what is being done to protect highly migratory marine species

Introduction

Migratory species, both terrestrial and marine, are divers equally species with life cycles characterized by cyclical movements betwixt convenance and non-breeding areas (De Klemm, 1994; Gilmore et al., 2007; Robinson et al., 2009). These migrations are driven by biological (e.g., the need to mate) or ecological (e.g., low resources or optimal/suboptimal climate) factors (Gilmore et al., 2007; Robinson et al., 2009; Lascelles et al., 2014) and have important roles in habitat connectivity (Unsworth et al., 2015; Tol et al., 2017). For instance, in the Coral Sea, off the northeast coast of Australia, nesting green bounding main turtles (Chelonia mydas) tagged in Commonwealth of australia migrate to international feeding grounds in New Caledonia and back to their nesting grounds in Australia, crossing state, national, and international boundaries as they migrate (Read et al., 2014). Within Australia, some dugongs cross country jurisdictions when they make seasonal migrations between Queensland and New South Wales (Allen et al., 2004; Sheppard et al., 2006). The disconnect between governance levels complicates the management of migratory species, every bit land and national legislation and management can conflict (Ruckelshaus et al., 2008; Read et al., 2014) and neglect to take business relationship of the cumulative impacts on migrating animals.

Migratory species can be subjected to multiple anthropogenic threats and varying levels of protection as they move between protected and not-protected areas (Lascelles et al., 2014; Pendoley et al., 2014). Conservation policies, such as protected area legislation, are often constrained by political boundaries (De Klemm, 1994; Gärdenfors, 2001; Martin et al., 2007), whereas highly migratory species are unrestricted by jurisdictional boundaries (Boersma and Parrish, 1999; Hooker and Gerber, 2004). These differences ofttimes increase the governance difficulties in sustainably managing threats to migratory species, peculiarly in the marine environment.

Governance in the marine surround is challenging because boundaries in the ocean, while more often than not well-divers in a political sense, are not physically defined (Boersma and Parrish, 1999; Hooker and Gerber, 2004). In Australia, both the Republic (federal) and land governments have jurisdiction over the marine environment, with state governments having jurisdiction up to iii nautical miles from shore and federal jurisdiction extending from iii nautical miles to the edge of the Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) (Geoscience Australia: Maritime Boundaries). In total, the Australian EEZ covers approximately ten million square kilometers of ocean (Geoscience Australia: The Law of the Body of water) (Effigy one). In the Great Bulwark Reef World Heritage Area (348,000 km^two, GBRWHA) in Queensland (Qld), the federal Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) and the State GBRMP (Day, 2008, 2016) overlap. The purlieus between the 2 jurisdictions is unclear because they define "low water marking" differently. The Groovy Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 granted the federal regime authority over the entire Great Barrier Reef region but the purlieus difference was resolved by complementary zoning of adjacent state and federal marine parks (Day, 2016), an example of policy coherence in a polycentric governance system (Dale et al., 2016; Morrison, 2017).

Figure 1. A map of the written report area, including the Australian Economical Exclusion Zone (EEZ). The federal authorities has jurisdiction over the sea out to the border of the EEZ, while states accept jurisdiction out to 3 n mi. The Eastward Coast (NSW, Qld, Tas, and Vic) also plays an important office in the distribution of marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and 27 species of migratory shorebirds listed under the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds 2015 (Australian Government, 2015b).

Polycentric governance systems are multi-authorities systems with independently operating centers (due east.g., local, state, and national governments) that interact to some degree (Ostrom et al., 1961; Ostrom, 2012). Such systems have been identified equally a ways to accost complex ecology bug (Biggs et al., 2012; Morrison, 2017), as independent government units may not be able to unilaterally resolve circuitous socio-ecological bug (Ostrom et al., 1961; Biggs et al., 2012). The success of polycentric governance systems in addressing environmental issues supports the need for policy coherence: complementary legislation that works between and within legislative sectors to accomplish mutually-decided policy outcomes (Nilsson et al., 2012). Policy coherence is necessary in the marine environment (Riskas et al., 2016; Fraser et al., 2017) and the need is intensified by the presence of threatened marine migratory species that may not confront uniform threats across their range.

Much of the Australian federal government'south authority over the environment is derived from Commonwealth of australia'due south obligations to conserve matters protected nether international conventions (Hawke, 2009). Australia is a signatory party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and each party is required to develop and implement national environmental and biodiversity policies under Article 6 of that convention (Australian Government: UN Convention on Biological Diversity). Australia has fulfilled this obligation through the enactment of the Surround Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Human activity 1999 (EPBC Act 1999, Australian Government, 1999; Farrier et al., 2007), which is designed to protect nationally important flora, fauna, and environments while protecting Australia'south socioeconomic needs (EPBC Deed 1999). The EPBC Act regulations include a list of threatened species, based on criteria broadly like to those of the IUCN Reddish List, and of migratory species, based on species listed on both Appendix I & Appendix Ii of the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS), the Japan-Commonwealth of australia (JAMBA), China-Australia (CAMBA), and the Republic of Korea-Commonwealth of australia (ROKAMBA) Migratory Bird Agreements. The migratory species list of the EPBC Act 1999 identifies 174 migratory species in Commonwealth of australia, including birds, mammals, marine reptiles, cetaceans, and sharks; 90 of the listed migratory species are constitute in the marine environment (Australian Government, 2016). Species that are listed as threatened or migratory are deemed to exist Matters of National Ecology Significance (MNES), a categorization that influences the management tools used in their conservation.

Constructive management of migratory species typically requires policy linkage and harmonization across the jurisdictional boundaries of the range states of these species. The current status of protection across the range of marine migratory species in Australia is unknown. In this paper, we explore the coherence between the policies and management plans used by Australian federal and land governments to manage federally-listed marine migratory species in Australia using a example study approach and certificate analysis. We reviewed national and land authorities environmental policies and management plans relating to 6 species of marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and 27 species of migratory shorebirds, all of which are considered to be Matters of National Environmental Significance. As the resources available for conservation are limited (Farrier et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2016), information technology is important to identify key differences in conservation strategies for marine migratory species every bit a component of constructive marine conservation.

