Improving biodiversity monitoringaec_2314 285..294

DAVID B. LINDENMAYER,1* PHILIP GIBBONS,1 MAX BOURKE,2 MARK BURGMAN,4

CHRIS R. DICKMAN,10 SIMON FERRIER,12 JAMES FITZSIMONS,5

DAVID FREUDENBERGER,13 STEPHEN T. GARNETT,17 CRAIG GROVES,21

RICHARD J. HOBBS,15 RICHARD T. KINGSFORD,11 CHARLES KREBS,23

SARAH LEGGE,16,18 ANDREW J. LOWE,20 ROB McLEAN,2 JENSEN MONTAMBAULT,22

HUGH POSSINGHAM,3 JIM RADFORD,6 DOUG ROBINSON,7 LISA SMALLBONE,9

DAVID THOMAS,2 TONY VARCOE,8 MICHAEL VARDON,14 GLENDA WARDLE,10

JOHN WOINARSKI19† AND ANDRE ZERGER12

1Fenner School of Environment and Society, and ARC Centre of Excellence for EnvironmentalDecisions,The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200 (Email:david.lindenmayer@anu.edu.au), 2The Thomas Foundation, Noosa Heads, 3ARC Centre of Excellencefor Environmental Decisions,The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4School of Botany,University of Melbourne, 5The Nature Conservancy, and School of Life and Environmental Sciences,Deakin University, 6Bush Heritage Australia, 7Trust for Nature, 8Research and ManagementEffectiveness Branch, ParksVictoria, Melbourne,Victoria, 9School of Environmental Sciences, CharlesSturt University, Albury, 10Institute ofWildlife Research, School of Biological Sciences, University ofSydney, 11AustralianWetlands and Rivers Centre, School of Biological, Earth and EnvironmentalSciences,The University of New SouthWales, Sydney, New SouthWales, 12CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences,13Greening Australia, 14Centre of Environment and Energy Statistics, Australian Bureau of Statistics,Canberra, Australia Capital Territory, 15School of Plant Biology, and ARC Centre of Excellence forEnvironmental Decisions, University ofWestern Australia, Perth, 16AustralianWildlife Conservancy,Subiaco East,Western Australia, 17Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, 18NorthernBiodiversity Hub, Charles Darwin University, 19Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources,Environment, the Arts and Sport, Darwin, Northern Territory, 20Australian Centre for EvolutionaryBiology and Biodiversity, University of Adelaide, and Science Resource Centre, Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; 21Conservation Science,TheNature Conservancy, Bozeman, 22Conservation Science,The Nature Conservancy, Charlottesville, USA;and 23Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, Canada

Abstract Effective biodiversity monitoring is critical to evaluate, learn from, and ultimately improve conservationpractice. Well conceived, designed and implemented monitoring of biodiversity should: (i) deliver information ontrends in key aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes); (ii) provide early warning of problems that mightotherwise be difficult or expensive to reverse; (iii) generate quantifiable evidence of conservation successes (e.g.species recovery following management) and conservation failures; (iv) highlight ways to make management moreeffective; and (v) provide information on return on conservation investment.The importance of effective biodiver-sity monitoring is widely recognized (e.g. Australian Biodiversity Strategy).Yet, while everyone thinks biodiversitymonitoring is a good idea, this has not translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread useof monitoring data. We identify four barriers to more effective biodiversity monitoring in Australia. These are: (i)many conservation programmes have poorly articulated or vague objectives against which it is difficult to measureprogress contributing to design and implementation problems; (ii) the case for long-term and sustained biodiversitymonitoring is often poorly developed and/or articulated; (iii) there is often a lack of appropriate institutionalsupport, co-ordination, and targeted funding for biodiversity monitoring; and (iv) there is often a lack of appro-priate standards to guide monitoring activities and make data available from these programmes.To deal with theseissues, we suggest that policy makers, resource managers and scientists better and more explicitly articulate theobjectives of biodiversity monitoring and better demonstrate the case for greater investments in biodiversity

*Corresponding author.†Present address: Charles Darwin University, PO Box 148, Christmas Island, WA 6798, Australia.Accepted for publication September 2011.

Austral Ecology (2012) 37, 285–294

bs_bs_banner

© 2011 The Authors doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

monitoring.There is an urgent need for improved institutional support for biodiversity monitoring in Australia, forimproved monitoring standards, and for improved archiving of, and access to, monitoring data. We suggest thatmore strategic financial, institutional and intellectual investments in monitoring will lead to more efficient use of theresources available for biodiversity conservation and ultimately better conservation outcomes.

Key words: conservation effectiveness, management intervention, monitoring, biodiversity, National BiodiversityStrategy.

INTRODUCTION

Biodiversity monitoring is critically important for fore-warning of impending species declines and/or extinc-tions, creating triggers for management intervention,quantifying the effectiveness of management practicesdesigned to conserve biodiversity, and accumulatingthe data to underpin metrics reflecting the status ofbiodiversity.These roles of biodiversity monitoring are,in turn, essential for sustaining ecosystems and ulti-mately underpinning the well-being of humanity (Daily1997; Chivian & Bernstein 2008; Scholes et al. 2008).Despite this, biodiversity monitoring has a chequeredhistory in environmental management and conserva-tion practice both in Australia (e.g. ANAO 1997, 2008)and elsewhere (Kleijn & Sutherland 2003; Bernhardtet al. 2005; Kleijn et al. 2006; Muir 2010).While almosteveryone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea,many conservation activities are not accompanied byany biodiversity monitoring because it is overlooked inthe programme design and/or funds are not allocatedfor it to take place, or where monitoring is done, it is ofpoor quality and cannot inform management or policy.In addition, the design documents for many pro-grammes typically do not include clear, unambiguousstatements of relevant, measurable and appropriatelysensitive attributes that provide feedback on the pro-gramme objectives. This leads to little or no soundreporting of trends in biodiversity, no clear indication ofreturn on investment, and ultimately a limited basis forimproving conservation interventions and decisions. Aconsequence of these deficiencies is that it has oftenbeen impossible to determine the effectiveness of manybiodiversity conservation programmes. Australianexamples include very large investments like theNatural HeritageTrust (ANAO 1997, 2008; Hajkowicz2009) and the Threatened Species Network Commu-nity grants, but they are paralleled by programmeswithin many large biodiversity conservation organiza-tions around the world (Muir 2010).

