Bruce Gall is a former director of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service.
In 2014, during the World Parks Congress in Sydney, Greg Hunt, then environment minister, stated Australia had met its Aichi decade biodiversity target for area protected. However, a deeper dive into the data showed that Australia had failed – miserably – to meet the ‘ecosystem representativeness’ (habitat diversity) element of the target whose success minister Hunt was lauding.
Which is the more important to conserve – quantity (hectares) or quality (diversity)?
This is a crucial question as we move into the Kunming-Montreal decade. Initial results are suggesting a repeat of Aichi; a more strategic approach is needed. Read on.
Australia, along with 195 other countries, is party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This important treaty has carriage of global biodiversity goals, the first long-term initiative being the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2010-2020).
Aichi target 11 states, in part: By 2020, at least 17 percent of terrestrial and inland water [areas] … are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well-connected systems of protected areas …
Explanatory notes state protected area systems should contain adequate samples of the full range of existing ecosystems and ecological processes, including at least 10 percent of each ecoregion within the country.
The second biodiversity decade, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF; 2020-2030) came into effect in December 2022, delayed by the Covid pandemic.
KMGBF target 3 states, in part, Ensure that by 2030 at least 30 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas … are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected, and equitably governed systems of protected areas … recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable …
While there is a big increase in the national headline target for protected areas, the qualifying targets remain similar, with stronger text around Indigenous recognition.
Given these similarities, a review of how Australia performed during the Aichi decade, before embarking on the Kunming-Montreal decade, would seem appropriate.
Fortunately, Australia has the data to do this. The National Reserve System (NRS) comprises over 14,000 protected areas listed in the Cooperative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD); it is updated biennially. The current version is CAPAD 2022.
Ecosystem distribution data is derived from IBRA, the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia, which identifies 89 bioregions and 419 subregions, the latter a finer subdivision of the former.
Some of the arid bioregions are huge, the Great Victoria Desert (GVD), covering 42 million hectares, larger than Victoria and Tasmania combined. While large, they lack diversity, the GVD bioregion including only 4 subregions, whereas the smaller Tasmania/Victoria area covers 20 bioregions and 40 subregions.
Did Australia meet the Aichi targets?
CAPAD 2020 shows Australia met the 17 percent headline Aichi target, having set aside 19.75 percent of its area. This was achieved through the federal government entering into agreements with Indigenous owners to create several huge Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) over desert landscapes in WA, SA and the NT.
But is Australia’s 19.75 percent ecologically representative? Was at least 10 percent of each bioregion protected? CAPAD 2020 shows that of the 89 bioregions, 28 (32%) did not meet the Aichi target. Of greater concern is that 206 (49%) of the 419 subregions, also missed the target.
Australian failed the Aichi target for ecological representativeness.
Which begs the question: How can Australia exceed the national target, but not reach the more specific bioregional targets? Queensland, our most biodiverse state, provides part of the answer; in 2020, only 8.7 percent of the state was protected, the lowest of all jurisdictions. NSW was not much better, with only 9.6 percent protected, though former environment minister Matt Kean, earned a gold star by adding nearly 1 million hectares of protected areas in a late-decade splurge, pushing NSW towards 11 percent – an extraordinary achievement.
Indigenous Protected Areas accounted for 44 percent of Australia’s protected areas in 2020, including several poorly conserved bioregions. IPAs are important; as well as protecting biodiversity, they provide many benefits – social, cultural, economic – for Indigenous communities. However, as discussed earlier, the lack of diversity over vast desert landscapes has biased the national analysis in favour of hectares over habitat.
This also shows the danger of grandstanding on the headline percentage – as politicians have been known to do – while ignoring the on-ground reality.
To be fair to the then federal governments, most jurisdictions were missing in action during much of the Aichi decade. Once federal financial support ceased in 2013, the sub-national governments lost interest in protecting nature.
