See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230246495

Key elements in achieving a successful recovery programme: A discussion

illustrated by the Gould's Petrel case study

Article  in  Ecological Management & Restoration · April 2009

DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00460.x

CITATIONS READS

18 64

2 authors, including:

Nicholas Carlile
Office of Environment and Heritage
93 PUBLICATIONS   834 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impact of ocean plastic debris on seabirds in SW Pacific Ocean View project

Seabird dynamics and restoration in the Broughton Island Group View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Carlile on 24 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

emr(12)_460.fm Page 97 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:58 AM

REVIEW
doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00460.x ARTICLE

Blackwell Publishing Asia

Key elements in achieving a successful recovery

programme: A discussion illustrated by the Gould’s
Petrel case study
By David Priddel and Nicholas Carlile

David Priddel and Nicholas Carlile are research
scientists with the New South Wales Department of
Environment and Climate Change (PO Box 1967,
Hurstville, NSW 2220, Australia; Tel.: 02 95856504;
Fax: 02 95856606; Email: david.priddel@environ-
ment.nsw.gov.au) Their programme of ecological
research aims to develop new approaches and best-
practice procedures for (i) the recovery of threatened
fauna, (ii) the restoration of degraded habitats and
impaired ecosystem processes, and (iii) the recon-
struction of depleted faunal assemblages.
Summary Surprisingly few faunal taxa worldwide have experienced an improvement in
conservation status through direct conservation action. One of the few is Gould’s Petrel
(Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera) – a threatened species that breeds only in New South
Wales. In the early 1990s, the breeding population of this subspecies was small (<250 pairs)
and declining. Each year, adult mortality at the breeding grounds exceeded the number of
young produced. A recovery programme, focused on reducing adult mortality, commenced in
1993. As a result of the recovery actions undertaken, the Gould’s Petrel is now increasing in
numbers. Also, the rainforest where this seabird breeds is now regenerating after being
degraded for almost a century by the introduced European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus).
The creation of artificial nesting habitat and the development of effective translocation proce-
dures have led to the establishment of a second breeding colony of Gould’s Petrel, further
reducing the risk of extinction.
In this paper, we explore the key elements we believe to be responsible for the success of
this particular recovery programme: (i) a strong underpinning of robust ecological
research; (ii) adaptive management; (iii) monitoring and reporting; (iv) a multidisciplinary
approach; and (v) a willingness to accept risk. We conclude with some suggestions to improve
the current recovery planning process.
Key words: adaptive management, Gould’s Petrel, legislation, recovery plans, recovery
programmes, species recovery, threatened species.

Introduction demography, discoveries of new popula- breeding productivity of this subspecies

tions, or changes in taxonomy, rather than have now increased to such an extent that

A ustralia, like many other countries, has

enacted legislation aimed at addressing
the loss of biodiversity.A common feature of
such legislation is the recognition that the
creation of conservation reserves and the
prevention of habitat destruction alone,
although vitally important, will not save
many species from extinction. Highly focused
and effective recovery programmes are also
needed. Hence, central to most threatened
species legislation is the development and
implementation of recovery actions and
plans, the goals of which are invariably to
improve the conservation status of the
target species. Yet, there are surprisingly
few examples, worldwide, where recovery
actions have led directly to an improvement
in the conservation status of a threatened
species or subspecies. Most improvements
in threatened status have been through
either improved knowledge of population
real increases in population size.
Indeed, there are many examples where
legislation and recovery actions have failed
to elicit any recovery of the target species.
The reasons for failure are difficult to
determine with any degree of certainty,
largely because the efficacy of individual
recovery actions or programmes is seldom
assessed, and those that are assessed are
seldom reported. Failed recovery pro-
grammes, in particular, are rarely publicized
or adequately documented. The unavaila-
bility of these results precludes appropriate
evaluation, stifling informed improvements
to the science of threatened species recovery.
The recovery programme for Gould’s
Petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera)
– a threatened seabird that breeds only in
New South Wales – has been one of the rare
cases of recovery success (Shields 2004;
Priddel & Carlile 2007). The numbers and
the New South Wales (NSW) Scientific
Committee has made a recent preliminary
decision, consistent with International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
criteria (IUCN 2001), to down-list it from
endangered (its current status under the
NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995 (TSC Act)) to vulnerable (NSW Scien-
tific Committee 2008).
In this paper, we briefly outline the
recovery actions undertaken for Gould’s
Petrel (Box 1) and summarize the demo-
graphic response of the population. We
then highlight the key elements we believe
to be responsible for the success of the
recovery programme, and discuss these
elements in the context of our knowledge
of the broader NSW recovery planning
process. We conclude with some sugges-
tions to improve the current recovery
planning process.

