The 'Back on Track' Criteria
The 'Back on Track' criteria are an adaptation of the criteria in Optimizing allocation of management resources for wildlife (Marsh et al., 2006).
Bilby © Environmental Protection
Agency
To score species (species assessments), 3 sets of criteria (with 7 sub criteria) were developed to account for scientific, management and social aspects of species conservation in Queensland. The 3 sets of criteria; probability of extinction, consequences of extinction and potential for affecting successful recovery, were adapted from Marsh et al. (2006) to enable a state-wide approach to species assessments with a greater level of practicality and simplicity.
Experts score all species against the seven sub criteria. Experts are requested to score each criterion from 1 to 4.
Download a description of the scores for all criteria.
1.a. Probability of extinction
This criterion assesses the risk of extinction for a species. Experts are asked to select which IUCN threatened species category best reflects the current status of the species. For example, a species assessed as 'Endangered' is given a score of 4 and a species considered 'least concern' a score of 1. The scoring of this criterion provides an up-to-date assessment of the status of a species, which may differ from its status under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992.
2. Consequences of extinction
Lakefield National Park
© Environmental Protection Agency
This criterion consists of three sub criteria that assess the ecological, global and social consequences of a species becoming extinct in Queensland.
2.a. Ecological redundancy: Experts are asked to assess, to the best of their knowledge, what role a species plays in its ecosystem.
2.b. Endemicity: This criterion assesses what proportion of the global population of the species occurs in Queensland. Species with the majority of their range in Queensland receive a score of 4 and those species with less than 15% of their global population in Queensland receive a score of 1.
2.c. Social values: This criterion assesses the value of the species to humans. This includes non-use values (the value of the species existing in the wild) and use values (the value of the species for consumptive or non-consumptive use).
3. Potential for successful recovery
Pallid long-eared bat
© Bruce Thomson
This criteria assesses our understanding of why the species may be decline (the threats), whether it is possible to manage these threats, and the amount of time and effort required to recover the species.
Return to the 'Back on track' main page3.a. Knowledge of processes threatening species: The level of knowledge of the threats affecting a species. The success of species conservation projects depends on an understanding of the threatening processes.
3.b. Capacity to affect recovery by controlling threatening processes: Some species have threats that can be more easily targeted and mitigated. Other threatening processes, such as global warming, are impossible to control via unilateral management intervention based in Queensland. There is a need to ensure that the actions undertaken will have a realistic and achievable benefit to species recovery and conservation.
3.c. Need for ongoing management (as distinct from monitoring): The amount of resources required to recover the species. When resources are scarce, it may be more appropriate to assign management priority to species for which the threatening processes can be countered by a single action rather than expensive long-term management.
Last updated: 04 January 2007
