3.1 Benefits and shortcomings of recovery plans

Two agencies share responsibility for the Spectacled Flying-fox: the Federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water (DCCEEW), and the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (DES). The species is protected under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Qld Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act). It has been recognized officially that the EPBC Act requires significant revisions, particularly as it pays no regard to climate change (McCormack, 2018). Furthermore, evaluations of the Act have revealed that it is failing to fulfill its objectives regarding the protection of threatened species (Auditor General, 2020; Samuel, 2020), as it has not prevented recent extinctions (Woinarski et al., 2017). More species are likely to become extinct without urgent recovery actions (Geyle et al., 2018), and decisions are still being made that detrimentally affect species, even those with recovery plans (Reside et al., 2019).

Politics, economics, and prevailing ideologies adversely affect the conservation of threatened species (Czech et al., 1998; Delach et al., 2019; Hintzen et al., 2020; Kraus et al., 2021; Langpap et al., 2018). Conservation efforts have been hampered by significant cuts to environment budgets (ACF, 2021; ANAO, 2020; Evans et al., 2016; Gerber, 2016; Wintle et al., 2019), loss of scientific expertise (Russell-Smith et al., 2015; Turner, 2013), policy dismantling (Morrison, 2017) and politicization (Mulgan, 1998; Wright et al., 2021), and reduced capacities of public services (Head, 2019). While these problems are beyond the scope of conservation scientists’ responsibilities, knowing that they exist helps inform how scientists respond.

Conservation actions are essential for the recovery of threatened species (Malcom & Li, 2018). In Australia, recovery plans for threatened species were mandatory until 2006 (EPBC Act, 269AA). They contained detailed actions, identified organizations to take action, and provided indicative budgets. However, in 2006, the legal requirement shifted from mandatory recovery plans to mandatory Conservation Advices (EPBC Act s266B(1)). Unlike recovery plans, Conservation Advices are designed to offer grounds for listing threatened species but do not specify detailed actions, assign responsibilities, or allocate budgets (Walsh et al., 2013). While Conservation Advices can be updated more quickly than recovery plans, this flexibility comes with significant drawbacks. They are less permanent, more susceptible to arbitrary amendments with less scrutiny, and do not provide the details of required actions, budgets, and so on. Importantly, the legal framework stipulates that government declarations must “not make declarations that are inconsistent with any recovery plan" (s268), ensuring some level of consistency and protection. In contrast, there is no such constraint under a Conservation Advice as the minister has only to “have regard to any approved conservation advice” (s34D). This shift is indicative of broader policy dismantling trends, which have detrimentally affected conservation efforts by reducing the action, resources, and finances available. This issue has likewise constrained actions taken for the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef and delayed action on global warming (Morrison, 2017).

Recovery plans help drive recovery action and investment (Legge et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2011; Walsh et al., 2013; Woinarski et al., 2017), and although their success can vary (Bottrill et al., 2011; Buxton et al., 2020), the absence of recovery plans has been linked directly to increased risks of extinctions (Legge et al., 2018). These plans provide comprehensive strategies for species protection and are designed to span multiple election cycles, which reduces the opportunity for political manipulation. Species that are covered by recovery plans are more likely to recover than species without (Greenwald et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2005), and successes are associated with conservation actions commonly identified in recovery or management plans (Bolam et al., 2020; Hoffmann et al., 2010; Rodrigues et al., 2006). One example among many identified in Bolam et al. (2020) is the recovery of Gilbert's Potoroo (Potorous gilbertii) due to actions taken in accordance with the recovery plans for this species (Friend et al., 2016; NESP, 2019). A scorecard on actions implemented and outcomes under the plan was published by the Commonwealth for Gilbert's Potoroo (NESP, 2019)—a level of transparency and accountability not afforded in the case of the Spectacled Flying-fox, for which no such report card has been issued. The Australian Government's 2015 Threatened Species Strategy identified 20 threatened species as priorities and subsequently assessed the extent to which actions taken contributed to their conservation (Fraser et al., 2022). However, the Spectacled Flying-fox was not included in these top 20 priority species in 2018, highlighting potential gaps in prioritization and resource allocation.

