D., Maurer, G., Reaney, L., Shmygaleva,

T., Sklyarenko, S., Stevens, C., Butchart, S., Nature Kenya (2019). The prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness of Aichi Target 11 "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs) in Key Biodiversity Areas between unprotected KBAs with or without OECMs in forest loss or in a number of state-pressure-response metrics. Conservation Letters. Conservation Letters. 2019;e12659.

Environment Conservation Council (2001). Box-Ironbark Forests and Woodlands Investigation. (Environment Conservation Council: Melbourne).

Ford HA, Walters JR, Cooper CB, Debus SJS and Doerr VAJ (2009). Extinction debt or habitat change? - Ongoing losses of woodland birds in north-eastern New South Wales. Biological Conservation 142: 3182-3190.

Garnett ST, Szabo JK and Dutson G (2011). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. Birds Australia, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Higgins PJ, Peter JM, Steele WK, eds. (2001) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 5: Tyrant-flycatchers to Chats. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

IUCN (2016). A Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas, Version 1.0. First edition. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Lindsay K (2014). Personal communication by email, 17 December 2014.

BirdLife Southern NSW.

Maron, M., Grey, M., Catterall, C., Major, R., Oliver, D., Clarke, M., Loyn, R., Mac Nally, R., Davidson, I. and Thomson, J. (2013). Avifaunal disarray due to a single despotic species. Diversity and Distributions 19: 1468-1479

KBA Standards and Appeals Committee (2019). Guidelines for using a Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas. Version 1.0. Prepared by the KBA Standards and Appeals Committee of the IUCN Species Survival Commission and IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. viii + 148pp.

Menkhorst P (1993). Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No. 41. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Victoria.

Oliver, D.L. (2000). Foraging behaviour and resource selection of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia in northern New South Wales. Emu, 100, 12-30.

Oliver, D.L., Chambers, M.A., Parker, D.G. (2003) Habitat and resource selection of the Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) on the northern floodplains regions of New South Wales. Emu, 103, 171-176.

Piper, S.D. and Catterall, C.P. (2003). A particular case and a general pattern: hyperaggressive behaviour by one species may mediate avifaunal decreases in fragmented Australian forests. Oikos 101: 602-614.

Reid, N. (1987). The mistletoebird and Australian mistletoes: Co-evolution or coincidence? Emu, 87, 130-131.

Robinson D and Traill BJ (1996). Conserving woodland birds in the wheat and sheep belts of southern Australia. RAOU Conservation Statement No. 10. Supplement to Wingspan. 6 (2).

Saunders D (2003). Swift Parrot habitat - Endangered Community. Swifts Across the Strait. February 2003.

Saunders DL and Russell, T (2016) Settlement and Swift Parrots – Historic and ongoing habitat loss for a critically endangered species (1788 – 2016). Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 150, 1-19

Sivertsen D (1993). Conservation of remnant vegetation in the box and ironbark land of New South Wales. Victorian Naturalist. 110:24-29.

Thomson, J.R., Maron, M., Grey, M.J., Catterall, C.P., Major, R.E., Oliver, D.L., Clarke, M.F., Loyn, R.H., Davidson, I., Ingwersen, D., Robinson, D., Kutt, A., MacDonald, M.A. and Mac Nally, R. (2015). Avifaunal disarray: quantifying models of the occurrence and ecological effects of a despotic bird species. Diversity and Distributions 21: 451–464.

Tzaros, C. (2005) Wildlife of the Box-Ironbark Country. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

VanDerWal, J., Murphy, H.T., Kutt, A.S., Perkins, G.C., Bateman, B.L., Perry, J.J., and Reside, A.E. (2013). Focus on poleward shifts in species' distribution underestimates the fingerprint of climate change. Nature Climate Change 3: 239-243.

Watson, D.M. (2002). Effects of mistletoe on diversity: A case-study from southern New South Wales. Emu 102: 275-281.

View image in the official source View image in the official source

1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Grantiella picta) Instrument 2022

Commonwealth of Australia

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Grantiella picta) Instrument 2022

The recovery plan will commence on the day after it is registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Dated this 8th day of April 2022

Sussan Ley

Minister for the Environment (Commonwealth)

Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta)

Family: Meliphagidae

Current status of taxon:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth): Vulnerable

• Nature Conservation Act 2014 (Australian Capital Territory): Vulnerable

• Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000 (Northern Territory): Vulnerable

• Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland): Vulnerable

• Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (New South Wales): Vulnerable

• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria): Vulnerable

• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (South Australia): Rare

Distribution and habitat:

The species’ key habitats include Boree/Weeping Myall (Acacia pendula), Brigalow

The recovery plan attached to the Instrument articulates a set of interlocking conservation concepts and programmatic devices. These are set out in the plan text and underpin how decisions are to be made and what actions are to be prioritised.