Such failures to monitor the biodiversity outcomesof what are often substantial investments is in starkcontrast to investments in health and education whereregular monitoring and testing have been undertakenin a co-ordinated manner for over a century with afailure to monitor seen as deficient governance.

Improved monitoring is pivotal to the success of therecently released Australian Biodiversity Strategy2010–2030 (Natural Resource Management Ministe-rial Council 2010). Among other things, this strategystates:

By 2015, establish a national long-term biodiversitymonitoring and reporting system.Resources available for biodiversity conservationefforts – human and financial, government andnon-government – are limited. It is therefore essen-tial that we measure, evaluate and understand theeffectiveness of our biodiversity conservationefforts. This knowledge will help to ensure that ourefforts are correctly prioritised and targeted, sothat we are investing in efficient actions thatwill produce the greatest long-term benefits forbiodiversity.In order to get measurable results, we need toimprove and share our knowledge of biodiversity.This involves improving the accessibility, communi-cation and application of knowledge as well asensuring our priorities are evidence-based. Toachieve that, we need to implement robust nationalmonitoring, reporting and evaluation measures,so that we can identify what is working – andnot working – and why, and adjust our effortsaccordingly.

While the importance of these aims is self-evident,the Australian Biodiversity Strategy 2010–2030 omitsan analysis of the reasons for failure to meet similarobjectives in the past and why enduring monitoringprogrammes, and the results of long-term monitoring,remain elusive within Australia’s biodiversity conser-vation institutions.

In this paper, we outline four broad categories ofproblems that need to be addressed to improvebiodiversity monitoring in Australia, particularly inmany government-funded programmes, but whichare also applicable to biodiversity monitoring bycommercial enterprises (which currently goes largelyunreported and/or published in the peer-reviewedecological literature; see Buckley 1991). We discussa range of issues nested under these broad cate-gories of problems and outline potential solutions tothem.

286 D. B. LINDENMAYER ET AL.

© 2011 The Authorsdoi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

POORLY DEFINED OBJECTIVES FORBIODIVERSITY MONITORING LEADING TOPOOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A major problem in many biodiversity monitoring pro-grammes is that objectives are vague and/or poorlyspecified making it difficult to develop measures togauge performance against objectives. A key part ofimproved biodiversity monitoring must therefore befor policy makers and resource managers to articulatemore explicitly their objectives and hence the keyquestions they need addressed (Lindenmayer & Likens2009; Lindenmayer et al. 2011). Many other aspects ofgood monitoring programmes, including good studydesign as well as what, where and how to monitor, willthen follow logically from clear and unambiguousobjectives and questions.

The development of appropriate objectives andassociated questions of management relevance,together with the selection of appropriate entities to bemeasured in monitoring biodiversity programmes,need to be informed by a detailed understanding ofthe particular population, community or ecosystem ofinterest. Thus, well conceived, designed and imple-mented monitoring programmes should be character-ized by both clearly articulated objectives and goodquestions and a conceptual model of the population,community or ecosystem being investigated (Linden-mayer & Likens 2010). Such programmes should thenbe structured to deliver: (i) information on trends inkey aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes);(ii) appropriate early warnings of problems or threatsthat might otherwise be difficult, impossible and/orvery expensive to reverse, including formally specifiedmanagement ‘triggers’ or specific points where actionor re-assessment is required; (iii) quantifiable evidenceof conservation successes (e.g. species recovery follow-ing appropriate management intervention: see Sheeanet al. 2011) as well as conservation failures (e.g. Woi-narski et al. 2011); (iv) information on ways to makemanagement interventions more effective; and (v) datato help guide the assessment of return on managementand conservation investment. These are well knownand fundamental components of successful monitor-ing that have been emphasized by many other workers(e.g. Nichols & Williams 2006; Gardner 2010; Magur-ran et al. 2010).

A significant problem in the design and implemen-tation of monitoring programmes is that a prolongedperiod may elapse between a given management inter-vention and the response of some elements of biodi-versity, whereas most funding programmes are onlyshort term. A number of strategies can help deal withthis ‘slow feedback’ loop including using cross-sectional approaches in monitoring design to generaterapid initial insights (Lindenmayer & Likens 2010),identifying indicators that respond rapidly to manage-

ment (Gardner 2010), and employing predictive mod-elling to provide an early indication of likely outcomesand formulate additional hypotheses for testing (Joneset al. 2011).

Although there are many problems associated withthe design of biodiversity monitoring programmes,there are nevertheless examples of good programmes(e.g. Black & Groombridge 2010) and it is critical touse them as exemplars to improve other existing andnew programmes. For example, arguably one of thebest examples of long-term biodiversity monitoring inAustralia is on populations of large macropods. Thatwork underpins the kangaroo harvesting industry andsetting ecologically sustainable annual quotas. Popula-tion data are gathered regularly, both through aerialsurvey and harvest returns. These data are criticalbecause populations of kangaroos fluctuate markedlyin response to droughts and wet years. Setting harvestquotas typically involves integrating at least six types ofmonitoring data: (i) current population trends; (ii)previous harvest levels; (iii) current and past climaticconditions; (iv) the level of non-commercial harvest;(v) the size of the population exempt from harvesting;and (vi) other forms of mortality (apart fromharvesting).

