Tasmania in Action: Case Studies for Conservation Learning

Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Project

Eradicating rabbits and rodents from Macquarie Island

Case study learning summary

The Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Project (MIPEP) is the largest successful multispecies pest eradication program ever attempted anywhere in the world and is one of the largest conservation management projects in Tasmania’s history.

Research and management of invasive species has been undertaken at Macquarie Island since the 1970s. Prior to MIPEP, weka were eradicated in the 1980s and the eradication of cats was declared a success in 2002. Between 2007 and 2014, the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service led a comprehensive eradication program supported by joint federal-state funding. Through detailed planning, aerial baiting, ground hunting with detection dogs, and strategic use of calicivirus, the project successfully eliminated all three target pest species, rabbits, black rats and mice, despite challenging weather, complex regulations, and concerns about non-target impacts.

The project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget, with ecological recovery evident in regenerating vegetation and rebounding wildlife populations. It has since become a global model for invasive species management, demonstrating how thorough planning, strong leadership, and effective collaboration can achieve significant conservation outcomes in challenging environments. This case study looks at the factors that enabled success, the challenges that were encountered and overcome, and the lessons we can apply to future conservation initiatives.

Introducing Macquarie Island

"Macquarie Island pest eradication success", created by @AusAntarctic Science TV

Macquarie Island is a remote uninhabited sub-Antarctic island located about halfway between Australia and Antarctica, approximately 1,500 km southeast of Tasmania. It is managed as a Nature Reserve by the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service. In 1997 the island was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site for its outstanding geological and ecological significance.

The Island is 34 kilometres long by 5.5 kilometres wide, covering an area of approximately 12,875 hectares. It has no trees and its vegetation is generally less than one meter tall. The ecosystem consists of tall tussock grassland, herbfield, short grassland, mire, and feldmark.

For many decades, the island has attracted scientists and tourists to marvel at the island’s natural beauty, geological rarity and abundant wildlife. The island serves as a location for climate change studies, wildlife monitoring, and geological research. The Australian Antarctic Division operates a research station on the island, supporting long-term scientific investigations.

Geological significance

Macquarie Island is an example of an uplifted oceanic crust providing evidence of the geological processes associated with plate tectonics and continental drift. In fact, Macquarie Island is the only known locality in the world where oceanic lithosphere is exposed above sea level while remaining within the ocean basin in which it formed, providing a section through the Earth’s oceanic crust to upper mantle rocks. This makes the island of interest for understanding seafloor spreading and the dynamics of Earth's geological evolution.

Image: Plateau rocks, Macquarie Island World Heritage Area, photo credit Noel Carmichael

Biodiversity and conservation value

Macquarie Island supports large congregations of wildlife, including breeding colonies of elephant seals and fur seals, as well as four species of penguins (royal, rockhopper, gentoo, and king penguins). Numerous seabird species rely on the island for breeding, including four species of albatross (wandering, light-mantled, black-browed, and grey-headed albatrosses), two species of giant petrels, and a variety of burrow-nesting seabirds including grey, blue, and white-headed petrels, Antarctic prions, and sooty shearwaters. The island is also home to breeding populations of terns, cormorants, and skua.

Image: Wandering albatrosses, Macquarie Island World Heritage Area, photo credit Keith Springer

The challenge

Many different species of animals were introduced to Macquarie Island during the 19th century by sealing and penguin oil workers. Rats arrived in the early 20th century.

Rabbits, black rats and house mice had caused devastating impacts to the island’s natural wildlife and ecology.

Overgrazing by rabbits had caused extensive loss of vegetation cover on Macquarie Island giving rise to widespread erosion and increased risk of landslips.

Rats preyed on the eggs and chicks of petrels and other seabirds and directly prey on the adults of smaller species of seabirds. They also ate flowers, seeds, fruits and newly germinated plants and significantly reduced seedling recruitment in a variety of plant species (Shaw et al 2005).

Mice ate substantial quantities of insects, worms and other invertebrates and caused significant impacts on the native invertebrate communities of sub-Antarctic islands (Le Roux et al, 2002).