Species and status: The Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act (the plan notes it was listed on 8 July 2015) and as Vulnerable or Rare under multiple state and territory regimes. The plan records an estimated population of fewer than 10,000 mature individuals at the time of listing and a suspected long-term decline (Garnett et al. 2011; Department of the Environment 2015a).

Conservation vision, objectives and timeframes: The plan sets a long-term vision , increase the population so that the species no longer meets threatened listing criteria , and two quantified objectives to be achieved by 2031: (1) measure and sustain a positive population trend compared with 2020 baseline counts in the number of mature individuals; (2) maintain or improve the extent, condition and connectivity of habitat. The objectives therefore create a monitoring baseline year (2020) and a discrete ten-year target period to 2031.

Habitat critical to survival: The plan defines “habitat critical to the survival” in terms that include breeding, foraging, long-term maintenance (including host species and genetic diversity), and reintroduction or recovery needs. It identifies breeding habitat (Boree/Weeping Myall, Brigalow woodland, box-gum and box-ironbark forests on inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range) and foraging habitat (particularly Amyema mistletoes on eucalypts and acacias). It expressly states that habitat critical occurs across multiple land tenures (freehold, travelling stock routes, public forests, reserves and national parks).

Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs): The plan integrates international and national conservation designations by identifying seven KBAs that currently recognise Painted Honeyeater as a Trigger species. The plan explains KBA criteria, that KBAs are tenure-blind in identification but that existing protected areas are often used to inform delineation, and that KBAs are used in some industry standards (for example, Forest Stewardship Council and Equator Principles).

Threat prioritisation and risk matrix: The plan uses a qualitative risk matrix (likelihood categories and consequence categories) to prioritise threats and actions. Threat categories are assigned Very High, High, Moderate or Low priorities based on likelihood and consequence, and the plan explains the qualitative categories used.

Strategies and actions: The plan spells out six strategies and a detailed list of actions mapped to priorities (Priority 1: prompt action necessary; Priority 2: action to inform long-term management; Priority 3: desirable but not critical). Actions cover habitat protection and restoration, threat management (including competition from aggressive honeyeaters and predation), monitoring and research to improve understanding of movement and habitat use, community engagement and coordination of recovery implementation.

Monitoring and measurement: The plan stresses the need to develop and apply techniques to measure population trajectory and to monitor habitat condition and mistletoe resources, with the objective of measuring success against the 2020 baseline counts by 2031.

Implementation costs and review: The plan includes an indicative cost summary for the first five years, derived from expert elicitation and public comments, and anticipates that recovery costs will be incorporated into the core budgets of affected organisations and through additional funds. The plan requires review no later than five years after endorsement.

Decision-support role: The plan repeatedly frames itself as a decision-support and coordinating document for Commonwealth, state and local agencies, proponents, NGOs and landholders. It explicitly notes its use in environmental impact assessment contexts , urging surveys at appropriate times, consideration of historical records, and landscape-scale assessments , and recommends avoidance and mitigation of impacts to habitat critical to survival, with offsets required where removal cannot be avoided.

Taken together, these concepts define a program-level architecture: identification and mapping of critical habitat and KBAs, prioritised actions using a risk-based approach, baseline monitoring tied to a measurable 2031 objective, coordination through a Recovery Team and periodic review. The plan mixes prescriptive guidance (avoid habitat destruction where possible; provide offsets where necessary) with adaptive management tasks (research, monitoring, and periodic review).

The recovery plan attaches effects to a broad and diverse set of parties through guidance that intersects statutory approvals, land management, funding priorities and community activities. The document explicitly lists the range of affected interests and describes how they may be impacted or how they can contribute.

Government agencies: Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies are key implementers. The plan expects state and Commonwealth agencies to use the plan to prioritise conservation actions (chapter 6). Specific agencies named for review and coordination roles include: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (Commonwealth); Victoria - Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; New South Wales - Department of Planning, Industry and Environment; Queensland - Department of Environment and Science; South Australia - Department for Environment and Water; Northern Territory - Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Australian Capital Territory - Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate. These bodies are listed as stakeholders in the review process and are the primary machinery for implementing on-ground actions, monitoring and regulatory decisions.

Private landholders and primary producers: The plan states that most remaining habitat is on private land and identifies grazing, pasture improvement and removal of mistletoe by landholders as ongoing threats (chapter 2.2.2). It notes that restrictions on clearing or modification of habitat, assessment processes, offset requirements or rehabilitation obligations may impose costs on landowners, developers and managers.