In addition to the role of exemplar projects to guideimproved biodiversity monitoring, there may be valuein completing meta-analyses and systematic reviewsto determine what needs to be monitored and whatconclusions can be safely drawn without furthermonitoring. There also may be value in establishingpilot programmes to determine the most appropriatedesigns and likely effectiveness of new monitoringprogrammes. Similarly, the design of monitoring pro-grammes might be improved if they embrace somebusiness approaches (Black & Groombridge 2010) likeauditing expenditure and developing metrics thathighlight return on investment (including determiningwhen monitoring programmes cease to be effective).

It is not possible to monitor all things, everywhere.Well-informed decisions need to be made aboutwhen monitoring is appropriate and when there isno strong ecological, environmental or economic caseto instigate (or maintain pre-existing) monitoringprogrammes. Decision theory underpinned by goodecological information can assist in making appropri-ate decisions about when monitoring programmesare and are not appropriate, and why (McDonald-Madden et al. 2010).

While well-articulated objectives and questionsoften underpin effective biodiversity monitoring pro-grammes, mandated, surveillance monitoring in whichthere are no a priori questions (see Lindenmayer &Likens 2010) can sometimes be useful in tackling envi-ronmental problems that were unforeseen at the com-mencement of a project (Wintle et al. 2010). Thechance discovery of the impacts of pesticides on egg-

IMPROVING BIODIVERSITY MONITORING 287

© 2011 The Authors doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

shell thinning in birds in North America is a classicexample of a serendipitous finding from surveillancemonitoring (Grier 1982).This highlights the challengeof finding new and better ways to link data and insightsfrom mandated surveillance monitoring programmesand question-driven monitoring programmes.

Resolving arguments about what to monitor

A long-standing problem with the design and imple-mentation of biodiversity monitoring programmes hasbeen the protracted debates about what to monitor(Gardner 2010; Lindenmayer & Likens 2011). Solu-tions to this problem are: (i) to ensure that the entitiestargeted for monitoring are those which can addressthe objectives and questions articulated at the outset,and (ii) to prioritise the entities targeted formonitoring. In many cases, these entities will be thosewhich provide key information about the condition,function and integrity of a given system and whichhelp answer key questions of management relevanceincluding the effectiveness (and cost-effectiveness) ofmanagement.

In many biodiversity monitoring programmes itwill be essential to quantify both biodiversity responsesand key attributes of management interventions (e.g.grazing regime, burning regime, pest control) as wellas how much financial investment has occurred atmonitoring sites. Both kinds of data are critical forlinking the response of biodiversity to managementpractices and determining the cost-effectiveness ofmanagement interventions.This is in contrast to somelarge-scale environmental programmes in Australialike the Natural Heritage Trust where crude estimatesof management inputs (e.g. kilometres of fencing)were gathered but little or no information on the actualchange in management interventions, nor the responseof biodiversity to management interventions, wascollected (ANAO 1997, 2008: see also Robins &Kanowski 2011).

Improving monitoring through reviews andembracing Adaptive Monitoring

Even when robust monitoring programmes are basedon good questions of management relevance andtarget an appropriate subset of entities for measure-ment, there is still a need to review them regularly.Thisis to ensure they can be improved, for example, byadding new entities to be measured as a result of newinsights that have been gained or when new questionsof management relevance become important. Such acycle of continuous improvement in monitoring pro-grammes has been termed ‘Adaptive Monitoring’(Lindenmayer & Likens 2009, 2011) in which a moni-

toring programme can evolve and develop in responseto new information, new questions, or to improveobsolete approaches and monitoring protocols. A criti-cal aspect of Adaptive Monitoring is the need to ensurethat a change of biodiversity monitoring protocolsdoes not breach the integrity of the long-term natureof the data record. Calibration of different fieldmethods can help solve this potential problem (Busoet al. 2000).

A POORLY DEVELOPED ANDARTICULATED CASE FORBIODIVERSITY MONITORING

It is possible that one of the key factors contributing tothe poor record on biodiversity monitoring in Australia(and indeed elsewhere around the world) is that gov-ernments see no social or economic imperative tosupport it. Important exceptions for which govern-ments accept the need to monitor include harvestedfish populations, and populations of other speciessubject to sustainable use (e.g. large macropods). Acritical task then is to persuade governments that thereis socio-economic benefit and moral and/or legalresponsibility (e.g. under state, national or interna-tional legislation and agreements) to monitor othercomponents of biodiversity and ecosystems. Hence,scientists and others need to more strongly advocateand demonstrate the importance of biodiversitymonitoring. It also will be important to communicatethe risks of not conducting biodiversity monitoringprogrammes such as failing to detect ecological sur-prises that are difficult and/or costly to reverse. Inva-sive species impacts are a particularly good examplebecause biodiversity monitoring for early detectionand subsequent control can obviate often expensiveand ineffective control attempts after establishment(McNeely et al. 2003). For example, biodiversitymonitoring in Darwin Harbour led to the early detec-tion of an invasion by black-striped mussel (Mytilopsissallei) – a potentially economically devastating exoticspecies.Thus, mussel infestation was discovered whenpopulations were small enough to be eradicated (Baxet al. 2002) thereby saving millions of dollars had themussel spread further.

