Wildlife road kills outside Environment departments’ jurisdiction to act, so ignored
In this sixth article in the series ‘Wildlife road kills versus Vision Zero 2050’, freelance journalist Patrick Francis examines what the federal and state government environment departments charged with protecting and enhancing Australia’s biodiversity are doing to prevent wildlife being killed and injured on roads. Alongside these departments, a host of NGOs are vocal about protecting Australia’s environment and wildlife. Are they prepared to make the case that vehicle speed should be reduced to Safe System speeds on roads through wildlife hotspots to prevent as many collisions and deaths as possible? Or will the engineers who make road speed limit decisions on behalf of state transport departments be the only speed decision makers?
Figure 1A: Given the Safe System principles behind strategies used to reduce road crash casualties ignore wildlife vehicle collisions, it could be anticipated that Federal and State environment department policies and action plans would include measures to reduce road kills.
Figure 1B: ‘Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024 – 2030’ has a ‘Vision’ which completely ignores Australia’s wildlife road kills ‘Reality’. Sources: AAMI, Wildlife Victoria, Transport Victoria, Austroads, photos Patrick Francis.
One of the best sources of information about how Australia’s federal and state government departments responsible for protecting and enhancing biodiversity evaluates threats is ‘Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024 to 2030’. It could be anticipated that since the nation’s road safety strategies based on Safe System principles for reduced road crash fatalities and injuries ignore wildlife, that the nation’s biodiversity management and protection departments would contribute suggestions for reducing the estimated 10 million road kills across Australia each year.
The Strategy for Nature was first adopted by the Federal and State environment ministers in 2019 and updated in June 2024. The authors state “The strategy sets a national framework for government, non-government and community action to strengthen Australia’s response to biodiversity decline and care for nature in our many environments”. They even contend the Strategy “…draws on current evidence” but does not include one mention of wildlife vehicle collisions data, wildlife road kills data, local community road kill data, and Safe System Speeds, figure 1B,
Despite ignoring all wildlife road kills the Environment Ministers contend the Strategy supports “healthy and functioning biological systems by promoting a stronger connection between people and nature, improving the way we value and care for nature, and building and sharing knowledge.”
They say a national approach to conserving nature is required beyond state and Territory boundaries and that “Caring for nature is the shared responsibility of all Australians”. Despite this rhetoric wildlife road kills are continuing to increase year on year with no effective strategies in place by any governments to reduce them most likely because the one solution, reducing vehicle speed in hot spots on rural roads is politically and financially unpalatable. Apart from that as the previous five articles in this series show no government departments seem to take responsibility for protecting wildlife on and crossing roads as none have specific jurisdiction to do so. As a consequence wildlife hot spots are not identified, maximum speed limit on rural and regional roads are retained at posted or default 100km/h, and the Safe System speeds which recognise the biomechanical tolerances to vehicle impacts are ignored, figure 1B.
This is exemplified in the statement by the Queensland TMR spokesperson that “The setting of speed limits is a professional engineering service pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act 2002, and as such, speed limit reviews are required to be undertaken by, or under the supervision of, a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ).” Combine this engineering reality with the way the engineers calculate road Infrastructure Risk Rating and Crash Risk Rating without reference to wildlife vehicle collisions and equity amongst road users it is safe to assume there is no mechanism being considered for “improving the way we value and care for nature” on rural roads.
Given that all the Federal and State government biodiversity protection and enhancement departments are party to ‘Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024 – 2030’ know wildlife are a threat to vehicle occupants either directly by collision or indirectly by swerving and running off the road and hitting a fixed object, it is difficult to understand that they have no say in decisions around road safety and speed limits for particular roads.
Strategy for Nature has international commitment connections to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, all of which the Australian government is a signatory, figure 2. Given Global Biodiversity Framework’s vision is “a world of living in harmony with nature where ‘by 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored’ it is hard to reconcile such an outcome with reality of around 10 million wildlife road kills if the Strategy for Nature doesn’t recognise road kills and report it to the international agencies.