Proponents and developers: Those requiring approvals to remove or modify habitat are identified as being affected. The plan explains that impacted proponents may face increased assessment costs, mitigation measures, offsets, or modifications to consent conditions. It also notes that remnant vegetation frequently occurs on less fertile soils , implying where real economic impact is likely to be concentrated.

Local government and land managers: Local governments and natural resource management bodies are listed among stakeholders and implementers. Travelling stock routes, reserves and state forests are specifically mentioned as tenures where critical habitat is found.

Indigenous land management groups and communities: The plan explicitly includes Indigenous groups and ranger programmes in the list of affected interests and possible implementers.

Conservation NGOs, researchers and citizen scientists: BirdLife Australia, local conservation groups, universities and research organisations are named as contributors to monitoring, habitat restoration and public engagement. The plan notes a large volunteer base already coordinates surveys, and community involvement is expected to be a core element of monitoring and awareness.

Industry and commercial bodies: Forestry, agriculture, tourism operators and environmental consultants are singled out as having roles and potential impacts. The plan notes that industry standards and financiers (Forest Stewardship Council, Equator Principles) may use KBA information in risk assessment.

Other users of land: Recreational groups (4WD, fishing, camping), ecotourism operators and tourism-dependent businesses in regional areas are mentioned as affected; the plan also notes possible financial gains through ecotourism where Painted Honeyeaters are reliably seen.

Individuals dependent on resource extraction: Those who harvest firewood, use trees for fence posts, or remove mistletoe for perceived pest control are identified as contributing to habitat degradation and therefore potentially affected by future restrictions or engagement measures.

Decision-makers in approvals and offset frameworks: Consent authorities and decision-makers assessing developments that may affect habitat will be influenced by the plan’s definitions of habitat critical to survival, survey guidance and the plan’s position that offsets should be provided if habitat removal cannot be avoided.

Collective implications: Because the plan identifies habitat across multiple tenures and emphasises that Painted Honeyeaters are nomadic and may use areas opportunistically, the set of affected parties is geographically dispersed and heterogeneous. The plan’s guidance to conduct seasonal surveys, consider historical records and to avoid fragmentation will impose procedural obligations on surveyors and consent processes. Where habitat removal cannot be avoided, the plan’s offset advice transfers potential costs to proponents or governments through the need for mitigation or compensation measures.

The plan also assigns a coordinating and advisory role to a national Painted Honeyeater Recovery Team composed of Commonwealth and state representatives, NGOs, industry groups, independent researchers and community groups. That team will influence allocation of funding, prioritisation of actions and stakeholder engagement, thereby affecting who participates in implementation and who bears costs.

The recovery plan itself is not framed as a statute that creates new criminal offences or private rights; rather, it establishes duties and expectations for government agencies, proponents, land managers and other stakeholders. The following duties and operative rights flow from the plan as recorded in the source.

Duties and expectations for government agencies and implementers:

Use the recovery plan to prioritise actions for species protection and recovery (chapter 6). The plan anticipates state and Commonwealth agencies will incorporate actions into core business expenditure and pursue additional funding for implementation.
Coordinate, review and report on recovery progress, including a mandatory review no later than five years following endorsement (chapter 11). The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment is named as the coordinator for reviews and performance assessments.
Participate in and support the national Recovery Team, which provides advice and coordinates implementation (Recovery team section). Members include government, NGOs, industry groups, researchers and community organisations.

Duties for proponents, consent authorities and project assessors:

When assessing potential habitat loss, alteration or degradation, conduct occupancy surveys at appropriate times and identify preferred foraging species to refine relative importance of areas for Painted Honeyeaters (section under Key considerations in environmental impact assessments).
Consider both recent survey data and historical records due to the species’ nomadism and opportunistic habitat use (same section).
Avoid destruction or modification of habitat critical to survival wherever possible. The plan states, “Whenever possible, habitat critical to the survival of the species should not be destroyed or modified.” (Habitat critical section).
If removal cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated, provide an offset. The plan instructs, “If removal of habitat critical to the survival cannot be avoided or mitigated, then an offset should be provided.” The plan does not prescribe offset mechanics or ratios; it places an expectation on decision-making processes to require offsets where justified.