Methods

We employ a grounded theory arroyo through the apply of a document analysis and comparative case studies. We conducted a document analysis of electric current (2018) Australian ecology policies and direction plans at the national (federal) level, equally well as in the eastern states of New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (Qld), Tasmania (Tas), and Victoria (Vic). We reviewed operational policies and management plans because this study focuses on electric current applications of management tools rather than the development or historical practice of environmental policy in Australia. For this written report, we define a policy as statutory legislation or regulations that draw how the regime will protect the surround. We define a management plan as a document that outlines how a policy or policies are implemented, while still protecting the environment.

We also used a comparative approach, using advisedly selected example studies, as a ways of illustrating the differences in managing dissimilar taxa, including the coherence of the instruments used to manage these species. Policy coherence emphasizes the interactions between policy commitments and outputs to reach mutual objectives (Nilsson et al., 2012; Benson and Lorenzoni, 2017) and has been shown to promote synergy betwixt the policies of developed and developing nations in the realm of sustainable evolution and tin be accomplished by some ecology management regimes (OECD, 2013; Benson and Lorenzoni, 2017). We chose to include an analysis of policy coherence for this study considering marine migratory species interact with several governance levels throughout their migrations that may not be coordinated.

Case Studies

The Australian federal government, and hence its EPBC Act 1999, are constrained by the Australian Constitution, as the Australian Constitution does not explicitly give the Commonwealth Parliament the power to create legislation regarding the environs (Hawke, 2009). The federal authorities derives its power over the environment through Australia's requirement to enforce its international obligations. Marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and migratory shorebirds are listed on the Appendices of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention), which is the master international convention for protecting migratory species. Listing on CMS allows for these species to be listed as migratory (and thus, MNES) under the EPBC Human action 1999. Any actions that are likely to have a significant impact on an MNES requires approval from the federal Minister for the Surroundings (EPBC Act 1999). However, despite their listing on CMS and their status of MNES, these species do not face up uniform threats throughout their range and at that place are many differences in the policy and management arrangements for these case studies (Table 1; see Tabular array B1 in Appendix B for a more extensive list of national policy instruments for mitigating threats for each taxon).

Table 1. The EPBC list of the iv case studies in Australia chosen for this study, their corresponding national management plans, and the chief species-specific instrument (national) for mitigating threats for each case study.

Nosotros considered four case studies in this study: marine turtles (six species), dugongs (Dugong dugon), humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) and migratory shorebirds (27 non-threatened species listed under the Wildlife Conservation Program for Migratory Shorebirds 2015 (Australian Government, 2015b); see Table C1 in Appendix C, for full list). Selection of case studies was purposive. These example studies were chosen because all six species of marine turtles found in Australia, plus dugongs, humpback whales, and the species of migratory shorebirds listed under the Wildlife Conservation Plan (WCP) for Migratory Shorebirds 2015 are all considered to be MNES, which influences how these species are protected.

Study Area

We chose the e coast states in Australia as study locations considering they play of import roles in the distribution of the 4 case studies used in this study. Australia is abode to half-dozen species of marine turtles, with east coast subpopulations separated past genetic stocks (Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2017). Five of the six species of marine turtles in Australia nest on Queensland beaches (Recovery Programme for Marine Turtles 2017). Although the dugong'south range in Commonwealth of australia extends from Shark Bay in Western Commonwealth of australia to Moreton Bay in southern Queensland (Marsh and Lefebvre, 1994; Marsh et al., 1999), the eastern Australian stocks are globally significant. Additionally, the e coast of Commonwealth of australia is a major migratory corridor for the east coast subpopulation of humpback whales migrating from Antarctic waters (Chittleborough, 1965; Noad et al., 2011) and is part of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, used by a number of migratory shorebirds migrating from Russia and Asia (Milton, 2003) (Effigy 1).

Collation of Ecology Policies and Management Plans

Nosotros collated national and country-level policies and management plans through an online search, supplemented by requests to the appropriate departments for missing documents. All potentially relevant (e.g., environmental policies from any of the locations used in this study) environmental policies and management plans (including terrestrial) from the written report surface area were collated and reviewed using a primal word search (Table 2). Policies and plans that did not protect any of the iv case studies and/or their habitats were eliminated.

Tabular array 2. Key words used to collate environmental policies and direction plans in Commonwealth of australia related to four taxa of marine migratory species.

Review and Assay of Environmental Policies and Management Plans

Environmental policies and direction plans that were not eliminated after the central word search were adamant to be potentially relevant to the protection of the migratory taxa used in this report. Nosotros then developed and applied a framework to conduct a thematic analysis of collated documents using predetermined search criteria in a manner similar to Pullin and Stewart (2006) (Appendix A, Figure A1). Nosotros reviewed these environmental policies and management plans using a organisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria (Pullin and Stewart, 2006; see Appendix A, Figure A1). We analyzed policies and plans based on what was explicitly stated in each document to reduce subjective assessment (Ortega-Argueta et al., 2011). The analysis framework served every bit a hierarchical filter and policies and plans were eliminated if they did non meet at least ane of the essential criteria (run into Appendix A, Figure A1). Policies and management plans that met 1 or more of the essential criteria were determined to be relevant and were further analyzed using additional criteria (Meet Appendix A, Figure A1).

Examples of relevant environmental direction plans included recovery plans, threat abatement plans, and industry plans, among others (come across Table B2 in Appendix B for descriptions). Most plans were publicly bachelor online; others were solicited from the advisable organization. Nosotros reviewed protected area direction plans from each country until data saturation was reached; that is, no new themes emerged while reviewing and coding the plans (Fusch and Ness, 2015).

Relevant policies and management plans were numerically coded. NVivo (QSR International - Version eleven.four.0) was used to organize and iteratively code qualitative portions of the framework for recurrent themes and to supplement the quantitatively coded portion of the framework (see Tabular array B3 in Appendix B for themes and codes). IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 24) was used to summate frequencies of the quantitative information. We determined policy coherence by the identification of an explicit human relationship betwixt policies or management plans and were displayed using network graphs created in NetDraw (Borgatti, 2002). Nosotros triangulated information based on previous studies and previous reviews of Australian environmental policies and direction plans (e.g., Hawke, 2009; Ortega-Argueta et al., 2011).