Figure 2: Despite Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments having a wide range of policies, action plans and regulations for wildlife protection and enhancement under the umbrella of Australia’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, none have jurisdiction on Australia’s public roads where wildlife vehicle collisions are estimated to kill around 10 million animals each year. Source: Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024 – 2030 Australia’s National Biodiversity and Action Plan.
According to the Environment Ministers who signed off on the updated Strategy’s, it retains the three goals of the 2019 Strategy underpinned by 12 objectives and six new national targets, which are supported by three enablers of change. Not one of these components of the strategy mentions reducing wildlife vehicle collisions or wildlife road kills. Yet the Ministers contend that “By connecting people with nature, we enhance their desire to care for nature”.
There must be something missing in this approach when wildlife road kills are increasing year by year.
The three goals for Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024 – 2030 are:
* Connect all Australians with nature
* Care for nature in all its diversity, and
* Share and build knowledge.
Goal 1: Connect all Australians with nature.
As rural road speed limits stand, particularly the default 100km/h speed limit on rural service roads in peri-urban areas, connecting with nature is risky for wildlife, vehicle occupants, and for pedestrians and bike riders.
Figure 3: Despite high demand by town residents to connect with nature along low traffic rural roads adjacent to towns, such activity is highly dangerous as most roads have a default 100km/h maximum speed limit. Instead of taking advantage of local nature on verges and in paddocks for residents to appreciate by reducing speed limits below 40km/h as the Safe System Speeds and Engineers Australia recommend Council engineers usually contend the default speed meets Speed Zoning Guidelines and subsequently there is no need to lower the speed limit. Photos: Patrick Francis.
Goal 2: Care for nature in all its diversity.
Many landholders and farmers, who are improving conservation management across landscapes, waterways and wetlands through programs like Landcare Farming, Land for Wildlife, biolinks and reforestation carbon abatement and nature repair, are distressed to witness the road kills associated with returning wildlife, It seems caring for nature doesn’t apply to vehicle drivers along public roads given speed, mobility and convenience continue to take priority while Transport departments’ contribution is to warn drivers with tens of thousands of yellow wildlife signs, which they know are ineffective in changing driver speeding behaviour, Figure 4.
Figure 4: Caring for nature on rural and regional roads is a low priority with state Transport departments and councils installing tens of thousands of wildlife warning signs which they know are ineffective in changing driver speed behaviour. Photos: Patrick Francis.
Goal 3: Share and build knowledge
As far as wildlife vehicle collisions are concerned state Transport departments make no use of insurance company wildlife vehicle collision claims data, wildlife rescue NGOs wildlife road kills and injury data, and local landholders lived experience with road kills data to assist with building knowledge around crash risk decision making. Instead the authorities use Safe System principles based on safer roads, safer speeds and safer vehicles to develop long-term road safety strategies while ignoring the safety consequences of wildlife on or crossing roads and equity for all road users, figure 5.
This goals seems to be aspirational as the call for knowledge sharing was first made in the 2019 Strategy but has been called for again by Transport for NSW in its December 2024 report ‘Using technology to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions’ . The report states: TfNSW, in collaboration with other transport agencies across Australia, should prioritise the establishment of a road kill (which includes wildlife killed on railways) reporting application and data storage facility, with ability for data to be input by various sources, including wildlife carers, researchers conducting targeted surveys, roadkill carcass collection teams, incidental observations from community members.”
Two WVC data sources never mentioned in this report are vehicle insurance companies for wildlife vehicle collisions claims and hospital emergency departments casualties.
Figure 5: Sharing and building knowledge is not a characteristic of the Safe System Model used for developing national and state Road Safety Strategies and setting speed limits on rural and regional roads as all road safety ratings are made by engineers using road metrics. Two reliable data sources demonstrating wildlife are increasingly involved with vehicle collisions and occupant casualties are ignored when engineers determine road risk ratings. Sources: Wildlife Victoria, AAMI, National Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 2030, Queensland Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 2030, Transport Victoria Speed Zoning Technical Guidelines 2021.