© 2009 Ecological Society of Australia ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 10 NO S1 MAY 2009 S97
emr(12)_460.fm Page 98 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:58 AM

REVIEW ARTICLE

Box 1. Summary of the Gould’s Petrel recovery programme

Recovery of the Cabbage Tree Island population
Gould’s Petrel is a pelagic seabird that comes ashore only to breed. Aside from a few birds that bred on Boondelbah Island
(Priddel & Carlile 1997a), the nominate subspecies was, until recently, restricted to one breeding site – Cabbage Tree Island at
the entrance to Port Stephens, NSW – where birds nest underground in cavities among rock scree (Priddel & Carlile 2004). In
1989, a monitoring programme was established to assess population size, trend and conservation status. The first three years
of monitoring revealed that the breeding population was small (less than 250 pairs) and declining (Priddel et al. 1995). Breeding
success (the proportion of eggs that produce fledglings) was poor (less than 20%) and fewer than 50 young fledged each year.
Significantly, adult mortality exceeded reproductive output, so clearly the population was unsustainable.
In 1992, after well-targeted ecological research, the threats responsible for population decline were identified. These were
(i) entanglement in the fruits of the Birdlime Tree (Pisonia umbellifera), and (ii) predation by the Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina);
both impacts were exacerbated by habitat degradation caused by the introduced European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
(Priddel & Carlile 1995b; Priddel et al. 2000). The next year, actions to mitigate these threats were developed and implementation
of these actions commenced. Birdlime Trees within the nesting habitat of Gould’s Petrel were removed and Pied Currawong numbers
were substantially reduced through culling. In 1997, the Rabbit was eradicated through the sequential application of three mortality
agents – the myxoma virus (myxomatosis), calicivirus (rabbit haemorrhagic disease) and poison baiting (Priddel et al. 2000).
After these recovery actions, breeding success increased from less than 20% to about 50%, and the population has increased
from less than 250 breeding pairs during 1989–1991 to more than 1000 breeding pairs currently. The number of fledglings
produced per annum has increased from less than 50 to more than 450, the consistent rise demonstrating the success of the
recovery programme (Priddel & Carlile 2007).
Culling of the Pied Currawong and removal of any newly established seedlings of the Birdlime Tree may need to continue for
some years. However, we expect that these actions will be curtailed once the rainforest understorey regenerates sufficiently
because the Currawong will be unable to hunt the Gould’s Petrel effectively and the fruits of the Birdlime Tree will get caught in
the vegetation rather than fall to the forest floor.

Establishment of a second population

Although the breeding population of Gould’s Petrel on Cabbage Tree Island was no longer declining, the species remained
vulnerable to a local catastrophe such as wildfire or the introduction of exotic predators such as the Ship Rat (Rattus rattus),
Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) or House Cat (Felis catus). To minimize this risk, action was taken to establish a second viable breeding
population on nearby Boondelbah Island. After the development of (i) nest boxes to provide artificial nest sites (Priddel & Carlile
1995a), and (ii) effective translocation procedures (Priddel & Carlile 2001), a second population was established (Priddel et al.
2006). This new colony, currently comprising in excess of 70 breeding individuals, is steadily increasing. Already, it has produced
more than 60 fledglings. Having two populations raises the chance that one may survive any environmental catastrophe.

