Trends in monitoring of Australia’s threatened birds (1990–2020): much improved but still inadequate

Figures & data

Table 1. Percentage of threatened bird taxa in Australia with any monitoring per reporting period, considering only those taxa that were assessed as threatened in that reporting period, rather than all 166 taxa assessed across all reporting periods.

	1990	2000	2010	2020
Count of taxa threatened at reporting period (Out of 166 included in this study)	146	160	159	157
Count of taxa monitored at reporting period	29	74	103	114
Percentage of taxa threatened at reporting period that were monitored	20	46	65	73
Percentage of all 166 taxa that were monitored (For comparison)	19	45	65	75

Figure 1. Decadal trends in the percentage of threatened bird taxa with any monitoring. Results are presented for ‘all’ taxa and for five broad taxonomic groups. The number of taxa assessed in each group is listed in parentheses in the legend.

Figure 2. Decadal trends in the adequacy of monitoring for Australia’s threatened bird taxa. The overall score (centre) is comprised of 10 components of monitoring assessed independently for each taxon (numbered 1–10).

Figure 3. Decadal trends in the adequacy of monitoring for Australia’s threatened bird taxa. Results are presented for ‘all’ taxa and separately for five broad taxonomic groups. The number of taxa assessed in each group is listed in parentheses.

Figure 4. Decadal trends in who conducts monitoring for Australia’s threatened bird taxa. Note: multiple groups sometimes contributed to the monitoring of a single taxon. As a result, the total count of contributions to monitoring is greater than the total number of taxa monitored for any given decadal reporting period.

Box 1. Eastern Hooded Plover – Imogen Warren, Helmeted Honeyeater – Nick Bradsworth (Zoos Victoria), Orange-bellied Parrot – Chris Tzaros (Birds, Bush and Beyond), Carnaby’s Black Cockatoo – Georgina Steytler, Malleefowl – Simon Verdon.

Box 2. Barking Owl – John Harrison, Mallee Emu-wren – Tom Hunt, Far Eastern Curlew – G. Barry Baker.

Table 2. Priority actions to improve the monitoring of Australia’s threatened birds (not in order of importance).