Australia’s Strategy for Nature’s failure to even consider wildlife vehicle collisions as a threat to biodiversity generally and in some areas as a significant factor in local species extinction, suggests the topic is too politically sensitive for environment department ministers to handle. Given some state transport departments and NGOs are prepared to advise drivers to hit large wildlife despite the danger of doing so and not swerve to avoid them highlights the dilemma. So does the increasing adoption by regional vehicle owners to equip vehicles with Standards Australia certified frontal protection systems more commonly known as bull or roo bars. Data from Transport Victoria shows such protection systems increase the fatality risk to pedestrians due to higher kinetic energy transfer and can be assumed to have the same impact in collisions with large wildlife species.
By not recognising wildlife vehicle collisions as a threat to Australia’s native species, the Strategy for Nature 2024 – 2030 avoids criticism around the approximate 10 million wildlife road kills each year that it is not meeting its national and international biodiversity agreement commitments.
State government wildlife welfare
At the state government level a review of environment departments’ laws and policies for protecting wildlife and preventing cruelty also demonstrates a failure to recognise wildlife vehicle collisions and wildlife road kills on rural roads as an issue which needs to be addressed. Using the Victorian government’s environment policies and laws as an example of what is happening across Australia’s States and Territories, it becomes clear that wildlife deaths on rural and regional roads are being deliberately excluded.
The Victorian government’s Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) never mentions speed restrictions to prevent or reduce wildlife road kills or wildlife vehicle collisions amongst it polices and strategies to protect wildlife and prevent cruelty. On its web site under “Everyone can help to protect Victoria’s wildlife“ it introduces the idea of “sharing the road with wildlife” to “minimise the number of wildlife killed” and makes three suggestions on what drivers can do.
“Firstly be aware that wildlife often cross our roads. Take precautions when driving in country areas.
Secondly, when wildlife is on the road, it is best to allow the animal to move off the road before passing.
Lastly, do not throw any rubbish from car windows.”
Figure 6: The Victorian government’s wildlife legislation, action plans, management strategies and policies protect wildlife everywhere across the state except on public roads where wildlife road kills and injuries by vehicles are ignored and accepted as a road use risk for the animals as well as vehicle drivers.
DEECA has specific wildlife protection and enhancement laws and policies available to it, figure 6. They are:
* “Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037”. There is not one mention of wildlife vehicle collisions or wildlife road kills despite the government knowing there are thousands of wildlife vehicle collision insurance claims and Wildlife Victoria documented road kills each year and the numbers are increasing. But the minister’s forward states this Plan “…brings together the latest conservation science and social science to help achieve the plan’s vision: that Victoria’s biodiversity is healthy, valued and actively cared for. The Plan promotes collaboration and improved alignment across government, business, communities, … The plan also promotes community participation in caring for biodiversity…”
Such a statement is misleading as it ignores killing wildlife on rural and regional roads. It is also misleading about collaboration and improved alignment across government when it comes to who makes decisions about road risk ratings which is entirely under control of transport department engineers irrespective of adjacent land ecology (Road Effect Zone, see article 5) which encourages wildlife to cross roads.
There is no mechanism in the state’s Speed Zoning Guidelines 2021 for road ecologists, local land owners and wildlife rescue organisations to influence the rural and regional road management engineers’ decisions around safe speeds. This is demonstrated by Vicroads decision tree for determining speed limits, figure 8. Not only are wildlife not considered in road crash risk ratings but neither are pedestrians and cyclists using low volume, rural roads outside of town boundaries (refer article 5).
Interrogation of the fine print in the Speed Zoning Guidelines suggests for pedestrians using such roads there is scope to change the speed but the data needed means it is impossible to do so . Engineers have a secondary tool after figure 8 to determine appropriate speed limits, a software package called VLimits. This package does not include wildlife or pedestrians on rural roads as input factors to produce a recommended speed zoning “as being consistent and fair by motorists”**.
