SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS

1.      Australian marine environment

1.1.   

Australia’s marine jurisdiction, including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), is about twice the size of the Australian mainland and ranges from the sub-Antarctic to the tropics.  

1.1.1.

It includes a wide range of habitats including estuaries, coastal lagoons, supralittoral, intertidal and subtidal habitats, the continental shelf and slope and abyssal depths.  

1.1.1.

The diversity of substrates is huge, including soft sediments, rocky reefs, coral reefs and vegetated substrates (including seagrasses, saltmarshes, mangroves and algal beds).

1.2.

Organisms are found throughout the water column from the sea surface to the seafloor and into the substrate.

1.3.

There is a high degree of connectivity in marine ecosystems, including the integration of inshore shelf waters and offshore waters, and the land-sea interface. Thus, artificial administrative/ political boundaries are not a good a basis for management.

 2.      The invertebrate fauna   

2.1.

Invertebrates comprise all members of the animal kingdom except vertebrates. They are not a natural grouping but consist of many major groups of vastly different organisms.

2.2.

The seas contain all but one of the known animal phyla and invertebrates comprise the great majority of marine biodiversity.

2.3.

Invertebrates range in size from microscopic to several metres in length and some colonial organisms (e.g., corals, sponges) are particularly conspicuous.

2.4.   

All exploited marine taxa depend on invertebrates either directly or indirectly and marine ecosystems would collapse without their services.  

2.5.   

Invertebrates, especially corals, are a major source of tourist income, and many others (e.g., prawns, abalone, scallops, oysters, lobsters, squid) are commercially important, as are products from some (e.g., pearls).

2.6.

Of the known fauna, a large percentage of the invertebrates found in Australian waters (including the EEZ) are endemic to the region.

3.      State of knowledge

3.1.

The state of taxonomic, biological and ecological knowledge regarding marine invertebrates is generally poor. It is most comprehensive in shallow coastal waters in SE Australia and least known in deeper waters. Knowledge varies with location, habitat and taxonomic group.

3.1.1.

There are large gaps in our understanding of even the relatively well-studied macrofaunal groups while many taxa are very poorly known to virtually completely unstudied.

3.1.2.

Many more marine invertebrate taxa remain undescribed than have names.

3.1.3.

Reasons why our marine invertebrate fauna is so poorly known include:

Many studies of marine organisms typically focus on fishes with, at best, only the largest of the invertebrates being considered.

There are very few experts on marine invertebrates in Australia, despite the diversity of the fauna.

3.1.3.3.

Little funding is available for research. The lack of biological information frequently necessitates the use of exemplars (often from the northern hemisphere) when attempting to extrapolate biological features or predict ecological outcomes.

3.2.

The available knowledge is not readily accessible, the few guidebooks dealing with only a small fraction of the common species and most of the literature is in relatively obscure scientific publications. For most groups there is not even and up to date, authoritative list of species available.  

3.3.

The intertidal and shallow water faunas are best known, while the deep-sea fauna is virtually unknown. Most parts of the Australian marine environment are poorly sampled or unsampled for invertebrates, especially the deep-sea, offshore islands, seamounts and banks.  

3.3.1.

In general, the faunas in tropical ecosystems are more poorly known than temperate ones. Coral reefs are relatively well studied compared with most other ecosystems, but this is only true with regards to corals and fish, not for other invertebrates or inter-reefal areas.  

3.3.2.

The microscopic fauna in all habitats is very poorly studied, especially the interstitial fauna (meiofauna).  

3.4. 

The majority of data relating to marine invertebrates resides in museum collections.

3.5.

There is great variation in the data (and thus our knowledge) available between groups of organisms, regions and habitats.

3.6.

There is a need to synthesise existing data and collate biological data with physical/oceanographic data.

4.      Impediments

4.1.

There is a serious lack of resources in the provision of taxonomic studies and services.

4.1.1.

Funding for taxonomic studies has declined, as has the number of taxonomists working on marine invertebrates (in museums and universities) and many currently employed are approaching retirement.

4.1.2.

University courses have reduced appropriate courses at undergraduate level.

4.1.3.

Consequently, there are usually significant difficulties with identification.  

4.1.4.

Few keys and guides are available to identify Australia’s marine invertebrates and those available are restricted to only a few groups.

4.1.5.

There are no checklists for many groups.  

4.1.6. 

There are very few specialists in Australia and several significant groups have no specialists. 

4.2.