Duties and suggested actions for landholders and managers:

Retain and enhance breeding and foraging habitats, including retention of mistletoe and mature trees (multiple sections on habitat and threats).
Reduce grazing pressure to allow host tree recruitment, and avoid deliberate removal of mistletoe where it supports Painted Honeyeater resources (chapter 2.2.2).
Engage with recovery actions, community monitoring and volunteers coordinated by conservation groups (chapter 9 and strategy 5).

Monitoring and measurement duties:

Establish and use 2020 baseline counts as the comparator for the 2031 population objective and implement long-term monitoring programs to detect trends and respond adaptively (Recovery Plan Objective, strategy 3, chapter 6).
Apply monitoring and research to inform adaptive management, including understanding movement patterns, habitat use and post-breeding dispersal (criteria for success and strategy 4).

Rights and procedural positions:

Recovery plan acts as formal conservation advice and should be considered in environmental assessments and decision-making. The plan gives stakeholders a documented set of criteria and priorities to assert in approvals and planning contexts.
The plan affords rights of participation in review and recovery oversight to listed stakeholders , Commonwealth and state agencies, NGOs, local communities, private landholders, Indigenous communities, universities and the Painted Honeyeater Recovery Team.
People or organisations that conduct recommended actions (monitoring, restoration, community engagement) can access the plan as justification for funding or project approval alignment.

Limitations and non-statutory nature:

The recovery plan does not itself create statutory prohibitions, enforcement powers or civil liabilities in the text supplied. Instead, it is positioned as a directive and decision-support instrument to be used by consent authorities and implementers under existing statutory frameworks (for example, EPBC Act processes and state planning laws). The plan repeatedly frames its measures as guidance for assessments and actions rather than as new legal duties under the plan text itself.

In practice, duties imposed on proponents and land managers will arise where the plan is used by decision-makers in environmental assessment and approvals. Those duties therefore are mediated by the EPBC Act and state/territory regulatory processes; the plan supplies the conservation criteria and priorities that inform those decisions.

The Instrument itself does not set out or specify penalties, fines or criminal sanctions. It records the Minister’s making of the recovery plan under subsection 269A(2) EPBC Act and attaches the National Recovery Plan as the authoritative recovery plan for Grantiella picta. The recovery plan is an operative policy and implementation document rather than an enforcement code: the plan prescribes priorities, guidance and suggested actions and states expectations for avoidance, mitigation and offsetting of habitat loss, but it does not create bespoke enforcement mechanisms within its text.

What the plan does say about enforcement and consequences for non-compliance is limited and largely procedural:

It instructs that “Whenever possible, habitat critical to the survival of the species should not be destroyed or modified” and that “If removal of habitat critical to the survival cannot be avoided or mitigated, then an offset should be provided.” These statements set an expectation to be applied in assessment and decision-making, but the plan does not itself define the legal consequences when those expectations are not met. Enforcement mechanisms therefore depend on application by the relevant statutory consent authority under existing legislation and policies.
The plan anticipates that restrictions on clearing may impact landowners, managers and developers (chapter 8). It explains that affected parties may face increased costs due to assessment processes, offset funding requirements, obligations to secure or rehabilitate habitat, or other threat mitigation work. These costs, while not statutory penalties, are real economic burdens that flow from the plan’s integration into approval processes.
The plan sets out roles for Commonwealth and state agencies, and indicates that agencies will use the plan to prioritise actions and inform decisions. Where the EPBC Act or state legislation confers enforcement powers or consequences (not detailed in this plan), the plan will influence the exercise of those powers by shaping decision-makers’ assessments and conditions. The plan notes that habitat critical may be listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the Minister under the EPBC Act , such listing, if it occurs under the EPBC Act, can bear regulatory consequence, but the plan itself does not effect such listing; it identifies the Register as a possible element of “habitat critical” identification.
The plan implies a compliance pathway through administrative processes: recovery team oversight, five-year review, and incorporation into core agency business. The plan requires a review coordinated by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to assess plan performance, whether to vary the plan or remove it, or whether conservation advice would suffice. These administrative levers are part of program implementation and accountability rather than immediate sanctions.

Practical enforcement picture:

Enforcement of the plan’s expectations in the field will depend on how decision-makers use the plan in statutory approvals and on state and Commonwealth enforcement regimes acting under the EPBC Act and relevant state laws. The plan will be used to justify conditions, refusal or imposition of offsets in approvals, and those statutory instruments can carry enforceable obligations, compliance monitoring and penalties , but such mechanisms are not described or created by this Instrument or the plan text.
The plan’s effectiveness will therefore depend on administrative uptake, incorporating its guidance into approvals, compliance monitoring by agencies, and the intersection with existing statutory enforcement tools in the EPBC Act and state/territory legislation.