What’s more alarming even if engineers could be convinced the circumstances do allow for a lower speed below the default 100km/h, that speed is 80km/h which according to Engineers Australia and Safe System Speeds 2014 is lethal for pedestrians if hit: “There is an estimated 10 per cent probability of being killed if struck at 30 km/h, but this rises to over 90 per cent at 50 km/h, the default speed limit in built-up areas. In urban areas, almost one-third of all road crash deaths are pedestrians. The system needs to be designed and retrofitted to minimise the chances of unprotected road users coming into conflict with vehicles.”
Figure 7: The Vicroads decision tree for determining speed limits outside of built up areas ignores wildlife as a possible threat, so there is no mechanism available to DEECA , the public, NGOs, road ecologists and farmers to use wildlife road kills to influence Transport Department engineers decision making processes for reducing a default 100km/h or posted 80 or 100km/h speed limit on high safety risk rural and regional roads to the Safe System Speeds. Source: Vicroads Speed Zoning Guidelines 2021.
*The ‘Living with Wildlife Action Plan 2018’ minister’s foreword states “Wildlife management is a shared responsibility between communities, government and industry, and all of us need to play our part”, but seemingly not when wildlife venture onto roads. There is no mention in the document of wildlife vehicle collisions or road kills.
The authors go on to state “Balancing the needs of humans and wildlife across our landscape can at times present significant challenges for human safety, property or livelihoods and the welfare of both individual animals and wildlife populations… In some instances, management interventions are required to protect both people and wildlife and are based on strict protocols and government regulations that are evidence-based, humane and cost effective.” With wildlife vehicle collisions, the effective strategies available to protect wildlife as well as vehicle occupants rely on installation of yellow wildlife signs and driver education with no evidence provided by any government departments or councils that either is effective .
Figure 8: The best management intervention the Victorian and other state governments can offer to protect wildlife on rural and regional default and posted 100km/h and 80km/h roads is to install tens of thousands of wildlife warning signs which they know are ineffective in preventing road kills. Photos: Patrick Francis.
* Victorian Koala Management Strategy 2023” authors state “While Victoria’s koala populations are currently secure, threats such as habitat loss, climate change, bushfire, drought and disease have potential to cause significant future population declines” but fail to mention that koalas are often victims of vehicle collisions, an especially threatening process in districts where populations are low. Action 6.2 of the Strategy is about initiatives to increase the extent of koala habitat and improve habitat connectivity. This inevitably leads to koalas extending their feeding and breeding range and crossing roads in the process. No mention is made of strategies to prevent koala road kills in conjunction improving habitat connectivity.
Perhaps the most deceptive component of the Koala Management Strategy is Action 10.2, to increase opportunities for community involvement in koala conservation and management. There is no mention of the enormous contribution community members have made for years to successful restoration of koala and other native animals’ habitats through participation in programs such as Land for Wildlife, only to watch on as the returning animals are killed on local rural roads by vehicles authorised to travel at inappropriate speeds for avoiding road kills, such as the default 100km/h. Their efforts to lower the speed limit to Safe System Speeds fall on deaf ears of Council and State government engineers who adhere to the state’s Speed Zoning Guidelines which ignore the presence of wildlife on roads.
Figure 9: Once wildlife move from habitat provided on farms onto roads their protection from harm by vehicle collision is ignored by all levels of state government policy and legislation. Photos: Patrick Francis.
Further evidence of the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action’s lack of responsibility for wildlife deaths on public roads is found in research it funded into “Identifying and prioritizing human behaviours that benefit biodiversity”. This research involved 22 representatives from conservation, psychology and behaviour change disciplines. The research results published in Conservation Science and Practice in May 2020 make no mention of methods to avoid animal vehicle collisions and road kills amongst the 27 behaviours they recommended that Victorians could adopt to positively impact biodiversity.
* Wildlife Act 1975. In Victoria, all wildlife is protected under the Wildlife Act. The Act does not include any reference to wildlife vehicle collisions or road kills. Public road verges are not mentioned as habitat for wildlife. There seems to be no penalties for killing or injuring wildlife on public roads. In contrast on private land Sections 41 (and 43) “a person must not hunt, take or destroy threatened wildlife (other protected wildlife). Penalty 50 penalty points or 6 months imprisonment or both the fine and imprisonment…” As well “any person who wilfully disturbs protected wildlife shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.” It is possible for land owners to apply for an Authority to Control Wildlife on private land, but such authority is carefully vetted and is only given once land owners exhaust all practical non-lethal control options.