Flow-on benefits to other species

Implementation of the recovery programme for Gould’s Petrel has led to a number of broader conservation benefits, both at its
breeding grounds and in a wider context. First, Currawong numbers on Cabbage Tree Island had become artificially inflated by
the change in habitat structure brought about by the Rabbit. The reduction in Currawong numbers to more natural levels eased
predation pressure on a suite of other nesting birds, leading to higher breeding success for some species, such as the Eastern
Yellow Robin (Eopsaltria australis). Second, the removal of the Rabbit from Cabbage Tree Island has led to the restoration of a
range of plant species and communities on the island. For example, the rainforest understorey, virtually destroyed by the Rabbit,
is now regenerating. Species that were once restricted to inaccessible cliffs and ledges, such as the Birds Nest Fern (Asplenium
australasicum), now grow in profusion on the forest floor. The Rabbit had curtailed seedling recruitment in the Cabbage Tree
Palm (Livistona australis) (Priddel et al. 2000), causing a severe distortion in the age structure of the population (Carlile 2002).
Since the Rabbit was removed, the abundance of young palms has increased dramatically. Third, the successful eradication of
the Rabbit from Cabbage Tree Island gave rise to a government initiative to eradicate all mammalian pests from all NSW islands
(Australian Labor Party 2003). Fourth, many of the techniques developed to recover Gould’s Petrel have been adopted by
overseas conservation agencies for the recovery of other threatened seabirds, such as the Bermuda Petrel (Pterodroma cahow)
(Madeiros 2005) and Pycroft’s Petrel (Pterodroma pycrofti) (Gangloff & Wilson 2004).