In short, the Instrument equips decision-makers with a recovery plan that sets expectations and provides evidence-based guidance. Enforcement and penalties will be exercised, if at all, through pre-existing statutory mechanisms and administrative processes rather than by penalties specified in the recovery plan document itself.

The recovery plan is made under the EPBC Act (the Instrument explicitly cites subsection 269A(2)). It is therefore an instrument that operates within the broader statutory and regulatory architecture for threatened species conservation in Australia. The plan itself and the Instrument reference several interaction points with other legal regimes and non-statutory standards.

Link to the EPBC Act:

The Instrument invokes s 269A(2) EPBC Act as the ministerial head of power to make a recovery plan. The plan functions as a formal recovery plan under the EPBC Act framework and will be used by Commonwealth decision-makers in assessing actions or developments that have potential impacts on a listed threatened species. The plan also references the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the Minister under the EPBC Act as one mechanism for listing areas necessary for species survival.

State and territory legislation:

The plan lists corresponding state-level conservation statuses for Grantiella picta across the jurisdictions (for example, Vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 2014 (ACT), Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW), Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland), Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria) etc.). It explicitly notes that the species is listed under state legislation in all parts of its range and that many of the habitats fall under state jurisdiction, meaning that implementation will require coordination with state conservation laws and approvals.

Environmental assessment and approvals:

The plan provides guidance for environmental impact assessments: surveys for occupancy at appropriate times, consideration of historical records because the species is nomadic and uses sites opportunistically, and the need to avoid destruction of habitat critical to survival where possible. This guidance is framed to be used by consent authorities assessing proposals under the EPBC Act and by state agencies under state planning and environmental assessment regimes. The plan’s instruction that offsets should be provided if critical habitat removal cannot be avoided points to interaction with statutory offset frameworks administered under the EPBC Act and analogous state schemes, though the plan does not specify offset mechanisms or ratios.

Key Biodiversity Areas and international standards:

The plan integrates Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA) as an evidence base for prioritising habitat. It explains the KBA standard, notes that KBA identification is tenure-blind but in practice often aligned with existing protected areas, and points out that KBAs are used in international and industry standards (for example, Forest Stewardship Council and the Equator Principles). These linkages mean that KBA status can influence private-sector due diligence, lending and certification processes, and thus may affect project financing and supply chain decisions outside formal environmental law.

Threatened Ecological Communities:

The plan identifies several EPBC-listed Threatened Ecological Communities (for example, White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland) that overlap Painted Honeyeater habitat. Where projects affect such communities, they may trigger further assessments under the EPBC Act. The plan notes the overlap and potential co-benefits of conserving these communities for multiple threatened species.

Other regulatory domains:

The plan refers to threats that intersect with other regulatory areas: biosecurity and disease (for example, effects of pathogens on mistletoe or host trees), fire management regimes (cultural burning and prescribed burning to reduce hot wildfires), pest and feral animal control (rats, bees), and land-use controls linked to agricultural improvement and grazing management. These interfaces require coordination across departments responsible for agriculture, biosecurity, forestry, and emergency management.

Administrative and funding interactions:

The plan anticipates that its costed actions be incorporated into the “core business expenditure” of affected organisations and that additional funds be sought to support implementation. That implies interaction with public budgeting processes, grant schemes and potentially with landholder incentive programs administered under state and Commonwealth programs.

Practical implications for consenting and compliance:

Because the plan sets out criteria for what constitutes habitat critical to survival and how to evaluate impacts (surveys, consideration of mistletoe resources, landscape scale effects), decision-makers implementing the EPBC Act and state laws will likely use the plan to set conditions, refuse proposals or require offsets. The plan’s lack of prescriptive offset rules means that interaction with existing EPBC Act offset policy and state offset schemes will determine the legal and financial outcomes for proponents.

In sum, the recovery plan is positioned to inform and shape the application of both Commonwealth and state laws, regulatory approvals and industry standards. Its practical force will derive from how courts, administrative decision-makers and other regulators incorporate the plan’s definitions, thresholds and guidance into statutory assessment and compliance processes.

The document supplied is an Instrument dated 8 April 2022 by the Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley, making the National Recovery Plan for the Painted Honeyeater. The recovery plan text itself states it is the first national plan developed for the Painted Honeyeater. The plan also notes the species was listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act on 8 July 2015. Beyond those dated events and the current Instrument, the document contains internal procedural and review milestones rather than an amendment log.