Lessons learned from human population health(Chivian & Bernstein 2008) are relevant in the contextof advocacy biodiversity monitoring. In an editorial inScience on science-based health care, Zhu (2010)states, ‘a traditional misconception is that spending onhealth is a social burden, instead of being a strategicinvestment essential for each nation’s socioeconomicdevelopment’. This argument is equally valid for theconservation and the protection of biodiversity.Indeed, recent work by the United Nations (e.g. Euro-pean Communities 2008; United Nations Environ-

288 D. B. LINDENMAYER ET AL.

© 2011 The Authorsdoi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

ment Program 2010) shows the economic andemployment benefits of appropriate environmentalinvestment are substantial while the costs of inactionare significant.

The social and economic benefits of biodiversitymonitoring must be communicated in a range of formsand for a range of audiences. Some forms of commu-nication, like scientific articles, are rarely read byimportant partners in monitoring programmes such asresource managers and policy makers (Gibbons et al.2008). Therefore, scientists and other groups need tobe solidly engaged in communication efforts arisingfrom monitoring programmes. Increasingly this mustinclude social media as a means of reaching a wideraudience – a form of communication with which fewscientists are currently comfortable or accomplished.There may be a role for ‘science translators’ that workacross the science–policy divide to help policy makersand resource managers interpret key findings, makemonitoring data more useful and better integratescientific evidence into policy. Organizations like theCanadian Forest Service have had a long historyof this kind of professional science communicator.Notably, in the USA, the philanthropic community hasan increasing responsibility for communicating theimportance of monitoring (e.g. see http://www.charitynavigator.org).There is a need to be aware thatthe results of monitoring programmes can sometimesbe misused and misquoted to support particular politi-cal and other agendas (Fitzsimons 2012).

There is an important role for non-governmentorganizations in advocacy for more and better biodi-versity monitoring. While, in Australia, most monitor-ing is undertaken by governments or throughcollaboration with governments, non-governmentorganizations may be best placed to monitor the per-formance of government with respect to the success ofmanagement interventions and biodiversity responses.Indeed, regular reporting of government biodiversitymonitoring performance may be a powerful incentivefor action.

LACK OF APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONALSUPPORT, CO-ORDINATION ANDTARGETED FUNDING FORBIODIVERSITY MONITORING

Improving institutional support forbiodiversity monitoring

Many biodiversity monitoring programmes owe theirsuccess to the enthusiasm of an individual project‘champion’ (Lindenmayer & Likens 2010). However,the fact that the success of many monitoring pro-grammes relies upon a few individuals often under-

scores a paucity of institutional support, a lack oflong-term funding and a paucity of appropriate col-laborative partnerships. Part of the solution to this setof problems might be to considerably strengtheninstitutional support and better deliver on key rolessuch as:1. Co-ordinating activities among different biodiver-

sity monitoring programmes, including mappingwhat monitoring is being done where and identify-ing efficiencies and synergies among programmes.

2. Improving objective setting, experimental andstatistical design, and statistical analyses of moni-toring datasets (including the use of recent inno-vations like occupancy, presence and detectionmodelling).

3. Developing, implementing and maintaining datacollection protocols and data standards, includingimproving data storage, data accessibility and reg-isters of datasets.

4. Improving reporting of data and results frommonitoring programmes, particularly in a formthat is useful for management.

5. Brokering partnerships which are fundamental tothe success of monitoring programmes.

6. Fostering appropriate institutional and scientificcultures to ensure that monitoring programmesare maintained in the long term, including assist-ing with succession planning as the project cham-pions retire, and new project leaders are sought.

7. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of expenditure onbiodiversity conservation.

8. Advocating for increased levels of targeted fundingfor biodiversity monitoring.

An increased focus on training within strengthenedinstitutions is urgently needed to improve skill setsessential for good monitoring but which are currentlyin decline like natural history and taxonomy (see Noss1996) Training also needs to improve other areas ofexpertise needed for biodiversity monitoring such asexperimental design, statistical analysis and databasemanagement.

There are some useful examples of potential institu-tional models. For instance, the Australian Bureau ofMeteorology has many of the characteristics of anappropriate institution: it is a statutory body, has alegislative mandate, and uses cutting edge science andmodelling systems as key parts of its work. Anotherexample is the Australian Bureau of Statistics whichhas statutory independence from policy bodies and ismandated to report on an array of measures includingmany associated with the Australian environment.Finally, in an ecotoxicology context, many nationshave a dedicated Environmental Protection Agency (orequivalent) that have a well-established track record oflong-term data collection (under appropriate datastandards) followed by rigorous analysis and reportingof those data.

IMPROVING BIODIVERSITY MONITORING 289

© 2011 The Authors doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

Tackling problems with funding

A lack of funding is a common reason why manymonitoring programmes fail. Moreover, there is typi-cally a mismatch between the long time-frames neededfor biodiversity monitoring and the short time-framesof funding and political cycles. New kinds of fundingmodels are needed to overcome this hurdle such aslong-term trusts (e.g. Barnes et al. 2008) and/orfoundation-style support. Some innovative fundingmodels employed elsewhere may be worth investigat-ing and adapting for widespread use in Australia (Lin-denmayer 2007). For example, proceeds from lotteriesto fund environmental programmes are common else-where; they are used in New Zealand, South Africa,Ontario and Alberta in Canada, and Colorado in theUSA. Some US states have other approaches tofunding environmental projects. Florida has a tax onreal estate transactions and Missouri a sales tax onsome non-essential items.The Bahamas has a hotel taxthat partially funds their national parks system(including biodiversity monitoring). Quito in Ecuadorhas a water utility tax that funds conservation in theheadwaters. Costa Rica and Micronesia have instituted‘trust funds’ to bridge the gap in funding for protectedarea systems.