Even the most well-crafted recovery plans are doomed to fail without adequate funding (Gibbs & Currie, 2012; Greenwald et al., 2019; Hoekstra et al., 2002; Schwartz, 2008). Research has shown there is a positive correlation between the amount of funding and a species’ population trend (Luther et al., 2016; Malcom & Li, 2018). Accessing federal government expenditure information is difficult (Howell & Rodger, 2018; Iacona et al., 2018; Wintle et al., 2019), but funding allocation for Spectacled Flying-fox was said to be predominantly for population counts and improved radio tracking technology (around AU$1.5 M in 2012–2016; DCCEEW, 2024) to understand drivers and dynamics of Hendra virus carried by flying-foxes (Westcott et al., 2015). This funding (in the order of AU$12 M over 4 years; DCCEEW, 2024) was not directly linked to the recovery actions outlined for the Spectacled Flying-fox. Instead, it was part of broader Commonwealth and state government initiatives (mostly agriculture departments) aimed at Hendra virus research, including “Hendra-virus, human health, and Flying-fox related projects” (DCCEEW, 2024). Specific funding was not made available for most of the 25 key actions identified in the recovery plan (QDERM, 2010). These actions included identifying and mapping foraging areas and roosting requirements, protecting important camps, investigating low-cost crop deterrent systems, and improving public perception through multiple means (see Table 1).

The implementation of plans suffers from inconsistent reporting (Wintle et al., 2019) and a general lack of accountability (Bottrill et al., 2011). While implementation is ultimately the government's responsibility, there appears to be no administrative means to ensure that action is taken. This issue is illustrated by the legal requirement (EPBC Act s279) to review the recovery plan for the Spectacled Flying-fox after 5 years going unmet. Recovery plans, once made, are required to be “in force” (EPBC Act s273), but there is no obligation for plans to be “implemented” (Woinarski et al., 2017), contrasting with the US Endangered Species Act 1973 s.4(f)(1) which requires that they are implemented; we are aware that this requirement is not always met and has required litigation for the Act to be effective (Langpap, 2022). The combined effect of these shortcomings means that organizations identified as responsible for taking action often lack specific guidelines on what exactly is expected of them, the funding and resources available, and the priorities among identified actions and tasks. There is no single organization designated to follow up on these activities, resulting in limited coordination and oversight.

3.2 Shortcomings of state and national legislation

Legislation can be effective in facilitating recovery (Bolam et al., 2020; Greenwald et al., 2019), but it is often hindered by administrative processes. Slow processes worked against the conservation of the Spectacled Flying-fox: it was listed under the EPBC Act as vulnerable in 2002 (Thiriet, 2005), “near threatened” in 2012 (Dennis, 2012; Woinarski et al., 2014), and nominated as endangered in 2015 but not listed until 2019. The endangered listing would have provided greater protection than the previous vulnerable listing. Delays in updating the status were attributed to pressure from the agricultural industry and politicians (McGrath, 2001), reflecting a broader pattern where industrial lobbying pressure, such as that by the fossil fuels industry to avoid listing the Great Barrier Reef as World Heritage in Danger (Morrison et al., 2020b) and to avoid action on climate change (Wright et al., 2021), obstructs conservation efforts. These delays are similar to the avoidance, alteration, or misuse of conservation measures noted in other contexts (Miller et al., 1994). Delays can have severe consequences (Ferreira et al., 2019), including the extinction of species (Greenwald et al., 2019). Decisions to postpone listing may mean that statutory action is no longer required (Whritenour Ando, 1999). Slowness in listing species is essentially passive resistance (Morrison et al., 2020b) as it reinforces low priority for funding and action.

Action on threatened species can be stalled by rhetorical adoption (Fisher & Brown, 2014; Morrison et al., 2020b). This phenomenon is characterized by the publication of recovery plans that are subsequently not implemented and the insufficient or complete lack of funding for necessary conservation actions (e.g., Greenwald et al., 2019; Waldron et al., 2017; Wintle et al., 2019). Australian federal expenditure on biodiversity was 28% lower in 2021 than in 2013 (https://budget.gov.au/; accessed June 14, 2021), and staff numbers in the environment department halved from 2013 to 2019 (ANAO, 2020), both of which affected conservation funding.

