Species are lost at alarming rates around the world. Countless marine species are being wiped out by a range of human associated activities including overfishing, pollution, the loss of habitat and the invasion of exotic species (Jackson et al. 2001). Although the goal of most conservation programs is to keep species and populations well away from the “danger zone” of extinction (Powles et al. 2000), lack of funding, interest or knowledge can often mean that relatively few marine and island species are adequately protected.

Chapter 15 of The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia or SOMER (1996) summarises the difficulties in determining the conservation status of marine species as:

• Marine populations have characteristics that make the detection of depletions difficult.
• Fluctuations in recruitment and breeding population size can obscure long-term trends.
• Patchy distributions can make reliable estimates of density or population size difficult to obtain. Often only quantum changes in numbers can be detected.
• Adequate methodologies for detecting and determining trends in abundances of rare species are generally lacking. High biodiversity generally comes with a proportion of rarity in species.

It concludes that ‘much of the current theory developed in terrestrial conservation biology cannot be uncritically applied to marine species and habitats’, and that ‘at this early stage of marine conservation, any attempt to grade species according to the degree of threat is likely to prove futile’. As a result, an alternative system was suggested to recognise the characteristics of species that are at least ‘potentially threatened’ by extinction, and to develop management measures for them as a precaution. The following nine characteristics were proposed (not prioritised):

• species with restricted geographic ranges
• species with unusually restricted breeding sites
• species that are very large, long-lived and/or of low fecundity
• species subject to large-scale mass mortality
• species subject to prolonged periods of recruitment failure
• species highly susceptible to environmental stress
• species that are extreme habitat specialists
• obligate supratidal, intertidal, estuarine and coastal embayment species
• species subject to excessive exploitation

An additional characteristic not mentioned in the SOMER but which is a key characteristic of many of the high profile species on the Great Barrier Reef is the species’ behaviour of crossing many jurisdictional boundaries (regional, national and international) during its life history.

SOMER concluded that a diversity of approaches is required to maximise the chances of long-term protection of marine species. These include focusing on:

• species deserving special conservation status – ecological indicator, keystone, umbrella, flagship, vulnerable – noting that vulnerable species are the most difficult to identify in marine ecosystems, while flagship species are the most identifiable;
• networks of marine protected areas (MPAs); and
• other conservation tools such as regulations against collecting, quotas, size bans and habitat preservation.

In 1998, a global marine policy was adopted jointly by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN). Under an objective of conserving and recovering threatened marine species, the Policy sees a twofold challenge to conserve and manage both species that are clearly connected to specific areas and those that are highly migratory. Its priority activities include:

• supporting the continuing development and application of the IUCN Red List, as well as regional and national lists of threatened species;
• supporting the preparation and implementation of Species Action and Recovery Plans;
• reducing the exploitation of threatened species by monitoring and regulating international trade using global mechanisms such as CITES and the International Whaling Commission; and
• demonstrating sustainable use through activities including whale-watching and traditional forms of subsistence use.

In 1998-99 a number of international workshops were held under the auspices of the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN to review the IUCN system for inscribing taxa under its Red List categories. One of these workshops looked specifically at application of the criteria in the marine environment. In its final report to the IUCN Council, the Commission retained marine species within the existing system for classifying species at risk of global extinction.

An article in the IUCN Bulletin by Brautigam (2001) notes in relation to the 2000 IUCN Red List that:

• Important additions to the 2000 Red List are the increased number of sharks, skates and rays, listed as threatened. These assessments are the result of several years of data collection, analysis and wide consultation.
• Although cetaceans are amongst the best known of marine species, most small cetaceans have been classified as Data Deficient. There is a great need for much more and better quality data on these species and the threats they face, in particular direct and indirect exploitation by the world’s fisheries.
• The leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, was reclassified as Critically Endangered in the Red List. Populations have declined dramatically in recent decades, primarily because of incidental capture in commercial longline fisheries.
• Although most marine organisms are invertebrates, only a few tens of these species have been assessed and included in the Red List (for example, the giant clams Tridacna sp.).
• These perhaps less appealing species are often victims of a lack of interest and funding.
• In addition to the improved coverage of marine species, the Red List provides evidence that fisheries bycatch is a major threat to a number of marine species, several of them Critically Endangered. This finding should provide added impetus to efforts aimed at reducing fisheries bycatch, in particular through the establishment of ‘no-take’ zones and the development of more selective fishing methods and gear to reduce this impact.

