Building Nature's Safety Net
Building Nature's Safety Net is the first comprehensive review of Australia's land protected area system.
The review measures whether the growth of parks and reserves is on track to meet biodiversity protection commitments agreed to by Australian, State and Territory governments in 2005.
It also identifies the "Top 10" protected areas, public and private; outstanding examples from each jurisdiction of the best way forward in biodiversity protection, and also identifies priority bioregions for expanding the protected area system.
Key findings
- 67% on average of ecological diversity across all of Australia's bioregions is represented in a protected area. The agreed growth target is 80% for all bioregions by 2010-2015, and 100% of all endangered ecosystems.
- 10.5% of Australia's land area was in a protected area at last complete count in 2004, ranking Australia 16th out of the 30 most developed nations.
- Australia has fallen short of agreed growth targets through insufficient and declining funding.
- Purchase of new protected areas is highly cost effective for biodiversity protection. Reserve acquisition cost the Australian Government $10.61 per hectare added on average, compared for example with $258 per hectare on average for land repair projects under the Envirofund program.
- Funding levels by all governments are significantly below those needed to reach targets.
- According to an expert report to the Prime Minister's Science Council in 2002, $300-400 million is needed to reach agreed growth targets for the protected area system.
- Priority states for expanding protected area systems are Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory
Land Protected Area Report Card
| State/Territory1 | Comprehensiveness | Extent | Management Standard |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACT | A | A | A |
| Tasmania | A | A | B |
| Victoria | C | A | B |
| SA | B/C | A | C/D2 |
| NSW | A/D2 | C | C |
| WA | D | B | C |
| Queensland | C | D | C |
| NT | D | D | B |
Report card notes
- Commonwealth managed areas Kakadu, Uluru, Booderee are included under states/territories in which they occur. Offshore islands and marine parks excluded.
- Data deficient.
- Comprehensiveness
- The proportion of broad regional ecosystems (at map scales of 1:100 000 - 1:250 000) sampled in the protected area system for each bioregion. Median value across all bioregions was then used as the measure for each state and territory. Only principal bioregions were included for each State/Territory. Bioregions which overlapped several jurisdictions were assigned to the jurisdiction with highest proportion of area in the bioregion. Grade A meant median value 85% and up; Grade B meant median value between 70 and 85%; Grade C meant median value from 55% to below 70%; Grade D meant median values below 55% or unknown.
- Extent
- The proportion of total land area in protected areas. A State/Territory was rated: Grade A if combined protected area extent was above 15%; Grade B for extent 10 to 15%; Grade C for extent 5% to below 10%; Grade D for extents below 5%.
- Management Standard
- Standard of management was rated for each bioregion based on input by agency staff in the National Land and Water Resources Audit (2002) and subsequent follow-up. Grade A (very good) meant that a high proportion of parks in the bioregion have park management plans, ecological monitoring programs in place and key biodiversity issues are being addressed. Grade B (Good) meant that major biodiversity issues were effectively managed. Grade C (Fair) meant that biodiversity values and or management issues are poorly identified; resource degradation is occurring though retrievable. Grade D (Poor) high visitor impact and/or other threatening processes that are not managed and are leading to permanent resource degradation in a number of parks. Median of bioregion ratings for each State/Territory is shown.
A set of factsheets are also available that present the essential information from this report on each state's report card and on each of the Top 10 reserves.