* Conservation Regulator Regulatory Priorities 2024 – 2025. “The Conservation Regulator works to protect these environments and Victoria’s native wildlife through education, compliance monitoring and enforcement of laws relating to biodiversity, public land use, wildlife and bushfire prevention.” Given the emphasis on protecting native wildlife on public land it might be assumed the Conservation Regulator would refer to data provided by Wildlife Victoria and AAMI about wildlife vehicle collisions causing tens of thousands of wildlife deaths on Victoria’s roads each year as roads are public lands. But the Regulator seems to have no discretion to investigate such deaths and suggest harm minimising actions be introduced. Interrogation of the 2024 – 25 priorities document makes no mention of wildlife road kills, or Victoria’s 100km/h default or posted speed limits contributing to the kills. There is no mention of the role vehicle frontal protection systems (bull bars) might have on road kills or even wildlife cruelty.
But preventing wildlife cruelty is a major component of the Regulator’s role. “Cruelty to wildlife remains a focus for the Conservation Regulator in 2024 – 2025. The priority recognises the importance of protecting wildlife from harm. Our approach is proactive, and our goal is prevention. We provide guidance to Victorians on how they can ensure the welfare of native animals.” But it seems the Regulator operates under the Victorian Wildlife Act 1975, so killing and injuring wildlife on public roads is not considered cruel or is not an offence as the Regulator has no jurisdiction to act.
Figure 10: Killing wildlife with vehicles is cruel and authorities would investigate with the aim of prosecuting perpetrators providing the incident does not take place on public roads. These two incidents of unrecognised wildlife cruelty go unreported to any state department as they happened on minor rural roads with low traffic volume and a default 100km/h speed limit. Top: a large male kangaroo has been hit at such speed that both rear legs are broken in two. Lower: A female wombat was hit with such force by a vehicle that her joey was thrown from the pouch and the mother dragged 40m from the impact spot. On private and public land apart from roads, cruelty incidents such as these could be investigated and guilty perpetrators face jail sentences. On public roads these wildlife vehicle collisions would only be reported to authorities if a human casualty or property damage was involved. Photos: Patrick Francis.
Perhaps the silo approach of the Victorian state government to wildlife on and crossing roads is best demonstrated in its Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2025 document “Wildlife management methods Kangaroos and Wallabies”. It is one of the few state government documents which refers to these animals being involved in vehicle collisions. “Macropods can also cause issues such as traffic accidents, aggressiveness towards people, damage to forestry operations, gardens and fences. For situations such as these, macropods may need to be controlled to protect people, property, animal welfare and biodiversity.”
While explaining macropods are protected in Victoria under the Wildlife Act 1975, the department explains what control methods can be applied for all circumstances except “traffic accidents”. The Department seems unable to venture out of its jurisdiction and suggest control methods for kangaroos and wallabies on and around public roads.
Figure 11: The data is clear from insurance company claims and wildlife rescue NGOs that kangaroos are the animals most commonly involved in wildlife vehicle collisions yet DELWP only makes suggestions for controlling macropods in situations other than on public roads. Source AAMI June 2022; Wildlife Victoria 2024.
The same silo approach to managing wombats is demonstrated by DELWP in its “Wildlife management methods common wombat”. In this document wombats are not even mentioned as being involved in “traffic accidents” and no suggestions are made for their management to prevent them being involved in vehicle collisions on public roads.
In contrast to Victoria’s DELWP, New South Wales Department of Planning & Environment (DPE) includes vehicle strikes as a threat to wildlife and allocates $10.6 million funding in its 2022 – 2026 Koala Management Plan to reduce them. Under Pillar 3 – Improving the safety and health of koalas it states “Treatments will include measures to encourage drivers to slow down and structures to keep koalas and other native wildlife off roads, such as fencing and underpasses”.