The legislative amendments in 2006 that made recovery plans discretionary rather than mandatory also increased the minister's powers to consider socioeconomic and political factors more heavily in conservation decisions. This shift introduced a level of discretion that can discount the conservation status of a species, including its risk of extinction. It has been argued that ministers (and presumably other decision-makers), in exercising a socioeconomic prioritization veto over decisions affecting threatened species, can face public shaming (Farrier et al., 2007), but we argue that the potential for further jeopardizing an endangered species may not perturb them. For instance, from 2013 to 2020, 85% of the Spectacled Flying-fox roost trees within a nationally important camp in the Cairns City central business district in far north Queensland were destroyed, and the animals “dispersed” to enable commercial development, with the Government's approval (http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/referralslist/; e.g., 2019-8424, accessed October 18, 2020). This action was contrary to the intentions of the EPBC Act and mirrors earlier detrimental decisions (McGrath, 2001; Thiriet, 2005). In the landmark 2001 “Flying-fox case,” the first trial under the EPBC Act, an injunction to prevent further government-approved electrocution of SFF was granted by the Federal Court, ruling that such actions were contrary to the legal protections afforded to the species (McGrath, 2001) and establishing legal ramifications of allowing damage to SFF (McGrath, 2001, 2008). Despite this legal precedent, similar decisions are still being made two decades later with no repercussions for the decision-makers, as the current legal framework imposes no penalties for such decisions. The “Statement of Reasons” regarding the dispersal of the Spectacled Flying-fox found that the action “is likely to have a significant impact” yet it was argued that there was “sufficient information to conclude the proposed action is unlikely to have unacceptable impacts” (http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/referralslist/ No 2019/8424, Clauses 41, 62; accessed September 7, 2020), despite contrary evidence which was not mentioned (Edson et al., 2015; Roberts & Eby, 2013). These contradictory statements in the “statement of reasons” could be grounds for a merits appeal, which we discuss below.

3.3 Conservation scientists’ roles in policy

The intertwining of science and politics—often termed “politicization of science” and “scientification of politics”—has been recognized for some decades as an ideological power-play that has moved away from the traditional paradigm of scientific rationality and the ideal of “speaking truth to power” (Hoppe, 1999). Conservation scientists can play roles in changing some of the detrimental circumstances leading to inaction and policy inertia on threatened species, although they may be limited by their employers or their concerns about funding or career paths (Driscoll et al., 2020), or even adverse reactions from peers (Morton, 2017). The decision to take action is highly personal and is determined by many factors, ultimately coming down to subjective decisions and personal circumstances. Conservation actions may also change according to the matter at hand and how confident the scientists are with their roles. In contrast with Morton's views that taking “value positions leaves the discipline vulnerable to criticism that it comprises just another interest group,” Cullen (2006) argues that scientists may “‘hold strong values about desirable outcomes and should be welcome in” political debates. In some circumstances, it may be necessary for conservation scientists to refute “junk science” that is presented in decision-making forums (Cullen, 2006). Ultimately, it is a decision that has to be made by scientists as to whether or not they take active positions on matters.

Conservation scientists are often the most aware of the gaps and deficiencies in the knowledge base related to the species or ecosystems they study. This awareness is key because the inherent uncertainties and ambiguities in the science underpinning proposed recovery actions can complicate decision-making processes. Such complexities may even contribute to the failure to prevent extinction or further decline of species, as decisions that may affect a species’ survival are (almost) always made in the face of uncertainties (Woods & Morey, 2008). These factors can lead to a range of reactions from decision-makers who may not be comfortable with the scientific concepts of uncertainty, probability, and ambiguity, so conservation scientists working in decision-making situations need to be sensitive to their audience. We discuss some methods for resolving these issues below.

4.1 Overcoming rhetorical adoption

The argument that sufficient scientific information ensures decision-makers will make the “right” decisions and that scientists merely act as “honest broker(s)” (Pielke, 2007) is not supported by evidence (Oliver & Cairney, 2019; Toomey et al., 2017). Politics, economics, and social factors are significant in decision-making processes (Hintzen et al., 2020). Consequently, challenges in species protection cannot be resolved simply by providing more data. Instead, a deeper understanding of the science-policy-politics interface, as well as governance threats and power relationships, is essential (Buxton et al., 2020; Hintzen et al., 2020; Morrison et al., 2020b). Industrial lobbying and regulatory capture hold great sway over decision-making (Morrison et al., 2020b), and deliberative and philosophical obstructions, along with competing socioeconomic interests implicit in failures to protect species (Morrison et al., 2020b), are often underestimated as legislation is inherently political (Whritenour Ando, 1999).