Powles et al. (2000) compared fishery management approaches with endangered species management and concluded that the latter can be a powerful tool for protection of endangered or vulnerable marine organisms, if applied widely in fishery management.

In recent years there has been a growing realisation that marine park managers should be identifying and protecting representative examples of the diversity of habitats and processes upon which all species depend, rather than focusing on individual species or specific habitats. Research has highlighted the interconnectedness of species that share the same habitat as well as the reliance of many species on a wide range of habitats throughout different stages of their life cycle and has found that spillover effects from the legal protection of one species may inadvertently benefit others within that habitat (Ando 2001).

Blue Highway Poster: click to enlarge.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has formalised a Representative Areas Program, which has enhanced the protection of the entire range of biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). This Program is part of Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas Program.

The Representative Areas Program helps:

• maintain biological diversity;
• allow species to evolve and function undisturbed;
• provide an ecological safety margin against human-induced disasters;
• provide a solid ecological base from which threatened species or habitats can recover or repair themselves; and
• maintain ecological processes and systems.

Adequate protection of representative areas of ecosystems is widely accepted, in Australia and around the world, as the best way to achieve the objectives listed above. A representative area is an area that is typical of the surrounding habitats or ecosystem at a chosen scale. The physical features, oceanographic processes and ecological patterns within a representative area reflect those of the surrounding habitat. This approach was recently implemented by the GBRMPA in the form of a bioregion-based system of marine protected areas. More information about the Representative Areas Program can be found at the GBRMPA website.

As mentioned earlier, the need for complementary approaches among the various agencies that have legislative responsibility for different aspects of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem is important for ecosystem-based management to succeed.  For example, the Queensland Government implemented a largely complementary system of marine protected areas for the Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park to match those established during the Representative Areas Program. This was part of their 2004 Election Platform committing ‘to the protection of Australia’s biological diversity through the establishment of a national system of comprehensive, adequate and representative national parks and reserves (including a representative range of terrestrial and marine ecosystems’. They have mapped intertidal habitats and evaluated the protection status for each of these habitats to inform their decisions about protecting representative examples in their new Zoning Plan (Banks and Skilleter 2002).

In terms of species conservation, various approaches have been proposed for establishing priorities. The Australian Government’s Biodiversity Advisory Council has suggested that an ‘ecological triage’ should be applied to threatened species, whereby they are placed in three groups:

• Species likely to become extinct even with huge expenditure;
• Threatened species that can be recovered quickly for a reasonable cost; and
• Species that are threatened but not immediately faced with extinction (Ando 2001).

The Council concluded that most funding should be allocated to the second group and that cost-benefit analyses should be applied to threatened species in order to set priorities for conservation.

In applying a cost-benefit analysis to priority setting for species conservation issues, it is often difficult to disaggregate and quantify the actual benefits and costs. The benefits of conserving species include both objective and subjective factors, whereas costs are often portrayed solely in dollars. For example, it can not be disputed that threatened species play a role in maintaining wider ecosystem functioning by virtue of their, inter alia, foraging habits and being prey for other animals. However, threatened species also have an intrinsic value, enhancing experiences for recreational users and tourists who dive or snorkel on the Great Barrier Reef, maintaining the culture of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Traditional Owners living adjacent to the coast and just being part of the natural ecosystem.

The costs associated with research and monitoring of threatened populations or the management measures introduced to address factors associated with the declines of populations are often considered unacceptably large or take too long to show results. Yet the costs of losing threatend species and their functional roles within an ecosystem are rarely quantified and given the same detailed consideration.

In the end, a range of factors must be used to prioritise species conservation issues.

[Table of Contents] [Previous] [Next]