Part of the problem of ongoing funding for biodi-versity monitoring might be resolved if monitoring hadgreater political support and became a mainstreamconcern and not a peripheral issue as it is currently.Greater political support for sustained and consistentbiodiversity monitoring will eventuate if: (i) the eco-nomic, social and environmental case can be betterdeveloped and advocated; (ii) as outlined above,monitoring can demonstrate return on conservationinvestment and, conversely, the costs of not doingmonitoring; and (iii) there is a broad constituencyadvocating for it.

Many strategies are needed to generate greatersupport for biodiversity monitoring. The creation of aset of national environmental accounts (sensu Went-worth Group of Concerned Scientists 2008) wouldrapidly elevate the importance of biodiversity monitor-ing and hence support for such activities, althoughsuch accounts will only be as good (or bad) as data thatunderpin them. Large-scale economic changes likethose associated with the emerging initiatives likethe ‘green economy’ (United Nations EnvironmentProgram 2010) also may provide important catalyststo generate greater political support for biodiversitymonitoring.

The longevity and success of monitoring pro-grammes might be increased if it is a formal, or man-dated, requirement under international conventions,legislation or development consent (Lindenmayer &Gibbons 2004). Indeed, there is already considerablemoney and effort expended by some private compa-

nies as part of their environmental obligations, eitherbefore development, or as mandatory monitoring afterdevelopment (Buckley 1991). However, the quality ofmuch of this work remains largely unassessed, andthe results are rarely reported in any accessible way(Buckley 1991) (Lindenmayer & Gibbons 2004). Wesuggest that part of the obligation of undertaking thiswork must be for it to be peer-reviewed and publishedso that it can be included in a broader assessment ofthe status of biodiversity in Australia.

An important aspect of funding is that the level offinancial investment in biodiversity monitoring needsto be scaled according to the size of a given conserva-tion initiative (Franklin et al. 1999; Lindenmayer &Likens 2010). In addition, the level of investment inmonitoring needs to be matched to the level of infer-ence needed as well as to factors such as risk, uncer-tainty, and whether a project is being treated as a pilotor proof of demonstration project. Some organizationslike the AustralianWildlife Conservancy invest approx.20% of their annual operating budget on monitoringbiodiversity response to management interventions.However, in many cases approx. 5–10% of biodiversityconservation programme funding might be appropri-ate to dedicate to monitoring.

Partnerships as a critical part ofmonitoring programmes

Biodiversity monitoring programmes require the inte-gration of both good science and good managementpractice (Russell-Smith et al. 2003). Unfortunately,academic scientists often do not engage in biodiversitymonitoring programmes. However, they can assist inmany key areas including experimental design, data-base design, data analysis, data interpretation andreporting. It may be particularly important for aca-demic scientists to engage with biodiversity monitor-ing undertaken as part of resource developmentprojects by private industry, in part to ensure the sci-entific quality of such work, but also to promote itspublication in the peer-reviewed literature.

Academic scientists also can provide guidance forcitizen scientists and community groups to ensure thatdata they gather are of high quality and are useful.There are good reasons for the lack of scientificengagement in monitoring. As noted by Nisbet(2007): ‘Monitoring does not win glittering prizes.Publication is difficult, infrequent and unread’. It isclear then that changes in the rewards systems foracademic scientists are needed to catalyse theirinvolvement in biodiversity monitoring programmesundertaken not only by government agencies(Gibbons et al. 2008) but also by commercialcompanies.

290 D. B. LINDENMAYER ET AL.

© 2011 The Authorsdoi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

Successful biodiversity monitoring programmes willbe those connecting individuals from two or more ofthe following: government agencies non-governmentconservation organizations, universities, and commu-nity groups. This is to ensure that monitoring pro-grammes pass the ‘test of management relevance’(sensu Russell-Smith et al. 2003; McDonald-Maddenet al. 2010) and are therefore more likely to be sus-tained in the long term. Thus, monitoring needs toaddress questions that managers not only wantanswers to but are willing to act on when they havethose answers. The bird monitoring work supportedthrough Birdlife Australia is an example of a successfulcross-institutional partnership (e.g. Barrett et al.2003).

IMPROVED DATA STANDARDS

There are many kinds of biodiversity monitoring pro-grammes around Australia and they are characterizedby marked differences in experimental or surveydesign, field protocols, entities targeted for measure-ment, and the spatial and temporal scales ofimplementation. Such differences have led to a paucityof national datasets to quantify national trends,although the Atlas of Australian Birds (Barrett et al.2003) and the national count of large macropods aretwo of a handful of notable exceptions. Similarly, theAustralian Ecological Knowledge and ObservationSystem through the ecoinformatics data portal for theTerrestrial Ecosystem Research Network is collatingdatasets for national integration, access and reuse (seehttp://www.tern.org.au/). Nevertheless, the currentpaucity of national biodiversity datasets in Australia isin stark contrast with other types of monitoring datasuch as those on economic indicators and humanpopulations for which there have been decades of con-sistent time series information.

Given the disparity in biodiversity monitoringapproaches, some workers have called for national(and even international) standards to be developedfor biodiversity monitoring programmes and datagathering. For example, the Conservation MeasuresPartnership (http://www.conservationmeasures.org) isseeking to get global standards for adaptive manage-ment including data standards for monitoring. Simi-larly, the System of Environmental EconomicAccounting (SEEA 2003) is a formal approach tosetting international environmental standards. Thereare also some useful guides for biodiversity monitoringdata standards that can be drawn from other areas ofenvironmental monitoring such as the water standardthat has been developed by the Bureau of Meteorology(http://www.bom.gov.au/water/standards/aboutWASB.shtml). Notably, any standards that are developedwould not remain static but evolve over time.