Whether or not DPE has implemented the strategies to reduce vehicle strikes is unknown. Its spokesperson did not provide any information as to how much of the $10.6million has been spent “to keep koalas and other native wildlife off roads”. The only comment made was more signs have been installed on some roads.
Figure 12: The NSW DPE’s Koala Strategy recognises wildlife vehicle strikes along roads through existing and expanding state forest and national parks but it is unknown if any of the $10.6 million for structures to keep koalas off roads has been spent. Source: NSW DPE.
What are wildlife NGOs doing about road kills?
The Australian Conservation Foundation is amongst Australia’s most outspoken lobby group for protecting and enhancing the environment and wildlife. It’s web site highlights a push for bold solutions and to “use evidence-based advocacy, courage, creativity and common sense to make this country a better place. We champion …wildlife. Together we’re working to …stand up for nature”.
The ACF includes the 2023 article “The nature under threat in each state and territory, crying out for strong nature laws” to demonstrate how to stand up for nature. Surely an estimated 10 million native animals being killed each year on Australian roads would be high on the ACF’s lists of threats, but no, there is not one mention of wildlife vehicle collisions in any state and what should be done by state government transport departments to minimise road kills.
Instead the ACF concentrates its lobbying around condemning farmers across the country for destroying habitat, “Sadly, nature is being destroyed right across Australia – by bulldozers for unsustainable agriculture and urban sprawl” with no mention of farmers 30 plus years of participating in voluntary Landcare farming conservation projects, Land for Wildlife projects, catchment management authority projects, and biolinks projects.
It also emphasises how farm and coastal land development for housing estates is destroying wildlife habitat without adding that most of the wildlife forced to move are killed in vehicle collisions and run overs due to inappropriate speed limits and failure of transport and planning departments to compel developers to install appropriate road wildlife tunnels, rope bridges and exclusion fencing to protect wildlife forced to move. ACF does not recognise the enormous amount of volunteer work undertaken by urban landcare and friends groups is worthy of mention.
World Wide Fund for Nature Australia (WWF) takes a similar stance to environmental degradation as the major cause of wildlife population declines, using University of Sydney research data to highlight the issue. Interrogation of WWF’s 2018 report “Tree-clearing kills 87 million animals in NSW” does not produce any information about the causes of these deaths, yet one clue is provided in a page 3 photo and in an attached Youtube video; both show koala road kills.
Figure 13: These images from a WWF Australia report on the impacts of land clearing on wildlife populations highlight the missing link, namely, road kills. When wildlife lose habitat or are attracted to new habitat, they move locations for food and breeding which in many instances involves crossing roads which have been rated for speed by transport department engineers with no reference to the likely presence of wildlife. When roads have their crash risk rating calculated using correlations with nearby wildlife habitat (Road Effect Zone) or loss of it, then the potential pathway for “doesn’t have to be like this” appears. Source: WWF Australia Youtube and Ricardo Carlo Lonza.
The organisation fails to join the dots to vehicle collisions and run-overs as likely contributors to wildlife deaths when animals must move to find new sources of food and for breeding. Its focus on banning land clearing for housing developments in coastal regions and farming in some pastoral districts diverts the organisation’s attention away from speed reduction and wildlife hardware solutions on roads, where the majority of affected wildlife is killed. Strong advocacy from its members to put pressure on state transport departments to lower speeds in recognised hotspots could produce immediate results for the protection of wildlife; results which could be readily verified by vehicle collision claims and road kills in those areas
Like ACF, WWF Australia fails to recognise that farm land revegetation projects are happening across hundreds of thousands of hectares and will increase as pressure mounts to restore ecosystem health including wildlife populations and to counter climate change with carbon farming and nature repair markets. The wildlife returning to these project areas face the same road kill threats as the wildlife forced to leave housing development areas after losing habitat.