Limitations

Our written report focused on explicit statements in Australian environmental policies and direction plans and did not brand any inferences. This approach may have eliminated some conservation tools used for protecting the example studies or their habitats, but were not clearly identifiable in the policy or management programme. Additionally, some plans were non available despite all-encompassing efforts to obtain them, a situation that may have excluded some plans that are used in protecting marine migratory species in Australia. While the utilize of network graphs to visualize relationships between policy instruments (rather than actors) is a novel approach in exploring environmental governance, our study identified the presence of relationships between policy instruments based solely on available data collected from the document assay. Thus, data were unavailable to analyze relationship force, only these data may become available through interviews conducted during the adjacent phase of this inquiry.

Results

In full, 23 ecology policies and 115 management plans (full documents = 138; encounter Tables C2, C3 in Appendix C for full list) were accounted to be relevant: federal (n = 4 policies; northward = 25 plans), Bilateral (Articulation) (n = 3; n = ii), New South Wales (n = half-dozen; north = 16), Queensland (n = four; n = 34), Tasmania (due north = 4; n = 20), and Victoria (due north = 2; n = 18).

Relevance of Ecology Policies and Management Plans in Australia

Protected species were non a focal point of the reviewed environmental policies. Less than one-third (north = 7) of the 23 reviewed policies specifically identified individually protected species; at to the lowest degree one policy in each state included a protected species listing. Merely i policy, the EPBC Act 1999, included a list of migratory species. X policies and 51 plans aligned with cardinal threatening processes as defined past either the EPBC Act 1999 or state legislation (meet Table C4 in Appendix C for total listing). Xiii policies protected marine species and iv of these protected marine migratory species.

Protection of Marine Migratory Species in Australia

Our thematic assay identified eight policies that protected one or more than of the four example study taxa. Marine turtles were protected most often (n = 7), followed past dugongs (n = five), humpback whales (n = 3), and migratory shorebirds (27 species as listed under the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds 2015, Australian Government, 2015b; n = 1). Totals exceed viii because some policies were relevant to more than 1 case written report.

Management plans were the instrument most often used to protect migratory species in Australia. Of the 115 plans reviewed, 101 were relevant to one or more of the taxa. Management strategies for shorebird species listed nether the Wild fauna Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds 2015 (Australian Government, 2015b) were most frequent (n = 59), followed past marine turtles (n = 34), dugongs (northward = 20), and humpback whales (northward = xviii). Totals exceed 101 because some plans were relevant to more than one case report.

Each instance study was associated with a specific blazon of management plan. Marine turtles and dugongs were most ordinarily protected past industry-generated environmental management plans (due north = 14, n = x respectively), while shorebirds were protected most ordinarily by protected area direction plans (n = 44). Humpback whales were almost ordinarily protected past protected surface area direction plans (n = 4) and industry-generated environmental direction plans (n = 3) (Figure 2).

Effigy 2. The breakup of relevant direction program types protecting marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and 27 species of migratory shorebirds in Commonwealth of australia. Legend order reflects the color order (from acme to bottom) of the stacked bar graph.

Coherence of Conservation Tools Used to Protect Marine Migratory Species in Australia

Overall, the coherence and complementarity of conservation tools used to protect marine migratory species in Australia was variable. While policies and direction plans tended to display greater coherence with other policies and plans within the same jurisdiction, relationships between country and federal government documents, and between domestic policies and international conventions were rarely explicit, every bit explained below.

Coherence With International Instruments

Relationships between domestic policies and international conventions were found to be underdeveloped. Of the 23 environmental policies reviewed, six refer to one or more international agreements to which Australia is a signatory party. These include three federal environmental policies, two bilateral agreements betwixt the federal authorities and Queensland, and one policy from Queensland. IUCN Listings were the about cited (northward = iii), followed by listings on Appendices from the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) (north = 2), the Torres Strait Treaty (n = two), and the London Protocol (n = ii), the protocol designed to combat marine pollution.

Relationships with international conventions and agreements were more developed in the management plans than in the policies. Over half (n = threescore) of the reviewed plans identified relationships to one or more international agreements. The Nippon-Australia (JAMBA) and Red china-Australia (CAMBA) Migratory Bird Agreements were the most frequently cited agreements (due north = 45 for both), followed by the Republic of Korea-Australia (ROKAMBA) Migratory bird agreement (n = twenty), and IUCN Listings (northward = 20). Of the 20 IUCN References, only the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles 2017 referred to the IUCN Cerise Listing of Threatened Species; the other 19 plans reference the IUCN Protected Areas Categories System. The Bonn (CMS) Convention is cited 19 times, the Torres Strait Treaty is cited 4 times, and the CITES Appendices are cited three times.

Coherence Within Australia

The level of policy coherence within Australia varied. Fourteen policies identified relationships with other relevant Australian environmental policies. Two federal policies identified a relationship with other federal policies, ii bilateral agreements continued to federal and land policies, five state policies identified a connection to federal policies, eight country policies identified a human relationship to other environmental policies within that land, and one country policy, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld), connected to a bilateral agreement. No policies connected to policies from another state. The EPBC Human activity 1999, Australia's main piece of environmental legislation, serves as a bridging link between NSW and Qld; without that bridge, there is no connectivity between united states of america. Tasmania displayed coherence inside the state, but none of the reviewed policies direct connected to the EPBC Act 1999. Victoria displayed the lowest amount of connectivity, with no connections to other policies, including the other reviewed policies from Victoria (Effigy 3).

Effigy 3. The connectedness of environmental policies from multiple levels of governance (symbols represent location) in Australia. Reviewed Victorian legislation is excluded every bit no policies continued with the reviewed policies of any other jurisdiction or within Victoria. Node position is based on axis inside the network; the EPBC Act 1999 has the nigh connections and is the primal link for policies within Australia. Node size is based on betweenness – larger nodes serve as a pathway for more policies. Relationships between policies are directional—the pointer points from one policy to another where a relationship has been identified.