While data standards are undoubtedly important,we suggest it would be inappropriate to demand thatprecisely the same full suite of entities should be gath-ered in all biodiversity monitoring programmes acrossAustralia.There are many obvious reasons for this.Theprincipal one is that entities (such as particular groupsof biota) that are sensible for measurement in, forexample, the wet forests of south-western Tasmania,will be markedly different from those entities appro-priate in the tropical savannas of northern Australia.Different problems, different questions of manage-ment relevance and different biota in different ecosys-tems mean that a diversity of monitoring programmeswill be needed to match monitoring design with moni-toring objectives.We therefore suggest that a commonset of standards should generally focus on higher-orderissues such as objective setting, statistical design, meta-data and data access as exemplified by the guidelinesprovided by the Australian National Data Service(http://www.ands.org.au), rather than finer levels ofdetail (e.g. particular entities to be measured).

Biodiversity monitoring data are often used in waysthat are different to those initially anticipated. Hence,there is considerable value in gathering monitoringinformation in electronic ways that facilitate later useby others (Pullin & Salafsky 2010). For example, themethods used in field data collection in the long-termbiodiversity monitoring study in the Yukon by Krebset al. (2001) have been documented and published sothat others can repeat data collection protocols at alater date if needed. This is particularly important forlarge monitoring datasets that have been gathered overa prolonged period and where the champion for thatprogramme aims to retire but has a desire for theprogramme to continue and/or wants information tobe used by others in the future. As an example, thetechniques for monitoring rufous scrub-bird (Atricor-nis rufescens) were described in such detail by Ferrier(1984) that an independent group was able to repro-duce the survey almost exactly in 2010. So good werethe instructions that they found many scrub-birdscalling from exactly the same sites a quarter of acentury later and that scrub-bird density has notchanged at all in that time (Newman 2010). Thisexample also highlights the potential value ofimproved co-ordination and succession planning rolesfor institutions charged with improving biodiversitymonitoring in Australia.

The importance of new technology

The development of new technologies will promotethe rapid collection of large amounts of field data frombiodiversity monitoring programmes. Some of thesenew technologies will facilitate connections betweenon-ground monitoring methods and data collection

IMPROVING BIODIVERSITY MONITORING 291

© 2011 The Authors doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

with other large-scaled approaches like remote sensing(e.g. Youngentob et al. 2011). In addition, genomicanalysis of floral, faunal and environmental samples(soils and water) are also rapidly developing and havethe capacity to use surrogate species to rapidly monitorecosystem health (e.g. Pointing et al. 2009). However,it is crucial to link these approaches through well-articulated objectives and to pose good scientific ques-tions, otherwise there is a risk of being overwhelmed ina ‘sea of data’ and failing to make critical discoveries.Shanklin (2010) provides an example of this problemfrom studies of the ozone layer.

Improving the availability of monitoring data

Some workers have made calls to make all biodiversitymonitoring data publicly available and a condition ofreceiving public funding and of publishing scientificarticles (Pullin & Salafsky 2010). Indeed, this is an aimof the Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network initia-tive of the Australian Government (see http://www.tern.org.au/) and the Atlas of Living Australia (http://www.ala.org.au/). There is also a need to ensure thatthe datasets from biodiversity monitoring programmesundertaken by private companies are made publiclyavailable – possibly as a mandated requirement ofresource use and related kinds of projects. However, animportant issue is the maintenance of intellectualproperty and the development of new ways to allowscientists and others who have gathered data to be ableto publish it in a timely way before it is made availablepublicly. Resolution of intellectual property and datalicensing issues should help reduce instances of misuseof data. There also may be value in examining newkinds of reward systems for workers in academic insti-tutions that acknowledge the contributions of scien-tists and others who have collected datasets that areused by others. An example would be new kinds ofmetrics which reflect the amount of use of a givendataset by others and which underpin rewards forlevels of data usage. However, high quality archiving ofdata and database management will need to be a keypart of biodiversity monitoring programmes to ensurethat this can occur (Whitlock 2010). Similarly, wesuggest there is a need for the editors of journals todemand that the authors of articles acknowledge thesources of data, perhaps through an explicit statementof origin of datasets using approaches akin to ethicsapproval statements that are now common in manypublications.

GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ANDCONCLUDING COMMENTS

It is clear that we need more biodiversity monitoringfor more effective biodiversity conservation in

Australia. For additional monitoring to be far betterthan it generally has been to date, we need bettertraining of those involved in monitoring programmesand considerably strengthened institutions to betterco-ordinate, implement and maintain monitoringprogrammes. This must include co-ordination withprivate companies which often undertaken biodiver-sity monitoring programmes but the results of whichare rarely subject to rigorous external assessment andthe outcomes only infrequently reported in the scien-tific literature. Without better training of thoseinvolved in monitoring programmes and considerablystrengthened institutions, statements made aboutnational biodiversity reporting systems and frame-works in the Australian Biodiversity Strategy 2010–2030 (Natural Resource Management MinisterialCouncil 2010) will amount to little more than vacuousplatitudes. On this basis, we make four broad recom-mendations for improving biodiversity monitoring inAustralia and, in turn, helping the Australian Biodiver-sity Strategy 2010–2030 to achieve its stated goals.1. The effectiveness of biodiversity conservation

must be measured by rigorous monitoring andreporting on trends in species populations, ecosys-tems and threats. Thus, in much the same way asbusiness conducts sound financial practicethrough monitoring and the System of NationalAccounts is used to hold the Australian Govern-ment accountable for the management of theeconomy, there needs to be assessments of man-agement effectiveness and environmental returnon investment (Black & Groombridge 2010).

