Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00930:reg:2:p40
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2024L00930
Segment Type: reg
Provision Reference: reg 2 (pt 40/48)
Character Range: 171250–174342

Academies of Sciences 2017). An important component to this is the use of early warning indicators for adverse impacts, including health and population measures (e.g., changes in southern right whale calving intervals), given that reliably measuring trends in marine mammal populations over time scales that enable appropriate management responses is often inherently difficult.
Assessing cumulative effects from various threats or stressors in the context of species recovery fundamentally requires a management focus on reducing the current risk to a species. However, some stressors such as climate change or persistent pollutants that operate over long timescales (i.e., years to decades) cannot be mitigated rapidly. Consequently, this may require a greater focus on managing stressors that can be reduced in the short term, such as anthropogenic underwater noise, entanglement and/or vessel strike (Pirotta et al. 2022). Empirical data or mechanistic predictions of the dose-response of individuals to threats and interactions among stressors are vital to informing a cumulative effects framework. For example, a conceptual framework for assessing combined effects of multiple stressors has been applied to North Atlantic right whales which feed on limited prey resources while simultaneously being affected by entanglement in fishing gear (Pirotta et al. 2022). It demonstrates the application of assessing cumulative effects from multiple stressors along the spectrum of data-driven to mechanistic process-driven analytical approaches dependant on the level of data/information available on the impact of threats to the species.

   3.11   Threat Prioritisation
A Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan stakeholder workshop was held in April 2022 that was attended by Commonwealth and State regulatory agencies, threatened species managers, and scientific experts. Each of the threats outlined in sections 3.1 to 3.9 were assessed using a risk matrix approach to identify threats of highest risk, and therefore highest priority for action. The risk matrix in Table 3 uses a qualitative assessment drawing on peer reviewed literature and expert opinion to evaluate the likelihood of a threat occurring and the consequences of that threat or impact considering existing mitigation measures. Threats were considered in the context of current management regimes and the impact of each threat has been assessed assuming that existing management measures continue to be applied appropriately.
Threat risk assessments were undertaken for the western and eastern populations separately to account for differences in the trends in recovery between the two populations. Due to different recovery trajectories, the extent to which the identified threats may potentially impact the two populations can differ. The outcome of the threat prioritisation process was used to determine the priority for actions outlined in Section 5. Only recovery actions that address the higher risk threats (rated as 'very high' (pink) or 'high' (yellow) priority), and measure recovery and address knowledge gaps, have