Control vs eradication

Eradication of any invasive species is an ambitious undertaking. Eradication is often financially or logistically unfeasible. Islands present a recognised advantage of natural containment and exclusion.

In the case of Macquarie Island, the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) determined that eradication was the most effective and cost-efficient solution for managing feral rabbits and rodents. Other control methods were either not practical (particularly for rodents) or insufficient to achieve the desired long-term conservation and restoration outcomes. Ongoing control efforts risked being undermined by fluctuating budgets and funding constraints, leading to rapid pest population rebounds. While the eradication project required significant upfront and long-term investment, it was ultimately more economical than continuous control measures and provided superior conservation benefits.

Rabbit control activities on the island began being investigated in the 1960s. The myxoma virus, which causes the severe and usually fatal disease myxomatosis in European rabbits, was introduced in late 1970s. The island's rabbit population was successfully knocked back to low levels is the 1980s and 1990s allowing significant vegetation recovery. However rebounding rabbit populations in the early 2000s, due to a number of factors, caused very significant vegetation damage and as a result, the focus of rabbit management changed from control to eradication.

West coast 1990s, photo credit Noel Carmichael

West coast 2010, photo credit Noel Carmichael

These images demonstrate the change in vegetation over 20 years.

Walkers waist deep in tussock grass on the west coast of Macquarie Island in the 1990s. The same scene in 2010 shows the area virtually devoid of tussock as a result of overgrazing by rabbits.

Management priority and planning

Photo credit: Micah Visoiu

The Macquarie Island Management Plan (PWS 2006) identified that the highest conservation management priority for Macquarie Island was the eradication of feral rabbits and rodents. A project plan was developed to eradicate all rabbits and rodents from Macquarie Island (this project).

Using threat assessments to inform management

Key factors in securing joint state and federal government funding

A clear objective with measurable outcomes

From the outset, the project was governed by a clearly articulated overarching goal and specific project outcomes.

Goal

Eradication of rabbits, rats and mice from Macquarie Island to enable restoration of the island’s natural ecological processes including the recovery of plant and animal communities impacted by these feral species.

Key desired outcomes

Eradication of all rabbits and rodents from Macquarie Island.
Recovery of vegetation communities (including denuded/eroded areas) that have been impacted by rabbits and/or rodents.
Increased populations of many native bird species (especially burrowing petrels) and invertebrates.
Increased capability of PWS to manage feral pest populations, which can be transferred to other Tasmanian islands.
Improved understanding and knowledge of eradication techniques which will benefit similar projects worldwide (e.g. through documentation of the project in published papers and video recording).
Enhanced biosecurity measures for Macquarie Island.

Key players

Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service were the project managers, responsible for Island operations and managed key risks. They were supported by:

Australian Antarctic Division – Australian Antarctic Program
Australian Government
Tasmanian Government
NZ Department of Conservation’s Island Eradication Advisory Group (IEAG)

Other organisations that made some contributions to support the work were WWF-Australia and Peregrine Adventures

Results

Photo credit: Micah Visoiu

The project has been an outstanding success.

It achieved the overall project goal of eradicating rabbits and rodents from Macquarie Island and is delivering long-term major conservation outcomes of global significance for this World Heritage Area.

Despite encountering significant challenges along the way, perseverance paid off and the project ultimately came in one year ahead of the anticipated timeframe and around 20% under budget.

The PWS evaluation report on the monitored effectiveness of the project demonstrated the results achieved to all and captured lessons learnt.

The MIPEP project has been recognised as a leading initiative for sustainability in Australia through the Banksia Sustainability Award for Natural Capital. The judges considered MIPEP “has made a significant difference in the ecosystem, completely transforming a whole environment”.

The demonstrated success of the MIPEP has helped inform and guide other island eradication projects in Tasmania and around the world. It stands as a global model for effective PA and conservation management.

Proof of concept - impact beyond the island

Learning from and influencing other eradication projects

Timeline of events

Enablers for success

Planning and preparation

Detailed project planning and preparation ensured that every aspect of the project was carefully considered and thought through prior to operational implementation. The formal project planning process started in mid-2007 following the need for an eradication program being identified as a key priority in the Island’s management plan and 3-year strategic plan. This detailed planning phase of the project took about 2.5 years with a core staff of four. .