2. We need to identify new ways to better communi-cate the importance of biodiversity conservationto politicians and society in general and, in turn,to garner the political and community supportneeded for biodiversity monitoring programmes.

3. Biodiversity monitoring is chronically under-funded and this needs to be urgently rectified.Increased funding for biodiversity monitoring pro-grammes could, for example, be derived frommonies quarantined from development projects,or as part of biodiversity offsets now implementedin most Australian states and proposed nationally(Commonwealth of Australia 2009). There is alsoa need for dedicated research explicitly aimedat identifying other ways to sustain long-termfunding for biodiversity monitoring programmesthat are best suited to the Australian political andfinancial context.

4. There is a critical need to significantly improveinstitutions so they can far better support biodi-versity monitoring in Australia.a. First, there is an urgent need for institutions

to: invest in and maintain long-term biodiver-sity monitoring programmes, better curatelong-term datasets, develop national stan-

292 D. B. LINDENMAYER ET AL.

© 2011 The Authorsdoi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

dards for monitoring, identify and developstandards for best practice monitoring, brokerpartnerships between individuals and organi-zations, and foster succession planning inexisting long-term programmes.

b. Second, institutions need to improve trainingfor new generations of ecologists with skillsessential to establish and maintain long-termbiodiversity monitoring programmes, to com-municate the need and value of biodiversitymonitoring programmes, and to foster inno-vation in continuously improving monitoringprogrammes.

Our hope is that solutions to the problems we haveidentified in this paper might be adopted by policymakers, resource managers and scientists and thatbetter biodiversity monitoring and enhanced reportingand acting on monitoring outcomes take place – ulti-mately leading to better outcomes for biodiversity con-servation in this country.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper arose from a national meeting on biodiver-sity monitoring in Australia held in February 2011 andsponsored by The Thomas Foundation. Claire Shep-herd assisted in many aspects of the preparation of thispaper.

REFERENCES

ANAO (1997) Commonwealth Natural Resource Management andEnvironment Programs: Audit Report No. 36 1996–97. Austra-lian National Audit Office, Canberra.

ANAO (2008) Regional Delivery Model for the Natural HeritageTrust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality: Audit Report No. 21 2007–08. Australian NationalAudit Office, Canberra.

Barnes P., Costanza R., Hawken P. et al. (2008) Creating anearth atmopsheric trust. Science 319, 724.

Barrett G. W., Silcocks A., Barry S., Cunningham R. & PoulterR. (2003) The New Atlas of Australian Birds. Birds Australia,Melbourne.

Bax N., Hayes K., Marshall A., Parry D. & Thresher R.(2002) Man-made marinas as sheltered islands for alienmarine organisms: establishment and eradication ofan alien marine species. In: Turning the Tide:The Eradicationof Invasive Species (eds C. R. Veitch & M. N. Clout)pp. 26–39. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group,Gland.

Bernhardt E. S., Palmer M. A. & Allan J. D. (2005) SynthesizingUS river restoration projects. Science 308, 636–7.

Black S. & Groombridge J. (2010) Use of a business excellencemodel to improve conservation programs. Conserv. Biol. 6,1448–58.

Buckley R. (1991) Auditing the precision and accuracy of envi-ronmental impact predictions in Australia. Environ. Monit.Assess. 18, 1–24.

Buso D. C., Likens G. E. & Eaton J. S. (2000) Chemistry ofprecipitation, stream water and lake water from theHubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: a record of samplingprotocols and analytical procedures. General Tech. ReportNE-275 pp. 1–52. USDA Forest Service, NortheasternResearch Station, Newtown Square.

Chivian E. & Bernstein A. (2008) Sustaining Life. How HumanHealth Depends on Biodiversity. Oxford University Press,Oxford.

Commonwealth of Australia (2009) The Australian EnvironmentAct – An Independent Review of the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Australian GovernmentDepartment of the Environment, Water, Heritage and theArts, Canberra.

Daily G. C. (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence onNatural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

European Communities (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems andBiodiversity. European Communities, Wesseling.

Ferrier S. (1984) The Status of the Rufous Scrub-Bird AtrichornisRufescens: Habitat, Geographical Variation and Abundance.University of New England, Armidale.

Fitzsimons J. (2012 in press) Cows, cockies and atlases: use andabuse of biodiversity monitoring in environmental decisionmaking. In: Biodiversity Monitoring in Australia (eds D. B.Lindenmayer & P. Gibbons) pp. 91–9. CSIRO Publishing,Melbourne.

Franklin J. F., Harmon M. E. & Swanson F. J. (1999) Comple-mentary roles of research and monitoring: lessons from theU.S. LTER Program and Tierra del Fuego. SymposiumPaper. In: Toward a Unified Framework for Inventorying andMonitoring Forest Ecosystem Resources, Guadalajara, Mexico,November 1998.

Gardner T. (2010) Monitoring Forest Biodiversity. Improving Con-servation through Ecologically Responsible Management. Earth-scan, London.

Gibbons P., Zammit C., Youngentob K. et al. (2008) Some prac-tical suggestions for improving engagement betweenresearchers and policy-makers in natural resourcemanagement. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 9, 182–6.

Grier J. W. (1982) Ban of DDT and subsequent recovery ofreproduction in bald eagles. Science 218, 1232–4.

Hajkowicz S. (2009) The evolution of Australia’s naturalresource management programs: Towards improved target-ing and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy 26,471–8.

