Data Deficient Species

Section 178 of the EPBC Act identifies the categories under which species assessed can be found eligible for listing. Unlike the categories for listing under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, the EPBC Act does not provide for listing in a data deficient category. Where sufficient data (evidence) is unavailable to allow assessment by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee against the criteria for listing, the species are found to be ineligible. A recommendation is made to the Minister to not include the species in any category under the EPBC Act. For reasons of transparency and to inform future research, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee publishes the names of those species found to be data deficient. As data deficient is not a listing category under the EPBC Act, this has no statutory implications and the species is not considered to be listed under the EPBC Act.

Species assessed as data deficient

The following species were assessed for listing as threatened species by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee, but were found to have insufficient information to determine that they were eligible for listing as threatened. The Minister accepted the Committee's advice and decided that, due to a lack of data (evidence) to assess the species against the criteria, the species did not meet the requirements for listing. The date of this decision is also indicated next to each species. If in the future, additional information becomes available that demonstrates that the species may be eligible against the criteria, a new nomination for the species can be submitted for consideration by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. Assessments (listing advices) are also available for species assessed as ineligible for listing for reasons other than data deficiency.

Each species name links to its Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) profile, where the Committee's advice to the Minister can be found.

Species not prioritised for assessment due to data deficiency

The following species were nominated for assessment as threatened under the EPBC Act, but have not been prioritised for assessment. This is because at the time of nomination, the species was judged to have insufficient data/information to provide for the Committee to undertake an assessment on whether the species would be eligible or not for listing under any category. The Minister accepted the Committee's advice and decided not to include the species on a Finalised Priority Assessment List for assessment for listing as threatened. A copy of the nomination, reasons that the species was not prioritised for assessment, and details about the type of information required for an assessment to be undertaken, is available below. Nominations are also available for species nominations not prioritised for assessment for reasons other than data deficiency.

Species name Years considered Reasons the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) recommended that the nomination was not prioritised
Alopias vulpinus (thresher shark) 2011 & 2012

The thresher shark is found in Australia in temperate waters off southern Australia, from Brisbane, Queensland to the North West Shelf off Western Australia, including Tasmania.

On the basis of available data the Committee considers it unlikely that the species would meet any listing criterion at this time.

Nomination - Alopias vulpinus (thresher shark) (PDF - 686.79 KB) | (DOC - 395.5 KB)

Carcharhinus longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark)

2011 & 2012

The oceanic whitetip shark occurs throughout Australian waters, generally restricted to warmer waters from Sydney north to central Western Australia. Threats include overfishing, both targeted (product harvesting and legal trade) and by-catch.

On the basis of available data the Committee considers it unlikely that the species would meet any listing criterion at this time.

Nomination - Carcharhinus longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark) (PDF - 589.26 KB) | (DOC - 334.5 KB)

Carcharhinus plumbeus (sandbar shark)

2010 &2011

The sandbar shark is widely distributed in Australian waters. In Western Australian waters the biomass of this species has been demonstrated to have decreased to 35% of pre-fishing levels. However, the Committee considers there are insufficient data on the population size and magnitude of decline throughout its national extent to facilitate assessment.

Nomination - Carcharhinus plumbeus (sandbar shark) (PDF - 423.52 KB) | (DOC - 296 KB)

Carcharinus leucas (bull shark)

2010 &2011

This nomination was not given priority for assessment as there was insufficient information to undertake an assessment at the time. In particular, there is a need for more information regarding the status of this species within Australian waters, including any possible decline in numbers and the nature and extent of the threats acting on it. The species has a broad geographic distribution around the northern coastline, to as far south as Perth (WA) and Sydney (NSW).

Nomination - Carcharinus leucas (bull shark) (PDF - 370.68 KB) | (DOC - 233 KB)

Falco subniger (black falcon)

2010 &2011

The species is distributed over a very wide area and existing data to demonstrate population trends across its range are inadequate.

Nomination - Falco subniger (black falcon) (PDF - 325.94 KB) | (DOC - 214 KB)

Isurus paucus (longfin mako)

2009 & 2010

This nomination has not been given priority for assessment as there is insufficient information to undertake an assessment at this time.

Nomination - Isurus paucus (longfin mako) (PDF - 405.88 KB) | (DOC - 227.5 KB)

Lamna nasus (porbeagle)

2011 & 2012

The porbeagle is found in continental and oceanic waters around the southern half of the continent from southern Queensland to southern Western Australia.

On the basis of available data the Committee considers it unlikely that the species would meet any listing criteria at this time.

Nomination - Lamna nasus (porbeagle) (PDF - 530.56 KB) | (DOC - 453 KB)

Orcaella heinsohni (Australian snubfin dolphin)

2011 & 2012

It occurs in small and localised subpopulations, some of which face recognised threats including incidental by-catch, port development, and other habitat loss and degradation. In a few locations there are detailed quantitative data on population size, structure and habitat use. However, detailed relevant information on location, population size and trends is lacking throughout most of the species' national extent. Whilst there is some additional anecdotal information on its ecology and threats, collectively the available information is unlikely to be sufficient to demonstrate that this species meets any of the criteria for listing.

The Australian Government has recently funded several research projects through the Bill Dawbin Post-Doctoral Fellowship Fund and the Australian Marine Mammal Grants Program that will assist in providing further information on location, population size and trends for the species over coming years. The Committee suggests the development and implementation of a Wildlife Conservation Plan, incorporating this and other coastal dolphin species, could be considered as an effective management response.

Nomination - Orcaella heinsohni (Australian snubfin dolphin) (PDF - 1.21 MB) | (DOC - 822.5 KB)
Sousa chinensis 2013 & 2014

Australian populations of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin(Sousa chinensis) have recently been identified as a separate and as yet unnamed species, popularly known as the Australian humpback dolphin. There is a substantial lack of data on the population sizes and trends of the Australian humpback dolphin at a national scale.  Existing data are insufficient to enable assessment of the species' status against any of the EPBC criteria. The Committee did not recommend the inclusion of the Australian humpback dolphin on the 2014 PPAL because this species: (i) has not yet been formally described and named, (ii) is protected by its status as a migratory species under the EPBC Act, and (iii) will soon have improved information on its distribution and abundance from current research. As this is the second time the Committee has considered this public nomination, it will not be automatically considered for inclusion on the 2015 PPAL.

Nomination - Sousa chinensis (Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin) (PDF - 227.31 KB) | (DOCX - 66.62 KB)