Which brings us to the Kunming-Montreal decade (KMD). Whereas Aichi recommended protecting at least 10 percent of each bioregion, the KMD is silent on this, simply stating Protected areas … should contain adequate (my emphasis) samples of the full range of existing ecosystems, ecological processes, and regions.
‘Adequate’ is a compromise word; it needs to be quantified, and fortunately, in Australia, we have a relevant precedent. In establishing Regional Forest Agreements, our jurisdictions set targets for the conservation of forest ecosystems, one stating that 15 percent of the pre-1750 distribution of each forest type should be protected. Extrapolating from forest types to all vegetation types, and thus strengthening the biodiversity targets, would seem a better approach than just ‘adequate’.
Also, this increase in the representativeness target from Aichi’s 10 to 15 percent for the KMD is consistent with the respective national targets increasing from 17 to 30 percent.
An analysis of CAPAD 2020 data shows 252 (60.14%) subregions had less than 15 percent protected, including 31 that had no protection. Predictably, these figures are far worse than for the 10 percent analysis (above).
The updated CAPAD 2022 was released earlier this year and thus becomes the baseline for assessing the performance of the new federal government; what does their challenge look like? The national protected area figure has risen to 22.1 percent, an increase of 18 million hectares, 96 percent of which were new IPAs.
CAPAD 2022 shows 247 subregions remain below 15 percent protected, an improvement of just 5 areas since CAPAD 2020, while 27 subregions remain totally unprotected despite the spike in protected areas over the 2-year period.
A business-as-usual approach is doomed; it will not protect our magnificent wildlife. Fortunately, a new approach has expanded the range of land tenures allowed to meet the KMD target. Other effective land-based conservation measures (OECM) refer to land with high biodiversity values, but which cannot become a protected area.
OECMs have been recognised by the Convention on Biological Diversity as a legitimate way for countries to meet national biodiversity targets. The federal government is now investigating the use of OECMs in Australia.
Our third tier of government may play an important role here. Local government areas (LGAs) cover most of Australia and hence most bioregions and subregions. Many LGAs manage nature reserves which may meet OECM criteria.
Examples include Wellington Park, on Hobart’s doorstep, which is managed by a trust under the Hobart City Council. The park covers over 18,000 ha, including the summit of kunanyi/Mount Wellington. Mount Arthur Reserve, near Wellington, NSW, is a large reserve managed by Dubbo Regional Council. Brisbane City Council has 9,500 ha of reserves across the city, many with biodiversity values. There are scores of like examples around the country.
The future use of the millions of hectares of Australia’s state forests is increasingly being queried. The Victorian and Western Australian governments have banned logging of state forests from 2024, and other states, particularly NSW, are under pressure to follow suite. Forests whose historical reasons for creation – providing railway sleepers, fence posts and firewood – have long passed, and are now mainly used for stock grazing or hunting, may have other uses. These could include biodiversity protection, carbon storage and passive recreation either as formal conservation reserves, eg national parks, or as an OECM.
Many stock routes and road/rail verges protect remnant vegetation, including rare and threatened species, in otherwise cleared landscapes, and OECM recognition would give these areas greater protection. Water catchment areas often cover large, relatively undisturbed land, hence are potential OECMs. Private landholders and Indigenous organisations may prefer the OECM approach to other options for protecting biodiversity on their land/country.
However, the main obstacle to creating a representative system of protected areas is the KMGBF 30 percent target itself. This repeats the problem the Aichi experience exposed, viz., having a national target that is not strategic, and which can be misrepresented. A new approach is needed.
Replacing the words ‘at least 30 percent of terrestrial and inland water areas’ with ‘at least 15 percent of biogeographic subregions’, would ensure a strategic focus on habitats. OECMs would be an asset in targeting poorly conserved subregions.
A revised KMGBF target 3 would read, in part, … at least 15 percent of biogeographic subregions are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected, and equitably governed systems of protected areas … recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable …
Simply stated, the KMD should be about habitats, not hectares.