S98 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 10 NO S1 MAY 2009 © 2009 Ecological Society of Australia
emr(12)_460.fm Page 99 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:58 AM
Key elements of the
recovery programme
The Gould’s Petrel recovery programme
contained many distinct elements that we
feel contributed to its success and which
could be emulated elsewhere.These are: (i)
a strong underpinning of robust ecological
research; (ii) an adaptive management
approach; (iii) regular monitoring and
reporting; (iv) a multidisciplinary team;
and (v) a willingness to accept risk.
A strong underpinning of
ecological research
The importance of incorporating rigorous
science into recovery programmes has
been recognized in a number of reviews
(e.g. Boersma et al. 2001). Typically,
ecological research features prominently in
identifying threats and possible mitigating
actions but is often divorced from the
evaluation of implemented actions and
outcomes (Boersma et al. 2001). In the
Gould’s Petrel recovery programme, robust
field-based ecological research was
conducted in parallel with a suite of
innovative management actions. This
research was undertaken by field eco-
logists employed by the State’s primary
conservation agency – the Department of
Environment and Climate Change (NSW)
and its various precursors. However, there
are sufficient agency scientists to deal
with only a handful of threatened species.
Several authors (e.g. Clark et al. 2002) have
suggested that the participation of scientists
from academia could bolster the scientific
input into recovery programmes. Although
we endorse such involvement, we recognize
that threatened-species research is generally
not attractive to academia, where perform-
ance is generally gauged by publications
rather than conservation outcomes. When
addressing many ecological questions, it is
often not practical to conduct replicated,
controlled experiments (Bennett & Adams
2004), and this is especially so for studies
of threatened species. In addition, the
inherent difficulties of dealing with rare or
cryptic species mean that data are not only
time-consuming to collect, but datasets are
often small and incomplete. Consequently,
field studies of threatened species, par-
ticularly those that focus on threats or
© 2009 Ecological Society of Australia
recovery actions, tend not to yield large
numbers of papers suitable for publication
in high-profile international journals, and
so are shunned by academics.
These realities emphasize the need for
conservation agencies to employ field ecol-
ogists to coordinate or implement recovery
programmes. Having in-house scientists
has the added advantages of (i) access to
resources to implement management
actions; (ii) greater flexibility to deal with
setbacks and new or emerging threats; (iii)
the ability to evaluate outcomes and to
translate those outcomes into policy; and
(iv) continuity of knowledge and expertise
within the agency.
Adaptive management
Implicit in many recovery plans is the belief
that the prescribed recovery actions will
not only be effective in mitigating the
identified threats, but collectively these
actions will halt (or even reverse) the
decline of the targeted species.We contend
that rarely is it possible to predict with any
degree of certainty the response of an
ecological process to any perturbation or
modification imposed upon it. This is
particularly so for highly threatened species
where data and ecological understanding
are often scant. Moreover, case histories
indicate that rarely do single factors drive a
decline (Caughley & Gunn 1996); problems
tend to be nested insofar that treating one
reveals or even exacerbates another (e.g.
Risbey et al. 2000; Wheeler & Priddel 2009).
Recovery plans should be dynamic, and
recovery actions flexible and integrated
with a research programme designed to
enable the outcomes of such actions to be
evaluated. In practice, such flexibility rarely
exists. In Australia, a draft recovery plan
usually has to be placed on public exhibi-
tion and the plan reviewed in light of
submissions received. The final amended
plan is usually then ratified by government.
Once ratified, it becomes a fully costed,
statutory document that is not readily
able to be changed or modified. Moreover,
funding is rarely available to undertake
actions not listed in the plan. In their
review of recovery plans in the USA, Clark
et al. (2002) similarly concluded that
‘recovery plans need to be dynamic and
action-orientated documents rather than
ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 10 NO S1 MAY 2009
REVIEW ARTICLE
edicts eternally etched in stone’. We con-
tend that the entire recovery process needs
to be able to accommodate the degree of
flexibility necessary to conduct recovery
actions within an adaptive management
framework.
Adaptive management is an approach
whereby management actions are trials
designed to achieve a conservation out-
come and to gain information, allowing
management decisions and outcomes to be
reviewed continually rather than following