The relationships between policies and management plans was more developed than the relationships betwixt policies, with 106 plans identifying a connection to one or more environmental policies. Twenty-three of the federal plans relate to federal policies, 56 country plans identify relationships to federal policies, and 71 state plans refer to policies within that same state. Just two plans, the Commonwealth of australia Pacific LNG Upstream Project: Pipeline Threatened Fauna Direction Programme (industry-generated environmental management plan) and the Recovery Program for Marine Turtles in Australia 2017, operated under multi-state legislation. Despite existence jointly made by the relevant federal, Qld, and NSW ministers, the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2017 demonstrated little connection to legislation from Qld and NSW (Figure 4A).

Effigy iv. (A) The human relationship between reviewed environmental policies and management plans in Australia and (B) The relationship between reviewed plans in Australia, with environmental policies included to show indirect connections. In both figures, symbols represent location. Node size is based on betweenness and node position is based on axis within the network. The betweenness of policies and management plans (A) and management plans (B) in relation with other policies and management plans in Australia identifies the focal office of the EPBC Deed 1999. Relationships are directional—the arrow points from one policy to another where a relationship has been identified.

Relationships between management plans were less established than any other relationship blazon. Eight federal plans identified relationships with other federal plans. Nine state plans identified relationships with other plans from the same state. No state plans identified relationships to federal management plans or to plans from other states. Indirect connections to plans within the same country (or other states) were created past ecology policies at the state or federal levels (Figure 4B).

Discussion

Our report used a grounded theory approach to provide a thematic assay of Australian policy and management plans related to 6 species of marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and 27 species of migratory shorebirds (non-threatened species listed under the Wildlife Conservation Program for Migratory Shorebirds 2015, Australian Regime, 2015b with habitat along the east coast). Our study identified biases toward sure species in Australian policies (statutory) and management plans (non-statutory, with the exception of recovery plans, threat abatement plans, and protected area direction plans) and a disconnect between management tools operating at different governance levels. Additionally, these results emphasize the importance of the EPBC Act 1999 in Australian natural resources governance and reinforces the statement for coherent policy and management in Australia to promote sustainable populations of marine migratory species.

Protection of Marine Migratory Species in Australia

Protection of marine migratory species in Australia is limited, represented past only four environmental policies. In Australia, the large, highly charismatic species (marine turtles, dugongs, and humpback whales) were protected under a greater number of statutory environmental policies than migratory shorebirds, despite the migratory shorebirds being the discipline of specific international agreements. The bias toward protecting marine turtles, dugongs, and humpback whales may exist due to the perceived charisma of these species to the general public and the list of each species nether the EPBC Act 1999.

Charismatic species are typically large vertebrates that appeal to humans for a specific aesthetic or symbolic trait (Small, 2012; Ducarme et al., 2013), and are often prioritized in conservation actions (McClenachan et al., 2012; Woinarski et al., 2017). Charismatic megafauna, such as marine turtles and dugongs, are regularly chosen as flagship and umbrella species for their environment and they are used to protect other species or gain conservation attention (Marsh et al., 1999; Home et al., 2009). Additionally, many species of charismatic megafauna called every bit flagships or umbrella species are endangered (Home et al., 2009), which influences national ecology policy.

Marine turtles and humpback whales are listed as threatened nether the EPBC Act 1999 and while less than one-third of the reviewed Australian policies listed protected species, threatened species listings oft drive conservation deportment and are used to prioritize the resource used for protecting threatened species (Possingham et al., 2002; Parsons, 2016). The dugong is not a nationally-listed threatened species in Australia, just it is all the same recognized as a MNES and, forth with marine turtles, holds loftier traditional value to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People living in Northern Commonwealth of australia (Marsh et al., 2004). Australia is required to preserve traditional customs under international conventions, articulation agreements (e.g., the Torres Strait Treaty), and under national legislation (e.g., the Native Title Act 1993) (Marsh et al., 2004), in improver to protecting the dugong under the EPBC Act 1999. Furthermore, the presence of iconic species similar marine turtles and dugongs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park contributed to the "outstanding universal value" criterion for the original list of the Not bad Barrier Reef as a Earth Heritage Area (GBRMPA, 2011). The 27 species of migratory shorebirds used as a case study and listed under the Wildlife Conservation Programme for Migratory Shorebirds 2015 (Australian Regime, 2015b) are included in international agreements (e.g., JAMBA/CAMBA/ROKAMBA), but are not listed equally threatened in Australia and are not well-represented in Australian ecology policy. This lack of representation in Australian environmental policies does not extend to all management tools for shorebirds, equally migratory shorebirds were protected past the greatest number of management plans. However, many of these management plans are not statutory, and the exclusion of migratory shorebirds from statutory environmental policy suggests that protection of migratory shorebirds is not as effective as the protection of other marine migratory species.

Previous inquiry has identified that there is considerable back up for the protection of shorebirds (Glover et al., 2011), even though such support is not reflected in Australian statutory instruments. Migratory shorebirds are highly susceptible to habitat loss through littoral evolution (Buler and Moore, 2011) and protecting critical habitats used by migratory shorebirds, in the context of increasingly intensive coastal development, is essential (Dhanjal-Adams et al., 2016). Australia has followed global conservation trends and has developed a large number of statutory protected area direction plans, primarily terrestrial, to protect areas as a means of conserving biodiversity (Bull et al., 2013; Dhanjal-Adams et al., 2016). Protected areas do benefit marine migratory species (Palumbi, 2004; Dobbs et al., 2008), but many protected areas are static "paper parks" (Cullen-Unsworth and Unsworth, 2016) and oftentimes fail to accost the habitat connectivity of migratory species (Dryden et al., 2008; Bull et al., 2013; Runge et al., 2015) that actively employ non-protected areas during parts of their lifecycles (Szabo et al., 2016).

In that location appears to be a reliance on the implementation of protected areas every bit the chief instrument for conserving biodiversity in Australia, as reflected by the large number of protected area management plans in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, and Victoria. However, about of the reviewed protected area management plans were terrestrial. There is overlap in the unlike habitat types used by marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and migratory shorebirds, and littoral ecosystems do not be in isolation from neighboring habitats (Duarte et al., 2008). Terrestrial protected areas and their associated plans will just protect nesting body of water turtles and roosting shorebirds that use the protected areas and provide no direct protection for the strictly aquatic humpback whales and dugongs.