Key dated entries and procedural milestones in the source:

Listing date: The Painted Honeyeater was listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act on 8 July 2015 (the plan records this date in its history and species background).
Instrument date: The Minister signed the Instrument making the recovery plan on 8 April 2022; the plan commences the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislation.
Baseline and target years: The plan sets 2020 as the baseline year for population counts and sets an objective to measure and sustain a positive population trend by 2031.
Five-year review requirement: The plan requires a review no later than five years from when it was endorsed and made publicly available (chapter 11). The review will determine whether the plan continues unchanged, is varied to remove completed actions, is varied to include new conservation priorities, or whether a recovery plan is no longer necessary (for example because conservation advice suffices or the species is delisted).

Public consultation and preparatory timeline:

The plan states that notice of the draft plan was made available for public comment for a minimum of three months between 17 December 2020 and 16 April 2021, and that comments relevant to the survival of the species were considered by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee as part of its assessment process (chapter 10). The plan’s indicative cost estimates for the first five years were derived from expert elicitation and public comments received in 2020 (chapter 6). These entries document the preparatory consultation timeline that preceded adoption.

Amendment mechanics and triggers:

The plan’s review clause (chapter 11) sets the mechanism for amendment: the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment will coordinate the five-year review with relevant Australian and state government agencies and stakeholders. The review will assess plan performance against objectives (including listing status against EPBC Act criteria) and will recommend whether the plan should be varied or replaced by conservation advice or whether the species should be removed from the threatened list. This provides an administrative amendment pathway rather than automatic or time-limited statutory amendments.

Absence of a formal amendment history in the text:

The document does not include a recorded history of prior versions of the recovery plan because it is presented as the first national recovery plan for the species. It does not reference prior ministerial recovery plans for the Painted Honeyeater, nor does it include a list of amendments or versions. Therefore, future amendments and their dates will be captured through the scheduled five-year review or earlier variations made by the Department and Minister as required.

Implication for practitioners:

The plan’s governance structure anticipates iterative amendment through scheduled reviews and stakeholder engagement rather than an amendment-by-Instrument model embedded in the plan. Practitioners should track the five-year review timetable and any ministerial variations or subsequent Instruments that may amend the plan or replace it with conservation advice or other policy instruments.

The source document does not identify any litigation, court decisions or administrative reviews related to the Painted Honeyeater or this recovery plan. No cases, appeals or tribunal matters are recorded in the plan text or the Instrument. The recovery plan does cite scientific literature, expert communications and threat assessments, but it does not reference judicial authority or past litigation involving this species or its habitat.

Implications of absence of litigation references:

Because the recovery plan and Instrument do not reference litigation, there is no litigation history to ground interpretations of how courts have treated the plan or how enforceable its provisions are in practice. The plan is framed principally as a policy and administrative instrument to guide implementation under the EPBC Act and state laws. Any judicial consideration of the plan’s role or weight in administrative decisions would have to be established through future cases.

What to monitor for lawyers and compliance professionals:

Administrative decisions that adopt conditions, refuse approvals, or impose offsets citing this recovery plan could become the subject of merits review or judicial review under administrative law. Where decision-makers rely on the recovery plan’s definitions of habitat critical to survival, its survey guidance or its prioritised actions, affected parties might seek review of those decisions. Because the plan includes prescriptive guidance (for example, avoidance of habitat destruction where possible; offsets where removal cannot be avoided) but leaves mechanics to existing statutory frameworks, litigation may emerge around how decision-makers interpret and apply the plan’s guidance within EPBC Act or state approval processes.
Practitioners should watch for early administrative decisions that reference this recovery plan, and for any challenges to those decisions in courts or tribunals, as those will delineate how the plan’s guidance is weighed in legal settings and define its practical regulatory force.

At present, based on the source, there is no litigation history to summarise.

The recovery plan contains several features that create concrete implementation risks, uncertainties and potential compliance burdens. These are operational "gotchas" that practitioners, proponents, landholders and decision-makers should watch for because they affect costs, responsibilities and legal exposure.

Non-prescriptive offset requirement:

The plan states that if removal of habitat critical to survival cannot be avoided or mitigated, “then an offset should be provided.” The plan does not prescribe the form, scale, metrics, or timeframes for offsets. This leaves significant discretion to decision-makers and can create uncertainty for proponents about the quantum and cost of offsets likely to be required. It also creates the potential for protracted negotiation or dispute when determining equivalence and durability of offsets.

Broad and tenure-spanning definition of habitat critical:

Habitat critical to the survival is defined to include breeding habitat, foraging habitat (Amyema mistletoes), all KBAs where Painted Honeyeater is a Trigger, and suitable future climate niches as information becomes available. Because that definition spans private freehold, travelling stock routes, reserves, state forests and national parks, many landholders and proponents may unexpectedly encounter regulatory risk when projects or routine land management intersect with designated areas, remnant paddock trees, or even roadside strips where mistletoe is present.