a rigid experimental protocol (Holling 1978).
The complexity and uncertainty associated
with the recovery of threatened species
demand the flexibility that adaptive man-
agement provides. Adaptive management
can be used to formulate recovery actions
that probe the response of the species and
the system. The aim is to increase know-
ledge about species’ ecology and ecosystem
processes that will enable the formulation
and refining of recovery actions to better
address existing and evolving threats.
The Gould’s Petrel recovery programme
was conducted as a series of recovery
actions implemented in parallel with a pro-
gramme of ecological research designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of these actions.
This approach meant that the immediate
and longer-term outcomes of recovery
actions were known and, where necessary,
this information was used to modify the
prescribed actions – adaptive management.
For example, Gould’s Petrel mortality on
Cabbage Tree Island dropped to zero
before all breeding Currawongs had been
destroyed. Consequently, the planned
eradication of this predator, whose original
population exceeded 50 birds, was curtailed
in favour of maintaining three to four breed-
ing pairs on the island.The presence of this
small number of Currawongs was consid-
ered to be highly beneficial, as previously
these few birds had been observed to pre-
vent the influx of large flocks of conspecifics
by attacking any intruders.
We believe that an adaptive manage-
ment approach has contributed greatly to
the success of the Gould’s Petrel recovery
programme because it has allowed us to
fine-tune our management actions where
necessary. As such, we consider this an
approach that should be more widely
adopted.
S99
emr(12)_460.fm Page 100 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:58 AM
REVIEW ARTICLE
Monitoring and reporting
Monitoring protocols for Gould’s Petrel,
designed to measure the effectiveness or
otherwise of recovery actions, were devel-
oped and validated before any recovery
actions were implemented. These protocols
included assessing the mortality rate of
adults while ashore (Priddel & Carlile
1995b) and the estimation of both popul-
ation size and breeding success (Priddel
et al. 1995). Monitoring of the population
has continued annually throughout the
recovery programme and the data have
been published at strategic intervals ( Priddel
et al. 1995; Priddel & Carlile 1997b, 2007).
We contend that this monitoring has been
a key element in the success of the Gould’s
Petrel recovery programme because it has
allowed us to track and assess the response
of the population to the management
actions undertaken.
Monitoring is a fundamental component
of adaptive management and we contend
that it should be an essential component of
all recovery programmes. Monitoring is fre-
quently listed as an action in recovery plans
but is often assigned a low priority and
rarely funded. However, monitoring is
necessary to (i) assess the efficacy of
prescribed actions undertaken to mitigate
threats, and (ii) determine whether this, in
turn, leads to a change in the demography
of the target population. Only after these
outcomes are known is it possible to deter-
mine success, failure or future needs (Clark
et al. 2002; Shields 2004). We emphasize,
however, that inappropriate monitoring
without clearly defined objectives and
robust scientific methodology is of little
use in evaluating the efficacy of recovery
actions. Publication of monitoring data pro-
vides transparency, makes the information
available to other recovery programmes,
and affords the opportunity for public
scrutiny and confidence in the process.
Multidisciplinary approach
Seldom, if ever, does planning or research
alone result in the recovery of a threatened
taxon. The process invariably requires
some applied action undertaken by natural
resource managers. Contrary to public per-
ception, skilled practitioners are surprisingly
few in number and thinly dispersed,
S100 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 10 NO S1 MAY 2009
reflecting the poor emphasis on wildlife
conservation by governments worldwide.
Furthermore, natural resource managers
who are involved in threatened species
recovery often have little contact with
planners, scientists or even reserve
managers within their own organizations.
Field ecologists working within government
conservation agencies are best placed to
bridge the gap that exists between these
disciplines. However, such personnel are
even fewer in number and, unlike the
ever-increasing lists of threatened species,
their ranks are thinning.
Successful recovery outcomes require
intelligent planning, robust science and
best-practice management actions, and
there needs to be seamless integration of
these components. In our experience,
developing and implementing effective,
workable solutions to species declines is
the most challenging phase of threatened
species recovery. Consequently, appropri-
ately skilled natural resource planners,
managers and scientists should be involved