Policy Coherence

The need for cross-jurisdictional, complementary legislation regarding marine migratory species is evident (McClenachan et al., 2012; Riskas et al., 2016) and is highlighted past the geographic range of marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and migratory shorebirds. Australia is the world's 6th largest country on the ground of land area (Geoscience Australia: Australia'due south Size Compared), with states and territories larger than many countries, so fauna movements even within state jurisdictions tin can span hundreds of kilometers. Additionally, for dugongs and marine turtles that inhabit the Torres Strait, international migrations betwixt the waters of Australia and Papua New Guinea may happen daily. Thus, effectively managing marine migratory species requires a polycentric governance organisation and cooperative legislation. Non-uniform listing and protection between governance levels may affect species' conservation and recovery (Welsh, 2004; McClenachan et al., 2012). Previous research has identified that much of the conservation of migratory species in Commonwealth of australia focuses on horizontal conservation (east.g., between nations) rather than vertical (e.g., between governance levels in the aforementioned nation) (Runge et al., 2017). We identified both horizontal and vertical gaps in marine governance in the conservation of marine migratory species in Commonwealth of australia.

International Coherence

Much of the endeavor to protect migratory species has concentrated on analogous international agreements (De Klemm, 1994; Runge et al., 2017). In Commonwealth of australia, listings created by the International Matrimony for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) were the most referenced international conservation tool in the reviewed policies and the 3rd near referenced (tied with ROKAMBA) in management plans. Nonetheless, most references were to the IUCN Protected Expanse Categories System, rather than the Red Listing of Threatened Species, which is interesting because many nations base their threatened species lists and statutory instruments on the IUCN Scarlet Listing (Gärdenfors, 2001; Farrier et al., 2007). However, fifty-fifty though the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species was included less often than the Protected Areas Category Organization in the reviewed Australian policies and management plans, it does not necessarily interpret to less protection for marine migratory species in Australia. The IUCN Protected Area Categories System can be applied to both terrestrial and marine environments, indicating that species may be protected if they are using those protected areas.

International agreements pertaining to migratory shorebirds (e.g., JAMBA/CAMBA) that utilize the East Asian-Australasian Flyway were the most prevalent in management plans, a situation expected equally migratory shorebirds were the well-nigh well-represented case study in the reviewed plans. Even so, ROKAMBA, another migratory bird understanding, was not included in as many management plans every bit JAMBA and CAMBA. JAMBA and CAMBA were signed in1974 & 1986, respectively, whereas ROKAMBA dates from 2007 and some plans take not been revised since Australia signed ROKAMBA. Management plans should be updated to include ROKAMBA (and thus, reflect cooperation with the Republic of korea), every bit international cooperation in protecting migratory shorebirds that brand apply of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway is necessary to back up local conservation successes in the face of large population declines (Clemens et al., 2016; Szabo et al., 2016).

The Torres Strait Treaty betwixt Australia and Papua New Guinea, was underrepresented in the reviewed policies and direction plans, despite its importance for managing marine turtles and dugongs. The Torres Strait Treaty maintains traditional hunting rights for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within the Torres Strait Protected Zone, as hunting turtles and dugongs is a central component of traditional community for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Kwan et al., 2006; Butler et al., 2012). The relationships are also undeveloped between the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984 and other reviewed policies and management plans. The Torres Strait Fisheries Deed 1984 and the Torres Strait Treaty both address the traditional angling rights of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and weak integration of these rights into Australian environmental policy and management suggests that Australia is not effectively meeting its obligations to preserve both traditional community and threatened species under international conventions.

Coherence Within Australia

National approaches to conservation can guide coordinated efforts to the conservation of marine migratory species (Runge et al., 2017). This approach is particularly critical in a federal system, where state legislation may not apply to the entire range of a threatened species (Welsh, 2004). Australia is striving toward a coordinated approach to conservation and for uniform threatened species listing across all levels of governance. This coordinated approach has been implemented every bit a common assessment method for national threatened species listing (Australian Regime, 2015c), the terrestrial-focused Threatened Species Strategy (Australian Government, 2015a; Runge et al., 2017). Fifty-fifty if coordinated efforts were implemented in marine management regimes that follow the approaches outlined in the (Australian Government, 2015a), marine migratory species that are not listed equally threatened in Commonwealth of australia (due east.m., dugongs and non-threatened migratory shorebirds protected nether the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds 2015 Australian Government, 2015b) will non benefit from the proposed approach. Additionally, while some of the reviewed management plans addressed species-specific threats (e.grand., Marine Turtle Recovery Plan 2017; Conservation Advice Megaptera novaeangliae), few policies and management plans addressed key threatening processes defined by either the EPBC Human action 1999 or relevant state legislation. These gaps in marine governance crave coordination between states and between states and the federal government to ensure the effective direction of marine migratory species in polycentric governance system.

Nosotros evidence that, despite some notable examples of progress, a coordinated approach to managing marine migratory species in Australia has non yet been achieved, equally demonstrated by the low level of connectivity betwixt different levels of governance. As the EPBC Act 1999 serves as a bridging legislation for NSW and Qld, ameliorate integration of the EPBC Deed 1999 into Tasmanian and Victorian legislation might promote more effective ecology legislation over the marine environment and connectivity betwixt states. Additionally, information technology is interesting that the reviewed policies from Victoria were non interconnected or continued to the policies of other jurisdictions; threatened species listing in Victoria is as well the listing procedure most different from that used by other states or the federal government. Harmonization between national legislation, particularly the EPBC Act 1999, and land legislation is central to ensuring that environmental direction outcomes are reached (Hawke, 2009).