There is a serious lack of information about virtually all marine ecosystems and communities, including their composition, natural variability, biological processes within them etc.

4.3.

There is little or no information on the ecology and basic biology of most marine invertebrates, even for many abundant, ecologically or commercially important taxa. 

4.4.

The lack of infrastructure is impeding research effort.

4.4.1. 

A major problem (for marine science in general) is the very small number of research vessels available to Australian scientists. The high cost and high demand on the very limited facilities available makes it almost impossible for most “basic” offshore and deep-sea research work to be undertaken.  

4.4.1.1.

There is also little funding available to utilise the existing research vessels and these are difficult to access by non-CSIRO scientists.  

4.4.2.

Much ecological research is focussed around urban centres and marine stations on the GBR. Islands and external territories (with the possible exception of Antarctica) are, overall, not well studied.  

4.4.2.1.

This is in large part due to a lack of accessible marine stations in most bioregions, a lack of which also hinders research and teaching.

4.4.2.2.

Other stations located around Australia include fisheries research stations and field stations for particular universities and access to these by outside workers and students can be difficult. With the exception of the fisheries research stations, all, including those on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), lack access to guaranteed long-term funding to ensure that facilities are maintained and upgraded over time.

4.4.2.3.

Research in areas lacking a marine station markedly increases costs and precludes many research activities.

4.4.3.

There is a serious lack of access to existing information. Knowledge sharing and access to information are key issues that need to be addressed as quickly as possible by the facilitation of programs that will increase public access through the production of printed and web-based information.  

4.4.3.1.

While there is a considerable amount of information about Australia’s marine invertebrate fauna, much of this is only accessible to a few experts.

4.4.3.2.

Some programs (such as The Global Biodiversity Information Facility - GBIF) are global in scope but Australian input will be vital (the Australian component of GBIF is ABRS’s ABIF, which currently receives very little funding).

4.4.3.3.

Museums are struggling to maintain reasonable curatorial standards and do not have the resources to database their collections (the repository of most of the basic information on marine invertebrates) so that information can be electronically available via the WWW for:

• Use by decision makers and the community at large.

• The identification of sampling gaps so that surveys could be more effectively planned.

• The provision of an historical record.

4.4.3.4.

University, museum and other relevant institutional libraries, are continually forced to make cuts in journal and book acquisitions so it is often difficult to obtain specialist literature.

5.      Consequences of our lack of knowledge

5.1.

While a large number of threats (ranging from local impacts to global; e.g. global warming) have been recognised as impacting on the marine invertebrate fauna, in reality it is difficult to assess the magnitude of the problem because:

5.1.1.

Changes to the fauna in most locations have not been adequately documented.

5.1.2.

The dynamics of natural variation are not well understood. 

5.2.

Loss of components of the invertebrate fauna may lead to losses of processes and functions with the eventual possible collapse of the ecosystems.

5.2.1.

Flow on effects could occur throughout the marine system with impacts on commercial stocks, loss of tourism and recreational uses.  

5.3.

Managing marine ecosystems will be largely guesswork without better knowledge. The objective of an adequate conservation policy for marine biodiversity cannot be realised without a much better knowledge of the components of that diversity, the habitats it occupies and what its biological requirements are.  

5.3.1.

The stated aim of marine protected areas is to maintain biodiversity but decisions are made regarding the placement and management of these areas in ignorance of the composition and biological requirements of the majority of the fauna.  

5.4.

Many potential resources are currently under-utilised as a result of our ignorance of the fauna.

6.      Threats and conservation

6.1.

Threats to the marine environment are at very different scales ranging from local disturbance to the worldwide impacts of global warming. Thus, strategies for dealing with identified threats must often be multifaceted and range from local to global in scale.

6.1.1.

Many threatening processes (and solutions to them) are still very poorly understood.

6.1.2.

Synergistic effects are probably common.

6.1.3.

Threats can be indirect and complex.

6.1.4.

Solutions would often require substantial changes to current practices (e.g., reduction of sediment load in nearshore environments would require changes in farming practices; drastic alteration of communities on the continental shelf would require substantial changes in some commercial fishing practices).

6.1.5.

Threatening processes that affect marine invertebrates typically impact generally on all marine life forms (e.g., pollution, habitat modification through development), but some have more serious impacts on invertebrates (e.g. dredging, benthic trawling).

6.1.5.1.

For bottom communities trawling is extremely damaging through its destruction of the epifaunal communities (sponges, corals, echinoderms, molluscs, crustaceans etc.) on the seafloor. Much of the Australian continental shelf is probably already heavily impacted by this activity and the communities markedly changed as a result, probably to the detriment of the sustainability of fish stocks.

