Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
Environment Australia, 2001
ISBN 0 6425 4734 3

Appendices C, D and E

Appendix C: The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity: Priority actions for 2005

By the year 2005 Australia will have:

  1. established effective cooperative mechanisms for bioregional planning and management;
  2. implemented management plans for the protected area network;
  3. established a system of voluntary or cooperative reserves, or both, and other management schemes on private lands to complement the protection provided by the public estate in protected areas;
  4. established networks of community groups and volunteers that play major roles in managing and monitoring biological diversity at the district level;
  5. local governments that have assumed a major role in the conservation of Australia's biological diversity;
  6. demonstrated maintenance of regional and district floras and faunas;
  7. successfully rehabilitated at least 10 endangered or vulnerable species;
  8. successfully controlled three introduced mammals, 10 introduced plants and one pathogen that pose major threats to biological diversity;
  9. sufficient information from long-term monitoring and other research to identify and understand the nature and extent of threats to Australia's biological diversity to develop actions for dealing with those threats.

Appendix D: Natural Heritage Trust funding 1996–2002

  1996–97
$m
Actual
1997–98
$m
Actual
1998–99
$m
Actual
1999–00
$m
Actual
2000–01
$m
Estimate
2001–02
$m
Estimate
Total
$m
Air Pollution in Major Cities Program 1.3 1.5 2.4 2.9 6.3 4.1 18.5
Bushcare 3.7 3.7 22.2 50.2 81.6 104.8 83.8 346.5
Coasts and Clean Seas - 8.6 20.2 28.1 35.4 24.4 116.8
Endangered Species Program 2.0 2.1 6.9 5.8 5.6 5.5 27.8
Farm Forestry Program - 2.8 6.5 11.9 16.8 9.2 47.2
Farm Business Improvement Program: Farmbis 0.4 0.3 2.6 5.6 6.0 - 15.0
Fisheries Action Program - 1.7 2.2 3.2 3.8 2.1 13.0
Murray-Darling 2001Program 3.8 27.5 35.0 43.0 53.8 32.6 195.6
National Feral Animal Control Program 3.7 3.1 1.6 2.0 6.1 2.7 18.9
National Land & Water Resources Audit 1.3 2.4 11.8 9.8 13.7 5.4 44.4
National Landcare Program (including Landcare Tax measures) 10.2 30.1 49.0 49.2 109.4 78.5 326.5
National Reserve System Program 0.4 2.9 11.2 11.4 38.2 20.0 84.2
National River Health Program 0.1 1.6 1.7 2.6 7.6 1.8 15.8
National Rivercare Program - 5.9 14.3 19.1 28.8 14.9 82.9
National Weeds Program 2.1 1.3 1.6 0.9 17.8 4.8 28.5
National Wetlands Program 0.5 1.6 1.6 3.8 5.8 3.8 17.1
Oceans Policy - - - 1.5 10.0 8.5 20.0
Riverworks Tasmania 1.8 2.6 0.3 4.2 0.0 8.8
Waste Management Awareness Program 0.2 0.6 0.7 1.0 2.4 1.1 6.0
Waterwatch Australia 0.2 2.2 2.4 3.1 2.9 2.6 13.0
World Heritage Area Management and Upkeep Program 4.7 10.7 10.0 8.6 9.7 8.9 52.5
Total outlays 36.3 131.4 232.1 299.4 485.0 314.7 1499.0

Notes:

Due to rounding, some columns may vary in the future within overall totals.

Includes $123 million carryover from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001.

The National Landcare Program also receives funding from an appropriation under the Natural Resource Management (Financial Assistance ) Act 1992.

The National Rivercare Program includes funding for Fisheries Action Program freshwater activities.

Australia's Oceans Policy commitment includes $30 million to come from consolidated revenue funds.

Appendix E: Summary of submissions received from the public consultation process

A draft Review of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity (Consultation Paper) was released for public consultation on 13 October 2000. Comments were sought by 6 November 2000 (this was extended to 14 November 2000)9.

Environment Australia received 12 Submissions from the public consultation process directing comments to the Review. In summary the submissions came from:

  • 3 non ANZECC State Government Agencies;
  • 2 non ANZECC Commonwealth Agencies;
  • 1 Ministerial Council; 2 Environment Organisations; and
  • 4 submissions from independent sources or semi-autonomous government agencies or research centres.

The majority of submissions provided additional material for entry into the activity boxes of each objective or corrections to the material already included. Such comments were included though sometimes comments were included under other, more appropriate, objectives.

Some submissions however provided comments on the assessments of the objectives and the conclusions. A summary of these comments is provided below.

Comments Actions
Two submissions were concerned that the assessments were not based on scientific assessment and therefore not credible The introduction and preamble to the review were amended to clarify that the Review was never intended to provide a scientific assessment. This being the role of State of Environment Reporting.
Several submissions were highly critical of the assessments considering that none of the objectives could be considered achieved. No amendments were made. In general such comments did not go to the requirements provided in a specific objective and misinterpreted the assessments as an endorsement or an evaluation that the problem was solved. The conclusion identifies the ongoing action required.
One submission argued that salinity should not be referred to as a threatening process (in the conclusion) but as a consequence of vegetation clearance. While this is true, salinity has its own direct effect on biodiversity and so no amendment was made.
A number of submissions argued that the assessment for Agriculture (2.2) and Fisheries (2.3) were too harsh. It was also argued that the agriculture assessment contradicted the assessment for 'Off-reserve conservation'(1.5). 2.2 and 2.3 were not revised as, on balance, it was considered that agriculture and fisheries had not achieved the specific objective outlined in the Strategy. The 'Off Reserve Conservation' objective was changed to more closely accord with the assessment for agriculture.

Footnote:
9. This consultation process was separate from the ongoing consultation through the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council.