The human relationship between policies and direction plans was more defined than the human relationship between policies; most direction plans connect to one or more of the reviewed ecology policies. Management plans are created under designating legislation, so a strong relationship is to be expected. However, reviewed plans direct connected merely to federal or aforementioned-state policies. Further, the jointly-created Marine Turtle Recovery Program 2017, while connected to federal and multi-state policies, did non identify a clear relationship between federal, NSW, and Qld legislation, mayhap due to last minute involvement of the states during plan evolution. The reviewed plans also only directly connected to plans inside the same country. Weak integration of environmental policy and management plans is mutual in Commonwealth of australia (Ross and Dovers, 2008) and is problematic for marine migratory species, as it could bespeak that groups implementing and working under legislative instruments and management plans designed to protect marine migratory species are operating independently of one another. A lack of coherence could also identify a communication gap (Smith et al., 1999) between governance levels and weakens the overall implementation of conservation tools for protecting marine migratory species in Commonwealth of australia (Runge et al., 2017), making information technology difficult to place "ownership" of marine migratory species in a complex governance organisation.

The disconnect between policies and management plans tin be problematic for managing species as many types of plans are not statutory. Direction plans are often drafted as a form of threat mitigation rather than conservation, and non-statutory plans volition have less of an bear on on conservation than explicit environmental policy. Merely recovery, protected expanse management, conservation advices, conservation plans, and threat abatement plans are statutory nether the EPBC Deed 1999 (see Tabular array B2 in Appendix B for descriptions). In addition, several recovery plans have expired under the EPBC Act 1999 and are being replaced with conservation advices in order to address the excess of recovery plans. The disadvantage of this is that conservation advices hold less weight than recovery plans when the Minster is making a determination regarding approving anthropogenic activities.

Futurity Inquiry

The next stage of our research will involve interviews with primal policy players and not-authorities stakeholders. These interviews volition provide insight into the evolution and implementation of conservation policy instruments in Australia and may identify additionally relevant policies or management plans that were non identified in this study. These interviews are designed to provide information about the strength and nature of relationships between policy instruments to complement the analyses conducted in this study.

Conclusions

This written report shows that not all species listed as Matters of National Environmental Significance are treated equally under Australian environmental policies and management plans, despite the international obligation to protect these species (Hawke, 2009). The larger charismatic megafauna, such equally marine turtles, dugongs, and humpback whales, received more attention in statutory policy, whereas migratory shorebirds were more probable to characteristic in environmental management plans. The trend to protect some species (e.yard., migratory shorebirds) through management plans rather than statutory tools is a limitation in protecting marine migratory species, as many of these plans are non-binding. However, the major weakness identified through this report is a lack of connection between the federal and state governments, between states, and within the state of Victoria. The EPBC Act 1999 is the primal link between states, emphasizing both its role in environmental governance in Commonwealth of australia and the horizontal and vertical communication gaps between governance levels, specially in and within the states. Whatsoever changes to the EPBC Act 1999 will have a cascading effect on national and state legislation and management plans. Greater integration of the EPBC Act 1999 into land and national legislation and management plans would help to improve coordination between country-government policy and planning. Increased cohesiveness betwixt Australian environmental policy and the translation into management plans volition improve protection for marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales, and migratory shorebirds against anthropogenic threats throughout their ranges. Ane means to achieve this cohesiveness would be through the introduction of a uniform treatment method for migratory species in Australia, like to the common assessment method introduced for threatened species. Australia is larger than nearly other countries and a common method to protect and conserve migratory species would not only harmonize the management of these species merely could also have a broader global awarding for protecting marine migratory species and promoting sustainable activities in the marine surround.

Clarifications

1) In Table 1, the reason we have listed marine turtles as "threatened" and humpback whales every bit "vulnerable" is because the half-dozen species of marine turtles establish in Commonwealth of australia do not all share the aforementioned threatened listing under the Environs Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Human action 1999 (east.g., loggerheads are listed equally endangered and hawksbills are listed as vulnerable). Humpback whales are listed as vulnerable, which too means they are considered to be threatened in Australia under the EPBC Act 1999.

2) In Results: Relevance of Environmental Policies and Direction Plans in Australia, we use the word "protected." The utilize of this discussion is to refer to species listed as "protected" under federal and state legislation; some of these species are likewise considered to be threatened in that jurisdiction.

Writer Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of whatsoever commercial or financial relationships that could be construed every bit a potential disharmonize of interest.

Acknowledgments

Nosotros would like to thank One thousand. Critchell for creating the map used as Figure one and C. Benham for her feedback on this manuscript in the later stages of writing. RM is supported past a James Cook University Postgraduate Research Scholarship.

Supplementary Fabric

The Supplementary Material for this article can be plant online at: https://world wide web.frontiersin.org/articles/ten.3389/fmars.2018.00229/total#supplementary-material

References

Allen, S., Marsh, H., and Hodgson, A. (2004). "Occurrence and conservation of the dugong (Sirenia: Dugongidae) in New S Wales," in Proceedings of the Linnean Lodge, Vol. 125, 211–216.

Google Scholar

Australian Regime (2016). SPRAT EPBC Migratory Lists in Species Profile and Threats Database. Canberra, Human action: Department of the Environment and Energy, Democracy of Australia. Available online at: http://world wide web.environment.gov.au/sprat (Accessed Baronial 05, 2017).

Australian Government (1999) Surroundings Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Canberra Act: Department of the Environs and Free energy, Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Government (2015b). Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds. Canberra, ACT: Section of the Surround and Free energy, Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Government (2015c). Common Assessment Method. Canberra, Deed: Department of the Environment and Free energy, Commonwealth of Australia. Available online at: http://world wide web.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/cam. (Accessed August 21, 2017).

Benson, D., and Lorenzoni, I. (2017). Climatic change adaptation, flood risks, and policy coherence in integrated water resources management in England. Reg Environ Change 17, 1921–1932. doi: 10.1007/s10113-016-0959-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, Due south., Cundill, Grand., et al. (2012). Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 421–428. doi: x.1146/annurev-environ-051211-123836

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Boersma, P. D., and Parrish, J. One thousand. (1999). Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a express solution. Ecol. Econ. 31, 287–304. doi: ten.1016/S0921-8009(99)00085-3

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Borgatti, Southward. P. (2002). NetDraw Network Visualization. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Google Scholar

Buler, J. J., and Moore, F. M. (2011). Migrant-habitat relationships during cease over along an ecological barrier: extrinsic constraints and conservation implications. J. Ornithol. 152, S101–S112. doi: 10.1007/s10336-010-0640-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Balderdash, J. W., Suttle, G. B., Singh, N. J., and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). Conservation when zippo stands however: moving targets and biodiversity offsets. Front end. Ecol. Environ. 11, 203–210. doi: 10.1890/120020

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Butler, J. R. A., Tawake, A., Skewes, T., Tawake, L., and McGrath, V. (2012). Integrating traditional ecological noesis and fisheries management in the Torres Strait, Australia: the catalytic role of turtles and dugongs as cultural keystone species. Ecol. Soc. 17:34 doi: 10.5751/ES-05165-170434

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chittleborough, R. G. (1965). Dynamics of two populations of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski). Mar. Freshwater. Res. 16, 33–128.

