A number of the components assessed here were considered to be at such low condition status that they could not decline further on the assessment scale, and so were assessed as Stable. These ‘poorest of the poor’ include, for example, oyster reefs in the SW and SE regions which are considered for all BYL719 practical purposes to be extinct (Beck et al., 2011)

with likely major historic impacts on biofiltration services in the estuaries and bays, and species that are almost locally extirpated in some areas, such as some exploited species of sharks or rays and some mangrove habitats and species. While the condition of five habitats, five species groups, and one ecological process was scored as zero in the Worst10% of places, these extreme examples each only occurred in a single region, except for mangrove habitats and mangrove species which were assigned Worst10% condition scores of zero in the E, SE and SW regions. Of the components that occur in more than one region, 14 biodiversity or ecosystem health components are in Poor (or worse)

condition. Of these, 10 components are related to the past widespread impacts of fishing or hunting activities, and only the condition of fur seals (now protected) was assessed as nationally improving from a low base. SGI-1776 order In the Worst10% of examples, 20 components (mainly habitats and species groups) were assigned as Very Poor condition in more than one region, indicating a potential set of issues of high national significance. Some of these components considered to be in Very Poor condition are already protected under the EPBC Act and are the subject of formal population recovery plans (eg the Great White Shark, Carcharodon carcharias; EPBC, 2014), although most remain to be addressed cAMP in a coordinated national manner. The number of such ‘worst of the worst’ examples, and the number of components that continue to decline in condition, suggest that further and more focused national restoration and recovery investments will be needed beyond the current programs for Australia’s formally declared threatened

species. This is also consistent with the need for a more ecosystem-based approach, where ecosystem structure and function and maintenance of the diversity of species and their natural functional relationships, habitats and productivity are the specific targets for marine ecosystem management (Rice et al., 2012, de Jonge et al., 2012 and Keith et al., 2013) rather than only species and habitats at high risk of extinction, or resource species. The large number of biodiversity components in poor condition and declining should provide impetus for a review of national priorities in Australia’s ecosystem-based management and monitoring programs related to the dominant pressures of climate change, ports and related coastal development, and fishing.