Obstruction and obfuscation in conservation decisions can be constructed, deliberate, and political (Thiriet, 2005). A more nuanced understanding of governance and politics is key (Kraus et al., 2021; Morrison et al., 2019a), as is recognition of the tactics of rhetorical adoption and passive resistance (Morrison et al., 2020b). Decision-making processes are often driven by those with vested economic and political interests and disproportionate power (Gilens & Page, 2014; Head, 2019; Stanzel et al., 2020). Conservation proponents often find themselves with comparatively less influence, especially when economic arguments dominate the discourse (Morrison et al., 2020b). Therefore, scientists need to recognize that their evidence, while crucial, is only one component in a broader decision-making process (Oliver & Cairney, 2019). Recognizing this reality, scientists must strategize on how to effectively influence the outcomes of negotiations and decision-making processes.

Conservation scientists play a role in many of the changes needed to redress the situations that arise from a lack of action on species recovery. While it is understood that not all scientists may wish to take more aggressive actions, and some may not feel suited to such roles, it is increasingly important that conservation scientists broaden their understanding of societal working and what others see as priorities and preferences. Conservation scientists may be required by their employers or by courts of law or merits review panels to present expert evidence in a number of situations, but they may choose to go beyond this to advocate for changes to laws, policies, and practices where they feel they can contribute meaningfully, and their employers do not prevent them.

Effective public engagement (Russell-Smith et al., 2015) and proactive action by scientists are needed (Morrison et al., 2020b). Scientists must be persuasive and adaptable (Oliver & Cairney, 2019), and while advice on how scientists can influence policy is prolific, some is arguably flawed (e.g., Oliver & Cairney, 2019). Conservation scientists with appropriate skills and aptitude (Oliver & Cairney, 2019) need to act as advocates to succeed in policy and practice contexts (Warin & Moore, 2020) and speak to “the language of value and economic impacts” (Dunlop, 2014). Scientists who become involved in conservation or advocacy issues must also develop skills to clearly present and interpret data in terms of specified endpoints and consequences (Failing & Gregory, 2003, p. 129). Discerning what is critical and what may be extraneous in these discussions is important (Rabaud et al., 2020). Moreover, scientists need to recognize when they are acting as issue advocates promoting particular viewpoints rather than presenting objective scientific evidence (Wilhere, 2017). Debates on policy can often become adversarial, and conservation scientists need to be aware that lapses in judgment about the meaning and importance of their arguments can be used by adversaries to demolish even the best parts of presented arguments.

There are a number of proactive measures that conservation scientists can advocate for to overcome policy and administrative barriers to effective conservation action. A pivotal starting point is the reform of recovery plan processes (ACF et al., 2015; Bottrill et al., 2011; Legge et al., 2018; Walsh et al., 2013). Mandating government-approved recovery plans and recovery teams would arguably provide substantial influence in decision-making and ensure commitment over several electoral cycles. Historically, many recovery plans have not been implemented (ACF et al., 2015; Bottrill et al., 2011; Walsh et al., 2013). To address this, implementation should be explicitly required by legislation. Successful plans are commonly led by dedicated recovery teams and champions (e.g., Black-throated Finch Recovery Team, 2007; CoA, 2019; Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, 2016; OEH NSW, 2012), akin to “facilitative leadership” that is essential to good governance outcomes for recovery (Ayambire & Pittman, 2022; Kraus et al., 2021). Where recovery teams are not formed in due course, it should be the responsibility of governments to ensure their formation. Should governments fail in this duty, it becomes incumbent upon the authors of the recovery plans—often conservation scientists themselves—to call governments to account.

Conservation legislation needs revision, as evidenced by the EPBC Act (APEEL, 2017a; Auditor General, 2020; EDO & HSI, 2018; McCormack, 2018; Samuel, 2020). The case study presented here is an example of policy and legislative failures worldwide (Evans et al., 2016). Legislation should require recovery plans to be in force and implemented, accountability of decision-makers, reporting on plan implementation and outcomes, and merits review provisions (which we discuss below). The results of recovery actions should be published periodically so that progress is documented, transparent, and public.

We argue that actions taken to help species recover from their population declines need to become accountable and auditable, perhaps through formal auditing processes as suggested in the Samuel review of the EPBC Act (Samuel, 2020). This change could address recurring failures within ever-changing government departments to schedule and prioritize recovery plans and other recovery actions.