Google Scholar

Clemens, R. S., Rogers, D. I., Hansen, B. D., Gosbell, Thousand., Minton, C. D. T., Straw, P., et al. (2016). Continental-scale decreases in shorebird populations in Australia. Emu. 116, 119–135. doi: 10.1071/MU15056

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Commonwealth of Australia (2017). Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of australia.

Cullen-Unsworth, 50. C., and Unsworth, R. K. F. (2016). Strategies to enhance the resilience of the world's seagrass meadows. J. Appl. Ecol. 53, 967–972. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12637

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dale, A. P., Vella, K., Pressey, R. 50., Brodie, J., Gooch, G., Potts, R., et al. (2016). Take a chance analysis of the governance system affecting outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef. J. Environ. Manage. 163, 712–721. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Day, J. (2008). The demand and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management – lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Policy 32, 823–831. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.023

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Solar day, J. C. (2016). "Affiliate 5: The Great Bulwark Reef Marine Park – the granddaddy of modern MPAs," in Big, Assuming and Blue: Lessons from Commonwealth of australia'south Marine Protected Areas, eds Fitzsimmons and Wescott (Clayton South, VIC: CSIRO Publishing), 65–97.

Google Scholar

De Klemm, C. (1994). "The problem of migratory species in international law," in Green Globe Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development 1994, eds H. O. Bergesen and G. Parmann (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 67–77.

Google Scholar

Dhanjal-Adams, Thou. L., Hanson, J. O., Murray, N. J., Phinn, S. R., Wingate, V. R., Mustin, Thousand., et al. (2016). The distribution and protection of intertidal habitats in Australia. Emu 116, 208–214. doi: 10.1071/MU15046

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Dobbs, K., Fernandes, Fifty., Slegers, S., Jago, B., Thompson, 50., Hall, J., et al. (2008). Incorporating dugong habitats into the marine protected area design for the Swell Barrier Reef Marine Park, Queensland, Australia. Body of water Declension. Manage. 51, 368–375. doi: x.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.08.001

CrossRef Full Text

Dryden, J., Grech, A., Moloney, J., and Hamann, K. (2008). Rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Earth Heritage Expanse: does it afford greater protection for marine turtles? Wild animals Res. 35, 477–485. doi: x.1071/WR07087

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Duarte, C. M., Dennison, W. C., Orth, R. J. W., and Carruthers, T. J. B. (2008). The charisma of coastal ecosystems: addressing the imbalance. Estuar. Coasts 31, 233–238. doi: 10.1007/s12237-008-9038-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Farrier, D., Whelan, R., and Mooney, C. (2007). Threatened species listing as a trigger for conservation action. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 219–229. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.12.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fraser, K. A., Adams, V. One thousand., Pressey, R. 50., and Pandolfi, J. M. (2017). Purpose, policy, and practice: intent and reality for on-ground management and outcomes of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Mar. Policy 81, 301–311. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.039

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gärdenfors, U. (2001). Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels. Trends Ecol. Evol. sixteen, 511–516. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02214-5

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gilmore, S., Mackey, B., and Berry, S. (2007). The extent of dispersive motility behaviour in Australian vertebrate animals, possible causes, and some implications for conservation. Pacific Conserv. Biol. thirteen, 93–103. doi: 10.1071/PC070093

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Glover, H. K., Weston, M. A., Maguire, G. South., Miller, K. K., and Christie, B. A. (2011). Towards ecologically meaningful and socially acceptable buffers: response distance of shorebirds in Victoria, Australia, to human disturbance. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103, 326–334. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.08.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hawke, A. (2009). The Australian Environment Act – Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available online at: world wide web.environment.gov.au/epbc/review (Accessed September 28, 2017).

Home, R., Keller, C., Nagel, P., Bauer, North., and Hunziker, M. (2009). Option criteria for flagship species by conservation organizations. Environ. Conserv. 36, 139–148. doi: 10.1017/S0376892909990051

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Hooker, Southward. K., and Gerber, Fifty. R. (2004). Marine reserves as a tool for ecosystem-based direction: the potential importance of megafauna. BioScience 54, 27–39. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0027:MRAATF]2.0.CO;2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, M. K., Evans, 50., Scherl, L. Thou., and Marsh, H. (2016). The user, not the tool: perceptions of brownie and relevance touch the uptake of prioritisation. Environ. Manage. 57, 836–846. doi: x.1007/s00267-015-0653-iii

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Kwan, D., Marsh, H., and Delean, S. (2006). Factors influencing the sustainability of customary dugong hunting past a remote indigenous customs. Environ. Conserv. 33, 164–171. doi: 10.1017/S0376892906002992

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lascelles, B., Notarbartolo Di Sciara, 1000., Agardy, T., Cuttelod, A., Eckert, S., Glowka, L., et al. (2014). Migratory marine species: their status, threats and conservation management needs. Aquat. Conserv. 24, 111–127. doi: 10.1002/aqc.2512

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marsh, H., Eros, C., Corkeron, P., and Breen, B. (1999). A conservation strategy for dugongs: implications of Australian research. Mar. Freshw. Res. 50, 979–990. doi: 10.1071/MF99080

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Marsh, H., Lawler, I. R., Kwan, D., Delean, S., Pollock, K., and Alldredge, Chiliad. (2004). Aerial surveys and the potential biological removal technique indicate that the Torres Strait dugong fishery is unsustainable. Anim. Conserv. vii, 435–443. doi: 10.1017/S1367943004001635

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marsh, H., and Lefebvre, Fifty. Due west. (1994). Sirenian status and conservation efforts. Aquat. Mamm. 20, 155–170.