Planning for the MIPEP included 10 parts:

Part A – The Eradication Plan (Overview)

Part B – Operational Plan

Part C – Environmental Impact Assessment

Part D – Occupational Health and Safety Plan

Part E – Project Biosecurity Plan

Part F – Monitoring Plan

Part G – Communications Plan

Part H – Project Plan

Part I – Procurement Plan

Part J – Staff Recruitment and Training Plan.

Other important aspects of the planning process that contributed to the program’s overall success:

The operational plan was peer reviewed several times during its development and the project undertook two operational readiness checks prior to the implementation phase. Detailed operational factors for helicopter deployment were included in the planning process including accounting for engineering expertise, back-up equipment and spare parts which were all critical to keeping operations on schedule and minimising aircraft downtime during flyable weather.

Early identification and clear articulation of the desired outcomes and performance indicators for this project (through collaboration between the evaluation coordinator and the MIPEP Project Manager) established an agreed framework for evaluating and reporting on the project’s effectiveness in achieving the project objectives. This helped to provide focus to the parties involved in delivery and provided transparency to funding bodies, stakeholders and the broader community for results achieved.

The inclusion of a contingency sum in the original project budget allowed the project to absorb unforeseen costs of the delayed baiting program and additional mitigation measures to address concerns about incidental mortality of non-target species.

The importance of a monitoring plan in guiding effective monitoring activity

Governance

The early establishment of a steering committee that included representation from major stakeholder agencies was critical for the project.

This provided:

Stakeholder insight
Breadth of expertise
Shared ownership
Confidence in the process
Commitment of resources on behalf of stakeholder agencies

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) generated broad-based institutional support for the project through members’ parent organisations (although the committee’s technical role in the project was possibly less than the name might suggest.).

Governance committees supporting effective decision making

Management Plan for MI Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area

Development of the management plan for MI provided the basis for the project. The management plan identified the eradication of rabbits, rats and mice from the island as one of the highest conservation management priorities for the reserve.

Up-front funding commitment

State and Federal governments jointly committed to full funding of the project (with agreed dollar sums each year) for an 8-year timeframe before the project commenced. This commitment by two governments to provide funding into the future for a significant conservation management project set a precedent in Australia. Determination of the budget at the outset of the project significantly contributed to the project’s successful implementation. For example, the project was able to commit early to some of the longer-term requirements (such as dog-training), could enter into contract negotiations with certainty of funding commitments, and was also able to achieve financial efficiencies.

Public concerns about the devastating environmental impacts that the exploding rabbit population were having on the island’s fragile ecology gave rise to pressure for governments and responsible managing authorities to take action. Early funding contributions by private conservation organisations assisted in raising socio-political awareness of the issue and providing impetus for ‘getting things moving’.

Project Manager and personnel

The project was led and managed by Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) under the leadership of project manager Keith Springer. Keith’s professional background, his broad capacity for leadership and decision making, his continuity in the role as project manager, and the rapport he built with the project team were key contributors to the project’s success. Also important was the support PWS senior managers provided to him by way of professional development and the confidence they showed in his capability.

Also key to the project success were the experienced, motivated and highly capable project team members and contracted service providers (including the dog trainers and handlers) who had a ‘can-do attitude’ and the determination to overcome obstacles to get the job done.

A committed project team

Collaboration

A formal inter-agency co-operation agreement between PWS and NZ Dept of Conservation (DoC) provided the project with access to knowledge, practical advice and techniques developed by DoC for island pest eradications. This included DoC staff conducting pre-readiness checks before the operational phase of the project commenced, and contributing staff to the operational phase during aerial baiting. Inter-agency cooperation also included consideration of Macquarie Island issues by the Island Eradication Advisory Group (IEAG) over a period of years from 2005. It was on the suggestion of the IEAG that calicivirus (Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease Virus (HRDV)) was introduced to the island to reduce rabbit numbers prior to the baiting operation. The efficacy of RHDV significantly reduced the prevalence of poisoned carcasses in the later phase of the project.