Species nomadism and survey burden:

The plan emphasises that Painted Honeyeaters are nomadic and may not be present in a given year at a site that nonetheless constitutes habitat critical to survival. It instructs that both recent survey data and historical records be considered, and recommends seasonal occupancy surveys at appropriate times. This requirement raises practical challenges for proponents and consent authorities: a negative survey in a single year may be insufficient to demonstrate absence and avoid mitigation obligations, leading to repeated surveys and higher compliance costs.

Concentration risk: single subpopulation:

The plan notes that 100 per cent of mature individuals exist in one subpopulation (Garnett et al. 2011). This concentration creates a high biological risk and likely increases the priority of protecting that subpopulation. For practitioners, this means developments that impact that core area will face heightened scrutiny and potentially more demanding mitigation or refusal.

Uncertain cost estimates and funding responsibilities:

The plan includes indicative costs for the first five years and says these should be incorporated into core business expenditure and through additional funds. However, the plan’s cost tables are indicative and derived from expert elicitation and public comments. The absence of firm funding commitments creates implementation risk, especially where state and Commonwealth agencies have competing budget priorities. Proponents may be required to bear mitigation or offset costs in the absence of government-funded restoration programs.

Conflicts with private land use:

Much habitat is on private land and grazing, pasture improvement and tree removal are listed threats. The plan’s expectation that landholders retain mistletoe and mature trees may conflict with agricultural practices and landholder perceptions of mistletoe as a pest. Achieving buy-in will require incentives, extension or regulatory coercion; absent effective incentives, compliance will be patchy.

Interaction with aggressive native species management and other key threatening processes:

The plan identifies competition from Noisy Miners and Yellow-throated Miners and other Native Key Threatening Processes. Management of aggressive native birds is itself complex, governed by state laws and local circumstances. Actions to reduce Miner populations or alter habitat structure to reduce their dominance may have legal, social and ecological trade-offs not fully resolved in the plan.

Climate change uncertainty and future niche mapping:

The plan includes a component of “habitat for the long-term maintenance of the species” calling for suitable habitat in future climate niches “as information becomes available.” This introduces temporal uncertainty: practitioners may be required to consider future climate projections in current approvals and planning, but the plan does not specify how to operationalise those projections or which models to use.

Lack of statutory enforcement detail:

As noted, the plan makes normative statements about avoidance and offsets but does not provide enforcement mechanisms. The reliance on decision-makers to apply the plan in statutory processes can produce inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions or projects, opening the door to perceived or real unpredictability for investors and land managers.

Knowledge gaps and research-first priorities:

Several high-priority actions are research-oriented (movement ecology, monitoring protocols, threats quantification). Where progress depends on uncertain research outcomes, implementers may face difficulty in deciding mitigation at scale in the interim. The plan’s use of the precautionary principle in the risk matrix mitigates this to an extent, but it does not resolve who funds or conducts the necessary research in a timely manner.

For compliance professionals and project proponents, these “gotchas” translate into operational recommendations: allow for extended survey windows and historical data checks; budget for potential offset or mitigation costs; engage early with the Recovery Team and relevant agencies; factor in cross-jurisdictional approvals; and be prepared for administrative discretion where the plan is applied. For agencies, the gotchas indicate needs for clear guidance on offset mechanics, funding commitments, and standardised survey protocols to reduce uncertainty and transaction costs.

This section translates the plan’s guidance into practical compliance steps for proponents, consent authorities, landholders, agencies and advisors, grounded in the source material. The plan’s text identifies specific actions and expectations; compliance consists of aligning planning, surveys, mitigation, monitoring and engagement with those elements.

Determine whether the project intersects habitat critical to survival:

Use the plan’s definitions to identify breeding and foraging habitat and KBAs. Habitat critical is defined to include breeding habitat in Boree/Weeping Myall, Brigalow, box-gum and box-ironbark forests on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range, and preferred foraging species (notably Amyema mistletoes). Check whether the site falls within any of the seven KBAs listed in the plan or any area that could be listed on the Register of Critical Habitat under the EPBC Act.

Conduct appropriately timed occupancy and ecological surveys:

Because Painted Honeyeaters are nomadic and may use areas opportunistically, conduct surveys “at the appropriate times of the year” referencing mistletoe fruiting and breeding seasons (the plan notes breeding runs October to March when mistletoe fruits are widely available). Use recent survey data and historical records to assess site importance. Document methodology, timing, effort and surveyor expertise to withstand scrutiny in assessments.