from the outset, and should be supported
to work within multidisciplinary teams.
For this reason, the Gould’s Petrel
recovery programme involved a multidisci-
plinary team (a recovery team) working in
close collaboration from the beginning.
This arrangement not only facilitated the
implementation of recovery actions, but
also assisted with issues such as community
education and support, coordination of
volunteers, monitoring and maintaining the
longevity of the programme. Conservation
agencies need to ensure that appropriate
structures, linkages and rewards are put in
place to encourage such collaboration.
Willingness to accept risk
Effective recovery programmes frequently
involve a high level of uncertainty and
risk, particularly when undertaken using
an adaptive management approach. Con-
sequently, even well-planned programmes
may falter if there is an unwillingness to
accept risk.The recovery actions proposed
for Gould’s Petrel included the culling of
native birds, the destruction of native
plants, the aerial distribution of toxic baits
within a fully protected conservation area,
and translocation of fledglings. Proposing
such actions met with torrid opposition
from some conservative quarters, and
obtaining approval from consent authorities
was both difficult and protracted. Now that
these actions have been shown to be
effective, most are regarded as routine
management practices. Nonetheless, less
experienced or less determined individuals
may well have abandoned these actions,
with resulting failure of the plan.
Legislation and recovery
planning
The recovery of Gould’s Petrel is a rare
example of where recovery action has
resulted in an improvement in the
conservation status of a threatened species
or subspecies. In this particular instance,
the likelihood of success was enhanced by
(i) the threats being localized, (ii) the
absence of nested threats, a problem that
has plagued other recovery programmes;
and (iii) the fact that the site was an island.
Once the actions (culling of native species
and eradication of the Rabbit) were
formulated and the constraints (bureaucratic
hurdles, acceptance of risk, etc.) overcome,
implementation was relatively straight-
forward. Recovery may have been more
problematic if the threats were widespread
or the mitigation actions were complex, as
would occur if, for example, long-line
fishing was causing adult mortality. Other
examples of complex issues likely to
reduce the chance of recovery include the
economic constraints associated with
recovering old-growth forests for forest-
dependent species, and the difficulties of
catering for threatened species with late-
successional requirements when managing
for early-successional specialists.
There are many Australian examples
where threatened species legislation and
conservation endeavours based on species
recovery planning have failed to elicit any
recovery of the target species (Shields
2004). Rather than leading to a critical
examination of the factors involved in such
failures (with the subsequent adoption of
more effective actions), there has been a
policy shift to move away from species-
based recovery planning towards the use of
multispecies recovery plans or landscape
(ecosystem) management plans.This change
has been accompanied by a refocus towards
threat abatement planning to deal with
© 2009 Ecological Society of Australia
emr(12)_460.fm Page 101 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:58 AM
threats either singularly or in sets that affect
a range of species (Burgman et al. 2007).
This fundamental change in approach
has occurred despite evidence that recovery
actions are most effective when under-
taken at the population level (Caughley &
Gunn 1996). Moreover, comprehensive
evaluations of recovery planning outcomes
in the USA (e.g. Boersma et al. 2001;
Hoekstra et al. 2002) could identify no
clear benefits of multispecies or landscape
conservation planning. On the contrary,
the status of species covered by multispe-
cies plans was almost four times less likely
to improve than species covered by single-
species plans (Hoekstra et al. 2002).
Multispecies plans had fewer tasks com-
pleted (Lundquist et al. 2002) and were
less likely to contain adaptive management
or to be revised (Clark & Harvey 2002).
Threat abatement plans are also gaining
prominence and support, often at the
expense of the recovery planning process.
Unlike recovery plans, threat abatement
plans and actions address a single wide-
spread threat. However, the threats
affecting a single species can be many and
diverse, and failure to address all threats in
a synergistic manner is unlikely to produce
a successful outcome at the species level.
The particular threats affecting Gould’s
Petrel (apart from the impacts of the Rabbit)
were both species specific and area specific
and would not have been addressed in any
threat abatement plan.
Multispecies recovery plans and threat
abatement plans can sometimes be appro-
priate and, if undertaken with adherence to
the general principles we have espoused
(scientific underpinning, acceptance of