Conservation scientists working on threatened species may be the ones best placed to assess whether sufficient and appropriate action is being taken. As shown in our review, there have been a reasonable number of scientific articles on the failures of recovery plans, but scientific articles are rarely read by decision-makers and, therefore, may not inform their decisions. Thus, conservation scientists need to consider how best to expand the reach of their work, whether through articles published in responsible media, information papers, policy papers, summaries for decision-makers, or a range of other available options.

4.2 Flawed decision or insufficient weight of evidence?

Challenging flawed decisions is fraught with difficulties. Although the EPBC Act has addressed issues related to standing and substantive laws, significant obstacles remain, such as the threat of adverse cost orders and insufficient financial resources (McGrath, 2008). Implementing merits review (McGrath, 2008) could help resolve problems like the ones highlighted in the case of the endangered Spectacled Flying-fox dispersals and roost destruction. The absence of a merits review process is contrary to federal guidelines, which recommend the inclusion of merits review where legislation confers discretionary powers (PM&C, 2017, cl. 5.47). Judicial review is often inadequate in these situations, as it cannot address the poor quality of a decision if the merit of the decision falls outside the jurisdiction of the court (McGrath, 2008). For example, if the decision-maker has “had regard to” relevant matters, as they did in the statement of reasons for allowing the dispersal of Spectacled Flying-foxes in Cairns, despite no evidence to support the judgment, this poor decision is still difficult to challenge in court (APEEL, 2017b; McGrath, 2008, p. 353). Allowing merits review could improve decision-making, as decision-makers would be required to carefully evaluate and formally justify their decisions, enhancing accountability and transparency (McGrath, 2008, p. 353; Samuel, 2020).

While we do not advocate that conservation scientists should themselves initiate merits review action, it may be incumbent upon them to support such actions by providing expert evidence and advice during the merits review process. The evidence presented must be clear, unambiguous, and grounded in robust scientific research. When conservation scientists appear before a merits review panel, they need to understand how to effectively communicate their evidence. The goal is to ensure that those evaluating the merits of the case are not left with any confusion or uncertainty regarding the status and plight of the threatened species in question. Understanding how to present evidence clearly and addressing the full range of issues is imperative, which is the focus of the next section.

4.3 Conservation science is necessary but not sufficient

Scientific evidence alone is unlikely to persuade decision-makers, as social, economic, and political factors also play significant roles (Hintzen et al., 2020). When conservation scientists and practitioners are involved in decision-making processes due to their subject expertise, they must present robust arguments to influence political decisions effectively (Toomey et al., 2017). In presenting scientific information, it is important to avoid common mistakes (Failing & Gregory, 2003). These include not understanding competing interests and lobbying power among stakeholders, underestimating society's willingness to protect biodiversity (Failing & Gregory, 2003; Woods & Morey, 2008), misjudging what constitutes acceptable risk (Offer-Westort et al., 2020), and not accounting for uncertainties associated with inadequate information (Woods & Morey, 2008). A consequence of these mistakes is demonstrated in the case of the Spectacled Flying-fox in Cairns. Despite evidence presented to decision-makers showing that the Spectacled Flying-fox was in serious decline (Westcott et al., 2018) and that proposals to the council and government would destroy what had been identified as “nationally important roosts” (Department of the Environment, 2015), authorities made decisions to disperse the Spectacled Flying-foxes and destroy most of their roosts, albeit in compliance with the code of practice (Department of Environment and Science, 2020). Once these decisions were made, they became entrenched policies, a situation that is not uncommon. Authorities often defend their policies because they feel obligated to defend them, even to the point of disregarding further scientific advice and seeking alternative “expert” opinions that may not be directly relevant to the case at hand (as in other examples Dunlop, 2017; Dunlop & Radaelli, 2018; Warin & Moore, 2020).

Conservation scientists, if presenting to a merits review panel or to a court of law, need to be confident in their facts. They must also recognize that they will be presenting their cases to a nonscientific audience who may not fully understand concepts such as scientific uncertainty, probability, and likelihood of further decline or extinction. Panel members or judges may also hold different, potentially negative, views about the species of interest and the priorities for action. Therefore, conservation scientists must be adept at explaining complex scientific principles in simple, layperson's terms.