Scientific inputs and support for the project within and between agencies were critically important to ensuring the project was well-informed and rigorous. In particular, scientific colleagues in other divisions of the managing department provided the project team with professional specialist inputs, advice and assistance during project development and implementation. In addition, researchers from the University of Tasmania provided invaluable time-sequence photo-monitoring records of the condition of vegetation and landforms over time which provided visual evidence of the project’s effectiveness.

The infrastructure, logistical support, staff training and communications systems provided by the Australian Antarctic Division were key factors supporting the project’s operational success. For example, use of the Australian Antarctic Division secure store on Macquarie Island as an aircraft hangar in bad weather was a huge advantage.

Hunter with trained dogs in blizzard conditions, photo credit Chris Crerar

Bait hopper ready for helicopter pickup, photo credit Keith Springer

A family of skuas feeding on a rabbit carcass, photo credit PWS

Barriers to success

Adopting a risk management approach to addressing challenges

Project size and complexity

The administrative, regulatory and logistical requirements for the project of this size are exceptionally complex.

The delays to the aerial baiting phase of the project are a good example of project dependencies and their implications when one planning factor is pushed out of kilter. The first aerial baiting attempt in the winter of 2010 had to be abandoned, and a return second attempt made in the winter of 2011. This situation arose in part because the contracted ship was unavailable to deliver the aerial baiting team to the island when scheduled, delaying the baiting program by a month. The delay was then exacerbated by prolonged adverse weather conditions which prevented the helicopters from delivering the aerial bait drops. When it became clear that the planned whole-of-island baiting program could not be completed within the scheduled time period in 2010, the correct decision was made to postpone the baiting attempt to the following year.

Federal and state government requirements

With funding coming from two tiers of Government, the project was required to work within two sets of protocols and procedures. This often proved time-consuming and expensive. The planning phase of the project alone was complex, with over 30 separate permits and approvals required, some of which duplicated the same aspect for both state and federal jurisdictions.

Additional requirements for the project were instigated after the project had started. While they helped to address concerns raised, they added delays and complications which needed to be absorbed by project staff and the budget. For example, responding to community concerns about the incidental mortality of non-target species, the 2010 federal government review of the project required a Non-Target Mitigation Plan to be prepared and endorsed by a Bird Technical Advisory Group (BTAG) which had to be established. The endorsed plan was then rejected by the government receiving officer who prepared a new plan which included measures which had already been considered and rejected by the project team and BTAG.

Public communications

Conservation measures that involve the removal or destruction of wildlife, even invasive species, can raise public concerns or objections. Although the project had a good communication plan which kept key stakeholders and ‘eradication circles’ around the world well informed and up-to-date about the project, public communications are also very important – especially where there are risks of the project raising public concerns. When the baiting undertaken in 2010 resulted in the deaths of some non-target bird species, including a threatened species, (as had been predicted in the Environmental Impact Assessment) concerns were raised and public support for the pest eradication effort may have weakened. Addressing these concerns led to additional time, effort and funds being invested in measures to mitigate non-target mortality and allay community concerns.

For big projects such as this, with multiple partners managing different stakeholder expectations, communications need to be carefully managed and consistent across all parties. An agreed communications plan and procedures, with central coordination of communications can facilitate good communications and enhance public understanding and support.

Managing communications to maintain stakeholder support

Personnel selection

This project highlighted the importance of having team members who are personally aligned with and committed to the project goals. Personnel and contractor selection processes are important for ensuring positive team dynamics and alignment of team members with project goals.

It was not always possible to recruit project field staff with the sets of attributes, skills and experience sought for positions from the available pool of applicants. A small number of field staff did not perform to the desired level and/or detracted from team unison by contesting elements of the project (such as the hunting methodology) or did not have the necessary motivation to deliver their duties to the standard expected.

The annual turnover of the Macquarie Island station leader at times created operational difficulties and inconsistencies for the PWS project. Although operational procedures were agreed between the departments at the beginning of the project, incoming station leaders sometimes sought to review and challenge what had been agreed.