risk, monitoring, adaptive management, etc.),
they can be successful. A notable example
is the Western Shield Programme in Western
Australia (see Possingham et al. 2003 for a
review). In this instance, it happened
that one factor (removal of predation by
the Red Fox) was the key to recovery for
many species (the suite of critical-weight-
range vertebrates, Dickman 1996) and it
was possible to abate this threat due to the
fact that local native fauna happened to
have a high level of tolerance to an effective
poison that could be delivered extensively.
Provided that sufficient scientific rigour
and funding are applied, multispecies
© 2009 Ecological Society of Australia
recovery plans and threat abatement plans
may, in some situations, result in better out-
comes for a greater number of species.
Unfortunately, however, these approaches
(together with ecosystem recovery plans)
have been seized on by economic rationalists
as a means of reducing funding for threat-
ened species recovery rather than as mech-
anisms, based on science or critical thinking,
to improve recovery outcomes. Although
not without some merit, these approaches
are not the panacea for averting the current
extinction crisis. Single-species recovery
plans, developed within an adaptive
management framework, are an important
and meritorious component of any biodi-
versity conservation system and cannot
afford to be discarded. Where this approach
has failed to address species decline, it has
not necessarily been due to flawed mecha-
nisms, but more to a lack of resources (EDO
2006). Single-species recovery programmes
not only save some species from extinction,
they often also have broader biodiversity
benefits (see Box 1) or can act as a ‘flagship’
for biodiversity conservation (Clarke 2007).
A key aspect of the TSC Act was the
mandatory preparation of recovery and
threat abatement plans. However, few
plans were actually produced and even
fewer, implemented. In response, the
legislation was amended to change the
mandatory nature of recovery plans to
discretionary (Threatened Species Amend-
ment Act 2002). Although the undesirable
rigidity of legally ratified plans was
removed, there is now no statutory require-
ment to produce plans and hence no
requirement to allocate funding. Under the
new legislation, recovery and threat
abatement plans have been replaced with a
single Priorities Action Statement (PAS) that
sets out the strategies for promoting the
recovery of each threatened species. The
PAS, however, has a number of gaps and
weaknesses, particularly in relation to
responsibilities, priorities and coordination
(EDO 2006) and appears even less likely to
achieve effective threatened species
recovery than previous approaches.
Whatever the approach taken, we
believe that conservation agencies should
focus less on producing endless strategies,
policy documents and plans (many of
which are never implemented), and con-
ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 10 NO S1 MAY 2009
REVIEW ARTICLE
centrate more on the on-ground implemen-
tation of effective actions. Implementation
and evaluation of recovery actions are
often the most difficult aspects of recovery
programmes, so it is crucial to ensure that
those involved have the skills necessary to
achieve a successful outcome. We concur
with Floyd (2001) that few scientists are
skilled at linking basic biological or ecolog-
ical theory to management operations.
Priorities and funding
No matter how meticulously planned,
recovery programmes can be jeopardized
through inadequacies and uncertainties in
funding support. Much of the funding for
the Gould’s Petrel recovery programme
came through a series of competitive grants
punctuated by periods of uncertainty,
making long-term planning difficult and
risking previous gains.
The conservation of biodiversity is
sometimes seen as an obstacle to deve-
lopment and a regulatory burden, rather
than sustaining an invaluable resource and
a matter of international importance. Con-
sequently, threatened species recovery has
suffered from a lack of political will to
ensure appropriate funding (EDO 2006). In
some instances, recovery planning has
been driven by the need to meet statutory
requirements rather than as a means of
achieving conservation success (Shields
2004). As a result, threatened species
recovery has seldom been adequately
funded and, unless this changes, mass
extinction of species is inevitable.
Conclusions
1 Threatened species research should
focus on the causes of decline and the
development and evaluation of tech-
niques to mitigate threats, and provide
baseline data to allow adequate assess-
ment of responses to recovery actions.
2 Recovery actions are best undertaken
within an adaptive management frame-
work. To accommodate this approach:
(i) recovery plans should be brief and
flexible working documents, not legally
encumbered, politically sanctioned
documents and (ii) conservation agen-
cies need to be willing to accept risk.
S101
 emr(12)_460.fm Page 102 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:58 AM

