Threat abatement strategies

The success of many threat abatement strategies will depend on establishing effective community and landholder awareness and education programs. In particular, there needs to be increased public awareness and understanding of KTPs, their impact on native biota and ecosystems and how the community and landholders can help manage threats.

Community and landholder education and awareness can be achieved by:

• distributing information to the public, eg, through brochures, fact sheets and the internet
• encouraging the media to profile KTPs and ways that the community can help mitigate threats
• developing and promoting KTP education and information in consultation with community groups and integrating it with community based programs, such as Landcare, Bushcare, Land for Wildlife, Coastcare, Waterwatch
• creating opportunities for community and landholder involvement in threat abatement actions, for example, community members and landholders contribute enormously to the control of Bitou Bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) and monitoring the recovery of the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus)
• facilitating implementation of priority control actions by liaising with landholders
• establishing good relationships with Aboriginal landholders and communities, and seeking their involvement in programs to manage KTPs.

Protocols and guidelines provide advice on specific KTPs and how best to abate, ameliorate or eliminate the impacts they have on threatened species. Such documents include environmental impact assessment guidelines, best practice guidelines, site management plans, quarantine measures and codes of practice, and can relate to policy and procedures for strategy development and identification of specific control methods.

These documents provide technical and operational information to complement the legislation and policy instruments. Examples of such documents include the best practice guidelines for fox control incorporated in NSW threat abatement plan for predation by the Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) (NPWS 2001a) and Hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs (NPWS 2001b).

The successful management of KTPs and development of threat abatement strategies will require a coordinated approach between DEC and key stakeholders including DEC, other public authorities, CMAs, private organisations and private landowners and land managers and Aboriginal communities. Agreements between various stakeholders can be signed such as memorandums of understanding (MOUs), joint management agreements (JMAs) or voluntary conservation agreements (VCAs).

The purpose of such agreements will be to:

• develop skills and knowledge to manage threats
• integrate threat abatement strategies with the management activities of landowners and land managers
• ensure that KTPs and threat abatement strategies are considered in all aspects of environmental planning and assessment.

Habitat loss or modification for urban development and agricultural practices has been a major factor in the decline of many native plants and animals. Rehabilitation and regeneration of lost or modified habitat can help many threatened species continue to survive in the wild. Actions include planting local native plants to provide food, shelter and roosting sites, or bush regeneration to reduce the impact on native plants from weeds. Many local community groups are enhancing and restoring the natural environment and assisting in the continued survival and increase of native species.

It is important to monitor key characteristics of a species or its habitat to ensure management actions are meeting their objectives for recovery. For example, managers may monitor:

• changes to species abundance, for an assessment of population health
• predator numbers, to indicate the effectiveness of pest control programs
• water quality or vegetation understorey cover, to assess the condition of a species' preferred habitat.

Aboriginal people may wish to be involved in monitoring species or their habitats they hold kinship associations for. Involvement in monitoring enables Aboriginal people to actively care for the wellbeing of species of cultural importance.

A TAP is a statutory document prepared and approved under Part 5 of the TSC Act. A TAP will be prepared for each KTP where:

• it poses a significant impact on biodiversity or is the main threat to many species
• its impact varies depending on location
• there are various abatement strategies in other conservation planning documents and policy instruments that need to be combined in one document
• management of the threat requires coordination and commitment from several public authorities and stakeholders
• cost-effective management is available
• more effort is needed to coordinate a threat abatement program to build on existing initiatives or develop initiatives.

A TAP will:

• describe the KTP and its impacts on native biota and ecosystems
• establish specific objectives to abate, ameliorate or eliminate the KTP
• outline the strategies and actions to achieve the objectives
• establish criteria for assessing the effectiveness of proposed actions in achieving the objectives
• identify the people or authorities who are responsible for implementing actions outlined in the plan
• give a cost estimate and timetable, if possible, for carrying out the plan.

Research is needed to further our knowledge and understanding of threatened species and the factors influencing their survival to enhance their future management. PAS research actions are directed toward the following areas:

• general biological and ecological studies to help increase knowledge of a species’ biology, ecology, habitat requirements or behaviour patterns. For example, research into a plant species’ response to fire can help managers apply appropriate fire regimes, or understanding the reproductive requirements of a species enables threats to be abated so populations remain viable.
• research into causes of decline to clarify understanding of the threats and consequences of threats impacting on species and to inform managers of solutions requiring implementation. For example, investigating the susceptibility of certain threatened plant species to pathogens such as Phytophera will result in the implementation of hygiene control measures or restricted site access.
• research into solutions to increase knowledge of how to design strategies to recover a species. Strategies may include research into predator or disease control, methods for restoring degraded ecological communities, or developing captive breeding or ex-situ propagation techniques (see below for definition of ‘ex-situ collection and propagation’).

To develop a sound understanding of a KTP and its impacts on native fauna and flora to target control efforts and develop effective solutions, an inspection of evidence relating to the KTP is needed. This will involve examining appropriate literature and consulting with experts, then developing a review which will:

• describe the KTP and its impacts
• establish where the impacts are likely to occur
• identify individual or suites of threatened species that would likely be impacted on at different sites
• identify gaps in knowledge to guide future research.

For certain KTPs, DEC or other land managers will implement direct control actions such as lethal baiting of foxes (Vulpes vulpes) under the Fox TAP (NPWS 2001a), and removal of Bitou Bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) under the Bitou Bush TAP (DEC 2004b).