6.1.5.2.

Scallop dredging destroys epifauna and shallow infaunal communities and has been shown to be unsustainable.

6.1.6.

Most obvious impacts related to pollution, developments etc. are in coastal areas.  

6.2.

Offshore oil and gas exploration and extraction are currently minor impacts compared with the fishing industry, and tends to be more rigorously controlled.

6.2.1.

Offshore mining for sand or minerals can be very damaging at local scales.

6.2.2.

The extraction of minerals from the deep-sea is potentially very damaging to a largely unknown habitat and fauna.

6.3.

Conservation measures must consider the interconnectiveness of the coastal region with the land and freshwater systems.

6.3.1.

The often vulnerable, narrow transitional habitats (particularly semi-terrestrial areas), and their faunas, tend to be ignored or forgotten by both researchers and management agencies, who are commonly divided according to a terrestrial / marine dichotomy.  

6.4.

There are considerable differences in the levels of conservation concern for, and the legislative recognition of, invertebrates between the Commonwealth, states and territories. This lack of a consistent or coordinated approach to marine biodiversity conservation in Australia is a serious hindrance to implementing national strategies.  

6.4.1.

As with terrestrial ecosystems, there are many different agencies that have jurisdiction over the marine environment, or parts of it leading to often ill-informed ad hoc decisions and the inability to develop comprehensive, long term, co-ordinated strategies.

6.4.1.1.

While the complete removal of inter-departmental/ inter-agency/state-Commonwealth boundaries and rivalry is probably unrealistic, increased levels of cooperation would greatly increase efficiency.

6.4.1.2.

Problems include conflicting approaches to, or uses of, marine resources, even within single agencies (e.g., exploitation vs conservation).

6.5.

Due to the difficulty of dealing with the conservation of all threatened marine invertebrates on a species basis, there is a need to focus on protecting and managing identified threatened systems at a variety of scales, from assemblages and communities (including habitats) through to larger scales such as “ecosystems”, bioregions, etc.

Recommendations

1.      Policy

1.1.

While the Australian Government has adopted the Oceans Policy, the Marine Science and Technology Plan and the Coastal Marine and Planning Program which all relate to the conservation of marine biodiversity (of which invertebrates are the substantive part), funding and resources for the implementation of these polices needs to be made available.

2.      Conservation

2.1.

The taxon approach for conserving marine invertebrates is generally neither a practical nor cost effective strategy for the great majority of taxa. However, it can be a useful approach in some circumstances, such as for:

2.1.1.

Taxa harvested (including by collectors) or impacted indirectly by other exploitative activities (can be managed by specific controls on numbers taken or methods and/or effort employed);

2.1.2.

Taxa that have narrow geographic ranges (once identified, specific measures can be implemented); and

2.1.3.

Taxa that live in highly specialised environments threatened by specific, manageable, threatening processes (targeted reduction in, or cessation of, impact(s) may be possible).  

2.2.

Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies should attempt to coordinate threatened species listing and management through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), with the goal of moving towards uniform threatened taxon legislation and a single national threatened taxon list.

2.2.1.

The listing of threatened species is not practical for many marine invertebrates, where high heterogeneity and poor knowledge do not generally provide sufficient data to assess their status according to current IUCN or similar criteria.

2.2.2.

A category of “insufficiently known” may need to be used to enable listing of those taxa suspected to be at risk, but which lack adequate quantitative data to assign them with certainty to another category.

2.2.3.

Australian taxa listed by IUCN should be assessed and considered for listing by the relevant agencies.

2.2.4.

Expert panels should be established to recommend appropriate conservation strategies for major taxonomic groups, especially those in which taxa have been identified as being vulnerable or at risk.

2.3.

We recommend that, in general terms, encouraging the adoption of habitat-based conservation strategies, based on IMCRA's, are more effective than taxon-based approaches.

2.3.1.

However, if the focus is restricted mainly to readily identifiable, high profile habitats, a large proportion of marine invertebrate diversity will be neglected.

2.3.2.

Conservation of large areas encompassing a range of habitats is the most desirable strategy.

2.3.3.

Such areas should be carefully placed to maximise their inclusiveness of taxon diversity and to cover geomorphological and environmental regimes.

2.3.4.

A minimal requirement would be one or more such marine protected area(s) in each bioregion. Duplication is essential to ensure effective monitoring.