Budget constraints for monitoring, research and policy development

Government budgetary constraints and other priorities limited the availability and security of funding and staffing resources for monitoring and research activities. Allocation of appropriate staffing resources is necessary to support management effectiveness monitoring, evaluation and reporting, and for studying and documenting the recovery of species, communities and landforms on Macquarie Island impacted by rabbits and rodents.

In addition, progress on finalisation and implementation of the recommended Biosecurity Plan, which was out of scope for the MIPEP, for Macquarie Island was slow, causing ongoing concerns about the efficacy of the current biosecurity measures for Macquarie Island. Additional focused effort to achieve adoption and implementation of the Biosecurity Plan for Macquarie Island is of the utmost critical importance for protecting and safeguarding the significant conservation gains achieved by the Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Project.

Balancing long-term monitoring needs with short-term project timeframes

Biosecurity measures to protect Macquarie Island – an evolving challenge

Adjusting monitoring effort over time and the role of long-term monitoring

A bait bucket is serviced by the mechanic, photo credit Keith Springer

Dog handler with specially trained dog searching for any signs of surviving rabbits, photo credit Keith Springer

The project team 2013-14, photo credit PWS

Lessons applicable to any program

Sound strategic management planning and the identification of high priorities for conservation management provide a driver for operational management and guidance for the allocation/investment of resources. The identified priorities for conservation management may be challenging but must be feasible.

Legislated responsibilities for the management of Tasmania’s national parks and reserves, and national legislation giving effect to Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention for the protection and conservation of World Heritage listed properties can provide opportunities for joint government funding arrangements for projects of state, national and international significance.

Eradication programs require up-front, long-term, significant funding commitments of resources to enable the whole job to get done for delivery of lasting conservation and ecological restoration outcomes.

Detailed, well-informed and robust project planning — including for risk management, contingencies and communications — are all of the utmost critical importance for a major project to achieve the intended results and outcomes.

Clear articulation and agreement on the project objectives, goals and desired outcomes, and related performance indicators for monitoring early in the planning process, establishes an agreed framework and basis for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on the project’s effectiveness. A component of the project budget should be allocated to support monitoring, evaluation and reporting.

Scientific inputs and research studies support evidence-based planning and evaluation, and can provide measured evidence of the results achieved from investment in the project.

Long-term photo-monitoring sequences are especially valuable for providing compelling visual evidence of changes/restoration in landscape and vegetation conditions. Photo-monitoring offers the additional benefits of being relatively cheap, easy to undertake, and everyone can understand ‘before’ and ‘after’ photos.

Management planning and budget allocation processes should consider the conservation requirements beyond the lifetime of the project. For example, a high priority for ongoing protection of MI is to ensure that adequate biosecurity provisions are put in place to prevent new incursions of pest species.

Lessons for success

Drawing on a suite of monitoring methods

10 years on

The below interviews with Noel Carmichael, former Macquarie Island Executive Officer (2005-2022), explore the impacts of the Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Project beyond the period of operation.

The impacts of eradication 10 years on...

How the eradication project has influenced subsequent research activities on the island

The following sets of images demonstrate vegetation recovery in the years following the successful eradication of rabbits on the island.

Photopoint at Sellick Point, 2011 (left) and 2015 (right) - Photo PWS

Photopoint at the Sandy Bay tourist boardwalk, 2011 (left) and 2019 (right) - Photo Micah Visoiu

Photopoint at Brothers Point, 2011 (left) and 2023 (right) - Photo Micah Visoiu

Post-eradiation monitoring

To learn more about post-eradication research on Macquarie Island, visit the National Environmental Science Prgramme's Threatened Species Recovery Hub: https://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/projects/post-eradication-monitoring-on-macquarie-island

Acknowledgements

This case study and its contents were researched and compiled by Our Common Place, formerly Conservation Management and developed with permission and generous input from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania and Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service. Thank you to the staff, past and present, who contributed insights, expertise and publications to this resource.

Video production was provided by the University of Tasmania. Special thanks are extended to Matthew McKee, Educational Technologist Sciences and Engineering, Academic Division for his generous input of time and skill.

Banner image: Helicopters being loaded with bait at Hurd Point in May 2011 for deployment across Macquarie Island as part of the pest eradication program. Photo credit Keith Broome

Page updated

Report abuse