Identify preferred foraging species and mistletoe resources:

The plan emphasises mistletoe, especially Amyema spp., as the primary food resource. Map the presence, extent and condition of mistletoe clumps and host tree age structure. Assess tree recruitment and grazing impacts because grazing suppresses host tree recruitment (chapter 2.2.2). Include mistletoe condition in habitat assessments submitted to consent authorities.

Apply the avoidance-first approach:

The plan is clear: “Whenever possible, habitat critical to the survival of the species should not be destroyed or modified.” Design projects to avoid impacts on identified critical habitat, using alternatives, micro-siting, and timing to reduce habitat loss. Avoidance reduces the likelihood of offsets or stricter conditions.

If impacts are unavoidable, quantify and prepare for offsets and mitigation:

The plan requires offsets if removal cannot be avoided. Because the plan does not prescribe offset ratios or types, expect decision-makers to require offsets consistent with EPBC Act offset policy and/or state offset schemes. Prepare robust proposals for offsets (in-kind, durable restoration, legal protection, stewardship arrangements) that address long-term maintenance of mistletoe resources and host trees. Demonstrate additionality, long-term management commitments and monitoring arrangements.

Implement threat mitigation measures identified in the plan:

Address grazing management (reduce livestock pressure to allow recruitment), avoid mistletoe removal as pest control where it supports Painted Honeyeater resources, apply fire management (cool cultural burns and prescribed burning to reduce canopy-killing hot wildfires), and consider predator management where evidence supports it. For competition from aggressive species, consult state guidelines and apply habitat-structure solutions that reduce Miner dominance.

Engage with the Painted Honeyeater Recovery Team and stakeholders:

The plan names a national Recovery Team to coordinate and advise implementation. Early engagement can clarify priorities, identify suitable offsets, coordinate monitoring protocols, and link to funding opportunities. Engage local conservation groups, BirdLife Australia volunteers and Indigenous land managers as partners in monitoring and restoration.

Prepare monitoring and reporting programs aligned with the plan:

Use the 2020 baseline and the plan’s objective to measure population trend by 2031. Establish long-term monitoring protocols for population counts, mistletoe resource condition, host tree age structure and breeding success. Build adaptive management triggers into monitoring (i.e., if monitoring shows decline, implement specified mitigation). Document monitoring methods and data to enable review at the five-year review milestone.

Budget for potential costs and fund allocation:

The plan anticipates recovery costs should be incorporated into core budgets of affected organisations and supplemented by additional funds. For project proponents, allocate budget for surveys, mitigation, offsets, restoration and monitoring. For agencies, anticipate funding requirements for research priorities and on-ground actions.

Use SPRAT and KBA resources:

The plan links to the Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) pages and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas for background and boundary information. Use these databases as authoritative sources for species records, trigger criteria and KBA maps when preparing assessments.

Consider climate change and future niches:

The plan expects planning to consider suitable habitat in future climate niches as information becomes available. Where feasible, incorporate climate projections and identify refugia or southern KBAs likely to offer long-term resilience (the plan flags southern KBAs such as South-west Slopes and Warby-Chiltern).

Prepare for review and adaptive changes:

The plan requires a five-year review to assess performance against objectives and may be varied. Maintain records and be prepared to adjust management in response to review outcomes and new scientific information.

Document stakeholder consultation:

The plan itself was developed through public consultation and expects ongoing stakeholder engagement. Document consultations with local communities, landholders, Indigenous groups and NGOs as part of project approvals and implementation to demonstrate alignment with recovery plan expectations and to reduce social friction.

Expect cross-jurisdictional coordination:

Because the plan spans Commonwealth and multiple state regimes, expect to deal with both EPBC Act processes and state environmental approvals. Coordinate early with both Commonwealth and state agencies to align technical approaches and avoid procedural duplication.

Following these steps will align proponents and land managers with the recovery plan’s stated expectations. Where ambiguity remains (for example, on offset mechanics or on how future climate niches should be operationalised), early engagement with the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment and the Recovery Team is the practical compliance pathway to clarify requirements and reduce the risk of contested decisions.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Grantiella picta) Instrument 2022

Plain English Summary

Deep Dive

What it does

Current sections

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Grantiella picta) Instrument 2022

Source text: opening excerpt

1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Recovery Plan—Grantiella picta) Instrument 2022

Main concepts

Who it affects

Key duties and rights

Penalties and enforcement

How it interacts with other laws

Amendment history

Litigation history

Gotchas

How to comply