Graphs, maps and tables

Showing results 51 - 60 of 65
Figure 51 Translocations documented in Australia
Figure 52 (a) Increase in the number of safe havens and the species represented in them since 1990. (b) Locations of havens for threatened mammals that are susceptible to predation by cats and foxes
Figure 53 Expenditure on biodiversity conservation and research programs by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, 2013–14 to 2022–23
Stacked bar chart showing that the National Landcare Programe has been and remains the single most important ongoing contribution, but has been decreasing steadily since 2013–14, and the trend in the total has been uneven, but generally shows a reduction

CERF = Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities program; NERP = National Environmental Research Program; NESP = National Environmental Science Program; NHT = National Heritage Trust; NLP = National Landcare Program; NRM = national resource management

  1. Includes funding the foundation, and water quality and crown-of-thorns control funding.
  2. Includes NERP (to 2014–15) and NESP (2015–23), which are not funded through the Biodiversity Conservation Division.
  3. Includes NRM Planning for Climate Change Stream 1 and 2; NRM programs for Improving Your Local Parks and Environment, environmental accounts capital, Communities Environment Program and Environment Restoration Fund; and NRM Oceans Leadership Package and NRM Raine Island Recovery Project.
  4. Includes NRM Bushfire Wildlife and Habitat Recovery programs and Bushfire Recovery for Species and Landscapes programs.

Note: Excludes most funding outside the Biodiversity Conservation Division (with the exception of CERF/NERP/NESP funding).

Source: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, May 2021

Download
Go to data.gov
For more information, go toManagement investment
Figure 54 Locations of Regional Land Partnerships projects
Figure 55 Taxa targeted by Regional Land Partnerships projects
Figure 56 Proportions of endemic Australian plants, birds and mammals assessed under the IUCN Red List and the EPBC Act
Bar graph showing that under both IUCN and EPBC, a larger fraction of mammal taxa have been assessed than birds, and more birds than plants. More of all have been assessed against IUCN than EPBC.

EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; IUCN = International Union for Conservation of Nature

Source: Republished with the permission of CSIRO Publishing, from Australian Journal of Botany, CSIRO (Australia) Academy of Science, 2020; permissions conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc

Download
Go to data.gov
For more information, go toInformation and monitoring
Figure 57 Outcomes from 2-way monitoring of threatened species
Figure 58 Average scores out of 5 for each of 9 metrics for the extent and adequacy of monitoring, evaluated for all threatened taxa in 5 vertebrate groups
Bar chart showing that scores are generally high for mammals, birds and frogs, low for fish and lower again for reptiles.

Source: Woinarski 2018a. Republished with the permission of CSIRO Publishing, from Monitoring threatened species and ecological communities, 2018; permissions conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc

Download
Go to data.gov
For more information, go toInformation and monitoring
Figure 59 Critterpedia photos
Figure 60 Density of citizen science programs for threatened species in Australia, per 10 km × 10 km grid cell, to 2017