Jones J. P. G., Collen B., Atkinson G. et al. (2011) The why,what, and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the2010 target. Conserv. Biol. 25, 450–7.

Kleijn D. & Sutherland W. J. (2003) How effective are Europeanagri-environment schemes in conserving and promotingbiodiversity? J. Appl. Ecol. 40, 947–69.

Kleijn D., Baquero R. A., Clough Y. et al. (2006) Mixed biodi-versity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five Euro-pean countries. Ecol. Lett. 9, 243–54.

Krebs C. J., Boutin S. & Boonstra R. (2001) Ecosystem Dynamicsof the Boreal Forest: The Kluane Project. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Lindenmayer D. B. (2007) On Borrowed Time: Australia’s Envi-ronmental Crisis and What We Must Do About It. CSIROPublishing and Penguin Publishing, Melbourne.

Lindenmayer D. B. & Gibbons P. (2004) On charcoal, theincreased intensity of logging and a flawed EnvironmentalAssessment process. In: Conservation of Australia’s ForestFauna (ed. D. Lunney) pp. 56–62. Royal Zoological Societyof New South Wales, Sydney.

IMPROVING BIODIVERSITY MONITORING 293

© 2011 The Authors doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia

Lindenmayer D. B. & Likens G. E. (2009) Adaptive monitoring:a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring.Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 482–6.

Lindenmayer D. B. & Likens G. E. (2010) Effective EcologicalMonitoring. CSIRO Publishing and Earthscan, Melbourneand London.

Lindenmayer D. B. & Likens G. E. (2011) Direct measurementversus surrogate indicator species for evaluating environ-mental change and biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 14, 47–59.

Lindenmayer D. B., Likens G. E., Meizis L. & Haywood A.(2011) Adaptive monitoring in the real world: Proof ofconcept. Trends Ecol. Evol. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.002.

McDonald-Madden E., Baxter P.W. J., Fuller R. A. et al. (2010)Monitoring does not always count. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25,547–50.

McNeely J. A., Neville L. E. & Rejmanek M. (2003) When iseradication a sound investment? Conserv. Prac. 4,30–41.

Magurran A. E., Baillie S. R., Buckland S.T. et al. (2010) Long-term datasets in biodiversity research and monitoring:assessing change in ecological communities through time.Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 574–82.

Muir M. J. (2010) Are we measuring conservation effectiveness?Report to Conservation Measures Partnership. [Cited 15June 2011.] Available from URL: http://www.conservationmeasures.org

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2010)Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010–2030.Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Envi-ronment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Newman N. (2010) Rufous Scrub-bird Surveys – Barrington/Gloucester Tops IBA – 15 to 17 September 2010. Reportto Hunter River Bird Observers’ Club. [Cited 15 June2011.] Available from URL: http://www.hboc.org.au/resources/documents/RSB%20Sep%202010%20interim%2520report.pd

Nichols J. D. & Williams B. K. (2006) Monitoring forconservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 668–73.

Nisbet E. (2007) Cinderella science. Nature 450, 789–90.Noss R. (1996) The naturalists are dying off. Conserv. Biol. 10,

1–3.Pointing S. B., Chan Y., Lacap D. C., Lau M. C.Y., Jurgens J. A.

& Farrell R. L. (2009) Highly specialized microbial diversity

in hyper-arid polar desert. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106,19964–9.

Pullin A. S. & Salafsky N. (2010) Save the whales? Save therainforest? Save the data! Conserv. Biol. 24, 915–7.

Robins L. & Kanowski P. (2011) Crying for our Country: eightways in which ‘Caring for our Country’ has underminedAustralia’s regional model for natural resourcemanagement. Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 18, 88–108.

Russell-Smith J., Whitehead P. J., Cook G. D. & Hoare J. L.(2003) Response of Eucalyptus-dominated savanna to fre-quent fires: lessons from Munmarlary 1973–1996. Ecol.Monogr. 73, 349–75.

Scholes R. J., Mace G. M., Turner W. et al. (2008) Toward aglobal biodiversity observing system. Science 321, 1044–5.

SEEA (2003) Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Envi-ronmental and Economic Accounting 2003. United NationsStatistics Division, New York.

Shanklin J. (2010) Reflections on the ozone hole. Nature 465,34–5.

Sheean V. A., Manning A. D. & Lindenmayer D. B. (2011) Anassessment of scientific approaches towards speciesrelocations in Australia. Austral Ecol. doi:10.1111/j.442-9993.2011.02264.x.

United Nations Environment Program (2010) Green EconomyReport: A Preview. United Nations Environment Program,Châtelaine.

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2008) Accounting forNature. A Model for Building the National EnvironmentalAccounts of Australia. Wentworth Group of Concerned Sci-entists, Sydney.

Whitlock M. C. (2010) Data archiving in ecology and evolution:best practices. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 61–5.

Wintle B. A., Runge M. C. & Bekessy S. A. (2010) Allocatingmonitoring effort in the face of unknown unknowns. Ecol.Lett. 13, 1325–37.

Woinarski J. C. Z., Legge S., Fitzsimons J. A. et al. (2011) Thedisappearing mammal fauna of northern Australia: context,cause, and response. Conserv. Lett. 4, 192–201.

Youngentob K. N., Wallis I. R., Lindenmayer D. B., Wood J. T.,Pope M. L. & Foley W. J. (2011) Foliage chemistry influ-ences tree choice and landscape use of a gliding marsupialfolivore. J. Chem. Ecol. 37, 71–84.

Zhu C. (2010) Science-based health care. Science 327, 1429.

294 D. B. LINDENMAYER ET AL.

© 2011 The Authorsdoi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2011.02314.xJournal compilation © 2011 Ecological Society of Australia