REVIEW ARTICLE

3 Ecological research should be an integral
component of the entire recovery pro-
gramme, and scientific evaluation of the
outcomes must be reported and peer
reviewed.
4 Planners, ecologists and natural resource
managers should work collaboratively,
and structures and systems should be
put in place to encourage this.
5 Single-species recovery plans can be
successful, and are the most appropriate
planning mechanism for preventing
species extinction. Multispecies plans
may be appropriate for restricted
geographical areas or groups of taxa
where threats are similar. Landscape
(ecosystem) recovery plans are not the
panacea for averting the looming extinc-
tion crisis.
6 Threat abatement plans can sometimes
be useful. However, it must be recog-
nized that these address a single threat
only, whereas many threatened species
face multiple threats, some of which are
nested, unique or localized.
7 Conservation agencies should focus less
on producing unused, ineffective, gener-
alized strategies and plans, and more on
the implementation and evaluation of
recovery actions, using appropriately
skilled practitioners and scientists.
8 Without increased political commitment
to threatened species recovery, with
resultant funding adequacy and certainty,
mass extinction of species is inevitable.
Acknowledgements
We thank Robert Wheeler, David Milledge
and Jim Shields for their constructive
comments on an earlier draft of the
manuscript.
References
Australian Labor Party (2003) Better Care for Pets
and Wildlife. Bob Carr and NSW
Labor . . . Getting on with the Job. Australian
Labor Party, Sydney, NSW.
Bennett L. T. and Adams M. A. (2004) Assessment
of ecological effects due to forest harvesting:
approaches and statistical issues. Journal of
Applied Ecology 41, 585–598.
Boersma P. D., Kareiva P., Fagan W. F., Clark J. A.
and Hoekstra J. M. (2001) How good are
endangered species recovery plans? Bio-
Science 51, 643–649.
Burgman M. A., Keith D., Hopper S. D., Widyat-
moko D. and Drill C. (2007) Threat syndromes
and conservation of Australian flora. Biological
Conservation 134, 73–82.
Carlile N. (2002) Demography of the Cabbage Tree
Palm Livistona Australis. MSc Thesis. Univer-
sity of Technology, Sydney, NSW.
Caughley G. and Gunn A. (1996) Conservation
Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell
Science, Cambridge, MA.
Clarke M. (2007) Black-eared miner: flagship spe-
cies or waste of money? Wingspan 17, 28–33.
Clark J. A. and Harvey E. (2002) Assessing multi-
species recovery plans under the Endangered
Species Act. Ecological Applications 12, 655–
662.
Clark J. A., Hoekstra J. M., Boersma P. D. and
Kareiva P. (2002) Improving U.S. endangered
species act recovery plans: key findings and
recommendations of the SCB recovery plan
project. Conservation Biology 16, 1510–1519.
Dickman C. R. (1996) Impact of exotic generalist
predators on the native fauna of Australia.
Wildlife Biology 2, 185–195.
EDO (2006) The Status of Biodiversity Conserva-
tion in New South Wales and Recommenda-
tions for Reform. Report commissioned by the
Nature Conservation Council of NSW. Environ-
mental Defender’s Office of NSW, Sydney,
NSW.
Floyd T. (2001) Complexity simplified (but who’s
paying attention?). Ecology 82, 904–905.
Gangloff B. and Wilson K.-J. (2004) Feeding fre-
quency, meal size and chick growth in Pycroft’s
petrel (Pterodroma pycrofti): preparing for
chick translocations in Pterodroma species.
Notornis 51, 26–32.
Hoekstra J. M., Clark J. A., Fagan W. F. and
Boersma P. D. (2002) A comprehensive review
of Endangered Species Act recovery plans.
Ecological Applications 12, 630–640.
Holling C. S. (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assess-
ment and Management. J. Wiley, Chichester,
UK.
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria:
Version 3.1. International Union for the Con-
servation of Nature and Natural Resources,
Gland, Switzerland.
Lundquist C. J., Diehl J. M., Harvey E. and Botsford
L. W. (2002) Factors affecting implementation
of recovery plans. Ecological Applications 12,
713–718.
Madeiros J. (2005) Recovery Plan for the Bermuda
Petrel (Cahow) Pterodroma Cahow. Depart-
ment of Conservation Services, Bermuda.
NSW Scientific Committee (2008) Gould’s Petrel
– Proposed Vulnerable Species Listing. Availa-
ble from URL: http://www.environment.nsw.
gov.au/determinations/gouldspetrelpd.htm.
Possingham H., Jarman P. and Kearns A. (2003)
Independent review of Western Shield: report
of the review panel-February 2003. Conserva-
tion Science Western Australia 5, 2–11.
Priddel D. and Carlile N. (1995a) An artificial nest
box for burrow-nesting seabirds. Emu 95,
290–294.
Priddel D. and Carlile N. (1995b) Mortality of adult
Gould’s Petrels Pterodroma leucoptera leu-
coptera at the nesting site on Cabbage Tree
Island, New South Wales. Emu 95, 259–
264.
Priddel D. and Carlile N. (1997a) Boondelbah Island
confirmed as a second breeding locality for
Gould’s Petrel. Pterodroma leucoptera leucop-
tera. Emu 97, 245–248.
Priddel D. and Carlile N. (1997b) Conservation of
the endangered Gould’s petrel Pterodroma
leucoptera leucoptera. Pacific Conservation
Biology 3, 322–329.
Priddel D. and Carlile N. (2001) A trial translocation
of Gould’s petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera
leucoptera). Emu 101, 79–88.
Priddel D. and Carlile N. (2004) Seabird islands no.
35/1: Cabbage Tree Island, New South Wales.
Corella 28, 107–109.
Priddel D. and Carlile N. (2007) Population size and
breeding success of Gould’s Petrel Ptero-
droma leucoptera leucoptera on Cabbage Tree
Island, New South Wales: 1996–97 to 2005–
06. Corella 31, 79–82.
Priddel D., Carlile N., Davey C. and Fullagar P. J.
(1995) The status of Gould’s Petrel, Ptero-
droma leucoptera leucoptera, on Cabbage
Tree Island, New South Wales. Wildlife
Research 22, 601–610.
Priddel D., Carlile N. and Wheeler R. (2000) Eradi-
cation of European rabbits (Oryctolagus
cuniculus) from Cabbage Tree Island, NSW,
Australia, to protect the breeding habitat of
Gould’s petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera
leucoptera). Biological Conservation 94,
115–125.
Priddel D., Carlile N. and Wheeler R. (2006) Estab-
lishment of a new breeding colony of Gould’s
petrel (Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera)
through the creation of artificial nesting habitat
and the translocation of nestlings. Biological
Conservation 128, 553–563.
Risbey D. A., Calver M. C., Short J., Bradley J. S.
and Wright I. W. (2000) The impact of cats and
foxes on the small vertebrate fauna of
Heirisson Prong, Western Australia. II. A
field experiment. Wildlife Research 27, 223–
235.
Shields J. M. (2004) Threatened species legislation
and threatened species recovery: does the
former lead to the latter?. In: Threatened
Species Legislation: Is It Just an Act? (eds P.
Hutchings, D. Lunney and C. Dickman), pp.
135–144. Royal Zoological Society of New
South Wales, Mosman, NSW.
Wheeler R. and Priddel D. (2009) The impact of
introduced predators on two threatened
prey species: A case study from western
New South Wales. Ecological Management &
Restoration 10, S117–S123.

S102 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 10 NO S1 MAY 2009 © 2009 Ecological Society of Australia

View publication stats