This tiny native mouse is legally considered both dead and alive – Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Report on Legislative Loopholes Undermining Australian Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to SDG 15 (Life on Land)

A significant administrative loophole within Australian environmental law has created a paradoxical situation where rediscovered species, previously declared extinct, are afforded no legal protection. This legislative gap directly contravenes the principles of Sustainable Development Goal 15, which calls for urgent action to halt biodiversity loss and protect threatened species. The current framework fails to provide a safety net for these “zombie” species, leaving them vulnerable to habitat destruction and undermining national conservation efforts.

Analysis of Systemic Failures in Species Protection

Case Study 1: The Dual Status of Pseudomys gouldii

The case of the native mouse species, Pseudomys gouldii, exemplifies the bureaucratic conflict with conservation objectives. This single species is simultaneously listed under two different classifications:

• Gould’s Mouse: Officially listed as “extinct” for over a century.
• The Djoongari: Officially listed as “vulnerable” and found in isolated populations.

A genetic study confirmed that these are the same species. While the “vulnerable” listing for the Djoongari provides some protection and access to recovery funding, the concurrent “extinct” listing for Gould’s mouse highlights a critical flaw. This discrepancy demonstrates a failure to adapt legal frameworks to new scientific evidence, weakening the integrity of conservation lists and impeding progress towards SDG 15.5 (Protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species).

Case Study 2: Rediscovered Flora and the Threat to SDG 15

Several plant species have been rediscovered but remain in a state of legal limbo, lacking federal protection due to their “extinct” status. This directly threatens terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.

• Esperance dog weed (Opercularia acolytantha): Removed from Western Australia’s extinction list in 2017 but remains on the national list.
• Hymenophyllum whitei: A fern reclassified as critically endangered in Queensland in 2019 but not updated at the national level.
• Myriocephalus nudus: A herb rediscovered in 2022, currently pending assessment at the state level.
• Atriplex acutiloba: A saltbush rediscovered multiple times in New South Wales but still listed as extinct in the state.

The delay in updating these listings means these species and their habitats can be legally cleared or developed, representing a direct failure to protect and restore terrestrial ecosystems as mandated by SDG 15.

Institutional Weakness and Implications for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

The Consequence of Administrative Lag

The primary issue stems from a systemic delay in communication and action between state and federal environmental bodies. As noted by plant conservation ecologist Dr. Chantelle Doyle, a species listed as extinct is effectively a “non-entity” in legal terms, receiving no resources for protection or research. This administrative inertia represents a failure of institutional effectiveness and accountability, a key target of SDG 16. The inability of government institutions to respond swiftly to scientific discoveries undermines public trust and the rule of law in environmental governance.

Recommendations for Legislative Reform

Aligning National Law with Sustainable Development Goals

To address this critical gap and align Australian law with its commitments under the SDGs, researchers propose two primary legislative solutions:

1. Amend federal and state legislation to ensure that species listed as “extinct” are automatically granted protected status as a threatened species upon rediscovery. This would eliminate the legal limbo and provide immediate protection.
2. Adopt the legislative model currently used in Western Australia, where a rediscovered species is immediately and automatically re-listed as threatened, retaining that status unless a ministerial review determines otherwise.

Implementing these changes is essential for building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions (SDG 16) capable of protecting Australia’s unique biodiversity and fulfilling the objectives of SDG 15.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  This is the most prominent SDG addressed in the article. The core issue revolves around the protection of terrestrial species, biodiversity loss, and the prevention of extinction. The article discusses the status of several species (Gould’s mouse, Esperance dog weed, etc.) on national and state threatened species lists, highlighting failures in the system designed to protect them.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This SDG is relevant because the article focuses on the bureaucratic and legislative failures that create a “legal limbo” for rediscovered species. It critiques the effectiveness and accountability of government institutions responsible for environmental law and species protection. The call for “tweaks to federal and state environmental legislation” directly relates to strengthening institutions and creating effective laws for sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.”

     The article directly addresses this target by highlighting a critical flaw in the protection of threatened species. Species that are rediscovered but remain listed as “extinct” receive no legal protection, which undermines efforts to prevent their actual extinction. The article states, “Under national environment law, extinct species have no legal protection,” and this loophole means rediscovered species could be “destroyed legally” through land clearing or development.

   • Target 15.9: “By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts.”

     The article demonstrates a failure to integrate biodiversity values into national planning and legal processes. The bureaucratic lag in updating species lists means that the existence and value of rediscovered species are not accounted for in environmental legislation or development decisions. The suggestion to adopt Western Australia’s legislation, where a rediscovered species is “immediately listed as threatened again,” is a clear call to better integrate these values into the legal framework.

2. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.”

     The article critiques the ineffectiveness of the institutions responsible for maintaining threatened species lists. The “existential quirk of bureaucracy” where a mouse is “both extinct and alive” is a prime example of institutional inefficiency. The delays are significant; for instance, the Esperance dog weed was removed from WA’s list in 2017 but remains on the national list. This points to a lack of effective and timely processes within the relevant government departments at both state and federal levels.

   • Target 16.B: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.”

     The current environmental laws, as described, create a policy gap that effectively discriminates against rediscovered species, leaving them unprotected. The article describes this as a “big legal gap” where a rediscovered species “doesn’t get anything.” The call to close this “legal limbo” is a call for policies that are more just and effective in promoting the sustainable development goal of biodiversity conservation.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• For Target 15.5:

  An implied indicator is the status of species on national and state conservation lists (e.g., Red List Index). The article’s entire premise is based on the inaccuracy of these lists. Progress could be measured by the number of species whose status is correctly updated from “extinct” to a threatened category (vulnerable, endangered, etc.) after rediscovery. The article names several species that would be part of this indicator: Gould’s mouse, Esperance dog weed, Hymenophyllum whitei, Myriocephalus nudus, and Atriplex acutiloba.

• For Target 16.6:

  A clear implied indicator is the time lag between the scientific rediscovery of a species and the official update of its legal conservation status. The article provides concrete examples of this lag, such as the multi-year delay for the Esperance dog weed and Hymenophyllum whitei. Reducing this time lag would be a direct measure of improved institutional effectiveness and accountability.

• For Targets 15.9 and 16.B:

  An implied indicator is the number of jurisdictions (federal or state) that have adopted legislation for the automatic protection of rediscovered species. The article presents the Western Australian legislation as a model solution where a rediscovered species “is immediately listed as threatened again.” Progress could be measured by tracking whether the federal government and other states adopt similar legal mechanisms, thereby closing the “legal limbo” and better integrating biodiversity value into law.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: abc.net.au