2.3.5.

Conserved habitats may deteriorate over time given likely anthropogenic impacts so long-term monitoring is necessary.

2.4.

Effective management of threats that affect marine invertebrates will require a coordinated approach from management agencies.

2.4.1.

Because trawling is identified as a serious threat to the benthic epifauna of coastal and offshore (Continental Shelf and Slope, seamounts, banks etc.) areas we recommend that:

2.4.1.1.

Gear be modified to decrease damage;

2.4.1.2.

Restrict the areas where trawling is allowed;

2.4.1.3.

Multiple no-go areas (e.g., as part of marine protected areas) that extend across the shelf and slope should be set up in each bioregion. Such areas need to be effectively policed with adequate deterrents in place.

2.4.2.

More attention should to be given to preventing habitat destruction- and changes to catchments which then impact downstream in terms of changed hydrography and increased rates of run off.

2.4.3.

The tourism industry should be even more aware that it too impacts marine habitats by its activities. These impacts need to be continually reviewed and the activities causing them revised.

2.4.4.

Environmental impact statements concerning mining activities should give greater attention to impacts on the benthic and pelagic invertebrate communities likely to be affected.

2.4.5.

The aquaculture industry needs to be effectively regulated to ensure that it does not impact adversely on natural habitats and the invertebrates they contain.

3.      Research

3.1.

Basic research is necessary for the gathering of adequate information for the formulation of informed conservation and management strategies.

3.1.1.

This report highlights the large gaps in our knowledge base - even in the dominant invertebrate groups, and very large parts of Australian waters (including the EEZ) that remain unsampled. To obtain a better understanding of the marine invertebrate fauna the following are necessary:

3.1.1.1.

Increased basic taxonomic research (will require increased funding, ideally through ABRS) on marine invertebrates, especially in those currently poorly known groups.

3.1.1.2.

Determine biodiversity baselines by surveys and inventories.

3.1.1.3.

Identify areas of high diversity and endemism (and hence of conservation significance) by accessing data in museum collections, by survey and by phylogenetic and genetic research.

3.1.1.4.

Increased general and specialist inventory of marine invertebrates in Australian waters, especially in those areas (or for those groups) currently extremely poorly sampled - e.g., in deep-waters and the tropics (especially NW Australia), or the meiofauna, and other small-sized marine animals from most habitats.

3.1.1.5.

Such surveys should include all bioregions and transitional zones.

3.1.2.

Increased basic research (and therefore funding) on the basic biology (feeding, breeding, habitat preferences, behaviour etc.) of marine invertebrates, especially the ecologically important groups.

3.1.2.1.

Greater encouragement of whole-animal studies on marine invertebrates in our universities.

3.1.3.

Increased basic research (and therefore funding) on the ecology of marine invertebrates.

3.1.3.1.

Encouragement and funding of ecological studies on marine invertebrates and marine ecosystems in universities.

3.1.3.2.

Test the robustness of using surrogates (such as physical features - e.g., sediment, or other biota such as marine vegetation or other animals - e.g., corals) as the basis for predicting benthic invertebrate communities.

3.1.3.3.

Examine the effects of anthropogenic changes in ecosystems (e.g., increased nutrients, reduced freshwater runoff, effects of global warming etc.), especially in bays, estuaries and shallow coastal waters.

3.2.

Assessment and monitoring are activities that provide essential information for informed management.

3.2.1.

They require well-formulated methodology with rigorous scientific standards.  

3.2.2.

In order that assessments can be expedited, baseline inventories should be conducted.

3.2.2.1.

Faunal inventories using rigorous sampling protocols and covering a wide range of invertebrates should be conducted in representative habitats (especially on major bays and estuaries) in major biogeographic areas around Australia. These will serve as benchmarks for assessing change in faunal composition, assisting in the detection of introduced taxa and community change due to anthropogenic impacts.

3.2.3.

Survey for introduced species should be against a background of comprehensive faunal inventory with the involvement of specialist collectors and taxonomists.

3.2.4.

Initiate long term monitoring sites in locations around Australia, in at least one location representative of each of the major bioregions.

3.2.4.1.

There is a need to establish that marine parks really work. Long term monitoring is needed with comparisons using control sites in the same general area.

3.2.4.2.

Set up a national register of coastal wetlands so that changes can be monitored.

3.2.4.3.

Community groups could play an important role in monitoring changes in benthic communities but, to be effective, such work must be undertaken with the involvement of appropriate scientists.