Google Scholar

Martin, T. One thousand., Chades, I., Arcese, P., Marra, P. P., Possingham, H. P., and Norris, D. R. (2007). Optimal conservation of migratory species. PLoS ONE 8:e751. doi: x.1371/journal.pone.0000751

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McClenachan, L., Cooper, A. B., Carpenter, Thou. E., and Dulvy, N. Thousand. (2012). Extinction hazard and bottlenecks in the conservation of charismatic marine species. Conserv. Lett. 5, 73–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00206.10

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Nilsson, M., Zamparutti, T., Petersen, J. East., Nykvist, B., Rudberg, P., and McGuinn (2012). Understanding policy coherence: belittling framework and examples of sector-environment policy interactions in the EU. Environ. Policy Govern. 22, 395–423. doi: 10.1002/eet.1589

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ortega-Argueta, A., Baxter, G., and Hockings, M. (2011). Compliance of Australian threatened species recovery plans with legislative requirements. J. Environ. Manage. 92, 2054–2060. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.03.032

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: must we expect for global solutions to climatic change earlier taking actions at other scales? Econ. Theory 49, 353–369. doi: x.1007/s00199-010-0558-half-dozen

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., and Warren, R. (1961). The organisation of regime in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc. 55, 831–842.

Google Scholar

Palumbi, S. R. (2004). Marine reserves and ocean neighborhoods: the spatial scale of marine populations and their management. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29, 31–68. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102254

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Parsons, E. C. M. (2016). Why IUCN should replace "Data Deficient" conservation status with a precautionary "Assume Threatened" status – A cetacean instance written report. Forepart. Mar. Sci. 3:193. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00193

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pendoley, K. L., Schofield, Grand., Whittock, P. A., Ierodiaconou, D., and Hays, K. C. (2014). Protected species employ of a coastal marine migratory corridor connecting marine protected areas. Mar. Biol. 161, 1455–1466. doi: x.1007/s00227-014-2433-7

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Possingham, H. P., Andelman, S. J., Burgman, M. A., Medellin, R. A., Master, 50. L., and Keith, D. A. (2002). Limits to the use of threatened species lists. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 503–507. doi: x.1016/S0169-5347(02)02614-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pullin, A. S., and Stewart, G. B. (2006). Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. xx, 1647–1656. doi: ten.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.10

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Read, T. C., Wantiez, Fifty., Werry, J. Thousand., Farman, R., Petro, Chiliad., and Limpus, C. J. (2014). Migrations of dark-green turtles (Chelonia mydas) betwixt nesting and foraging groudns across the Coral Ocean. PLoS ONE ix:e100083. doi: x.1371/journal.pone.0100083

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Riskas, Thousand. A., Fuentes, Yard. M. P. B., and Hamann, One thousand. (2016). Justifying the need for collaborative direction of fisheries bycatch: a lesson from marine turtles in Australia. Biol. Conserv. 196, xl–47. doi: x.1016/j.biocon.2016.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, R. A., Crick, H. Q. P., Learmonth, J. A., Maclean, I. One thousand. D., Thomas, C. D., Bairlein, F., et al. (2009). Travelling through a warming world: climatic change and migratory species. Endanger. Species Res. 7, 87–99. doi: x.3354/esr00095

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ross, A., and Dovers, S. (2008). Making the harder yards: environmental policy integration in Commonwealth of australia. Aus. J. Public Administ. 67, 245–260. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00585.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ruckelshaus, 1000., Klinger, T., Knowlton, N., and DeMaster, D. P. (2008). Marine ecosystem-based management in practice: scientific and governance challenges. Bioscience 58, 53–63. doi: 10.1641/b580110

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Runge, C. A., Gallo-Cajiao, E., Carey, 1000. J., Garnett, S. T., Fuller, R. A., and McCormack, P. C. (2017). Coordinating domestic legislation and international agreements to conserve migratory species: a case written report from Australia. Conserv. Lett. x, 765–772. doi: ten.1111/conl.12345

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Runge, C. A., Watson, J. Eastward. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Hanson, J. O., Possingham, H. P., and Fuller, R. A. (2015). Protected areas and global conservation of migratory birds. Science 350, 1255–1258. doi: x.1126/science.aac9180

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sheppard, J. K., Preen, A. R., Marsh, H., Lawler, I. R., Whiting, Southward. D., and Jones, R. E. (2006). Motion heterogeneity of dugongs, Dugong dugon (Müller) over large spatial scales. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 334, 64–83. doi: ten.1016/j.jembe.2006.01.011

CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Small, E. (2012). The new Noah's Ark: beautiful and useful species only. Part 2. The chosen species. Biodiversity 13, 37–53. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2012.659443

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, A. D. Grand., Sainsbury, K. J., and Stevens, R. A. (1999). Implementing effective fisheries-direction systems – Management strategy evaluation and the Australian partnership approach. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56, 967–979. doi: 10.1006/jmsc.1999.0540

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Szabo, J. K., Choi, C. Y., Clemens, R. S., and Hansen, B. (2016). Conservation without borders – solutions to declines of migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Emu 116, 215–221. doi: 10.1071/MU15133

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tol, Due south. J., Jarvis, J. C., York, P. H., Grech, A., Congdon, B. C., and Coles, R. G. (2017). Long distance biotic dispersal of seagrass seeds by marine mega-herbivores. Sci. Rep. 7:4458. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-04421-one

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Unsworth, R. K. F., Collier, C. J., Waycott, M., Mckenzie, L. J., and Cullen-Unsworth, L. C. (2015). A framework for the resilience of seagrass ecosystems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 100, 34–46. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.08.016

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar

Welsh, A. B. (2004). Factors influencing the effectiveness of local versus national protection of migratory species: a example study of lake sturgeon in the Great Lakes, N America. Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 315–328. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.03.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Woinarski, J. C. Z., Garnett, S. T., Legge, South. K., and Lindenmayer, D. B. (2017). The contribution of policy, police, direction, research, and advancement failings to the recent extinctions of iii Australian vertebrate species. Conserv. Biol. 31, 13–23. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12852

PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

woodformselly1974.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00229/full

Share this post