Action	Goal	Relevant Agencies	Reasoning
1. Broaden funding periods to create long-term funded monitoring programmes (Broad level)	Improve longevity, frequency, coordination and training/succession planning of monitoring programmes	Funders – Government and non-government	Many monitoring programmes are funded through one-off grants or funding agreements that cover one survey period, resulting in poor longevity, frequency, coordination and training/succession planning (Figure 2). Long-term funding (e.g. 10-yr minimum), would allow for multiple survey periods, creating greater capacity to detect population trends in the target taxa. Such a system would also allow greater investment in internal upskilling and would facilitate more effective engagement with other parties such as community groups plus greater capacity to improve on poor performing monitoring components such as Demographic parameters.
2. Create funding opportunities exclusively for monitoring (Broad level)	Increase number of taxa monitored and monitoring quality	Funders – Government and non-government	Funding is often a limiting factor for monitoring programmes. Monitoring programmes are often not competitive against grant applications with on-ground recovery actions. One way to improve monitoring adequacy compared to its current state (Figure 2, centre panel), is to create funding opportunities specifically for monitoring (this applies to both grant opportunities and internal funding). With dedicated funding, programmes would have greater capacity to improve poor performing components such as Demographic parameters.
3. Develop and fund specific seabird monitoring programmes (Broad level)	Improve rate and quality of monitoring for the poorest performing taxonomic group	Funders – Government and non-government	Seabirds had substantially lower rates and quality of monitoring compared to the other broad taxonomic groups assessed (Figure 3, bottom panel). Therefore, great gains could be made by developing a targeted monitoring programme for this group. There may be further efficiencies in such a programme as multiple species co-occur and have similar life-histories, meaning a single programme could capture multiple taxa. In addition, monitoring at breeding islands has potential to improve the component ‘Demographic parameters’, an important and poor performing monitoring component.
4. Develop and fund a continental-scale general bird monitoring programme (i.e. non-threatened species) (Broad level)	Improve monitoring adequacy for non-threatened taxa.	Funders – Government and non-government	Although threatened birds were the focus of this study, we can only know a bird is declining and qualifies as threatened when there is sufficient monitoring data available. Therefore it is important to improve monitoring adequacy for non-threatened species. This could be achieved by a fit-for-purpose, spatially broad and well designed monitoring programme with dedicated long-term funding. Some attempts for such a network are currently underway (e.g. a strategic network of monitoring sites being developed by BirdLife Australia). However, with a dedicated fund, such a programme could be broadened in terms of the spatial extent, the taxa covered and the types of data collected.
5. Mandate minimum monitoring requirements for threatened taxa in any funding agreement (with monitoring quality standards for all components, but a focus on poor performing components such as Demographic parameters) (Broad level)	Increase number of taxa monitored and monitoring quality, especially in poor performing components	Federal government	Despite improvements in monitoring since 1990, more than half of the taxa assessed still have no monitoring or ‘Poor’ to ‘Very Poor’ monitoring (Figures 1 and 2, centre panels). To achieve the required scale of improvements in the coming decades, we need strong monitoring standards for Australia’s threatened bird taxa and funds for their implementation. This would also provide a pathway to improving those components that have shown the least improvement in the last 30 years (e.g. Demographic parameters).
6. Develop and administer open-access repository of data and reports for all of Australia’s threatened birds (Broad level)	Improve data availability/reporting	Either Federal government or NGO-led	A central and secure repository, administered over the long-term would greatly increase availability of data and reporting. Our results indicated that improvements are needed for this monitoring component (Figure 2, bottom-centre panel). The Threatened Species Index is on its way to achieving this but lacks a repository for reporting materials and secure long-term funding. The Restricted Access Species Data Project covers geospatial species-related data that requires some level of restriction and includes a subset of threatened species locations.
7. Develop the data infrastructure to record and track all aspects of monitoring (Broad level)	Improve monitoring quality across all components	Research agencies or NGOs	Standardised approaches to capturing the locations and numbers of birds are becoming increasingly available with the potential to automate some reporting. No equivalent is available for some of the other aspects of monitoring that need to be recorded to understand the reasons behind trends such as breeding success, survival, habitat quality etc.
8. Monitor the monitoring (Broad level)	Improve monitoring standards across all taxa	Either Federal government or NGO led	Tracking trends in monitoring quality across large groups of taxa makes it possible to identify aspects of monitoring that require reinforcement and can also demonstrate a return on investment for agencies and individuals supporting monitoring.
9. Strengthen links between scientists and private individuals/community groups/indigenous groups that conduct monitoring (Broad level and programme level)	Improve monitoring design quality, demographic parameters and coordination for programmes led by private individuals and indigenous groups	Government and non-government funders; NGOs with experience in facilitating partnerships between scientists, private individuals and indigenous groups	Private individuals conduct monitoring for more taxa than any other group, and indigenous groups are increasingly involved in monitoring (Figure 4). Therefore, investing in improving the quality of monitoring conducted by private individuals and indigenous groups has the greatest potential to improve monitoring quality overall. Given that such monitoring is often done in the absence of sufficient long-term funding, fostering closer links between scientists, private individuals and indigenous groups is an effective way to get more out of monitoring.
10. Develop succession plans for current monitoring programmes (Broad level and programme level)	Improve training/succession planning and longevity	programme coordinators; Government; NGOs with experience working with private individuals	Very few programmes have ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good’ training/succession planning (Figure 2). At a programme level, invest in developing a succession plan, especially for programmes that rely heavily on a few motivated individuals. At a Broad level, government agencies and NGOs can develop support programmes to facilitate this process.
11. Incorporate monitoring into broader management teams or build greater links between managers and those conducting monitoring. (Programme level)	Improve management links	programme coordinators, land management agencies	In the 2020 assessment, only four taxa had ‘Very Good’ management linkages (Figure 2, bottom-left panel). For monitoring to contribute to species conservation it needs to influence management. One way this has occurred for some taxa is via monitoring built into the broader conservation programme. However, other frameworks may also be effective. Programmes conducted outside of management agencies, but with strong links to those agencies can also foster effective conservation. This may be more appropriate for migratory species or species occurring across multiple states.

Data availability statement

All data is included in Supplementary Material: https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2023.2275121.