A 2023 survey of Australians by the Biodiversity Council highlights that the community wants more action by state, federal and local governments on protecting biodiversity including wildlife. 88% of people were particularly concerned about the extinction of native plants and animals. The survey also noted that people in peri-urban regions “expressed the highest levels of concern of any regions about extinction” yet these regions are the ones with the highest concentration of wildlife vehicle collisions.
Drilling down into the survey results there were no questions related to road kills and wildlife vehicle collisions. For a survey focussed on community attitudes to protecting Australia’s biodiversity, it is curious that the most obvious threat to wildlife and one that is readily apparent to vehicle drivers and occupants on regional and rural roads, dead wildlife, was not considered important enough to rate a question. It would seem appropriate to ask Australians in such a survey about whether or not they would support state Transport Departments to introduce policies around speed restrictions such as the Safe System Speeds to be put in place on regional and peri-urban roads where wildlife are likely to be on or cross the roads?
Figure 14: Many NGOs are reluctant to recognise that landholders have been involved in protecting private land for nature conservation through many programs including Land for Wildlife which originated in Victoria in 1981 and spread to other states. At the same time NGOs fail to connect increasing land conservation to building wildlife populations which in turn can lead to increasing wildlife vehicle collisions, vehicle occupant casualties and wildlife road kills.
The lack of interest in reducing wildlife vehicle collisions is further highlighted by the Biodiversity Council’s 2023 Factsheet “The top 10 actions you can take to make a difference for biodiversity”. If this is not an opportunity to highlight to the driving public that an estimated 10 million wildlife are killed by vehicles each year in Australia, then what is? But no, not one mention of an “action” drivers can take to avoid killing wildlife. The Council chooses the low hanging fruit for actions to support wildlife such as “keep your dog on a leash in natural areas” and throws in an insult to farmers with the action “reduce beef and lamb consumption” as these involve “clearing and overgrazing natural habitats and culling of native animals”. This statement ignores 30 plus years of initiatives by farmers to preserve and enhance natural habitat on their farms through a host of initiatives such as Land for Wildlife, Landcare, and Biolinks.
Figure 15: NGOs usually take the low hanging fruit options about protecting wildlife and seldom if ever suggest action vehicle drivers can take such as reducing their speed on rural roads through wildlife hotspots to Safe System speeds, or lobbying for removal of default 100km/h speed limits. Sources: Biodiversity Council, photo Patrick Francis.
The Biodiversity Council is one example of most nature promoting NGOs urging government to take more action to increase habitat and enhance biodiversity but failing to connect the dots to increasing wildlife road kills and increasing vehicle occupant casualties as a result. Its Top 10 actions document was compiled from research by 22 experts from a range of organisations. They included ecologists, behaviour change specialists, psychologists, conservation scientists, threatened species specialists, social-ecological systems researchers, and science communication experts. Seems farmers with experience in biodiversity protection and enhancement have no knowledge to offer?
In a 2020 published research paper ‘Identifying and prioritizing human behaviours that benefit biodiversity’ the experts identified 27 separate actions focused on Victorian biodiversity that individuals could engage in to “either benefit or reduce negative impacts on biodiversity. It included actions related to consumption, social and lifestyle behaviours, stewardship, advocacy and time and financial donations.” Adopting Safe System speeds was not identified as an action that individuals should consider when driving on rural and regional roads.
The Land for Wildlife program which operates in all states and territories has been successful for about 30 years encouraging farmers to protect and introduce more native habitat on farms and as a consequence increase wildlife populations. Land for Wildlife Victoria is administered by Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) and in 2024 embraces over 536,000 ha on registered properties. The program draws no connection between increasing wildlife populations and increasing road kills on roads adjacent to registered properties. Roads and wildlife on or crossing them are outside the jurisdiction of DEECA so the Department ignores wildlife road kills associated with the program.
Biolinks NGOs are undertaking valuable projects to create corridors of renewed and repaired habitat many of which embrace roads. They too have not drawn a connection between more protected habitat more wildlife and more wildlife road kills and do not lobby for lower regional road maximum speed limits on adjacent roads. The Federal government’s latest initiative to increase conservation across farm land, Nature Repair Act, which will increase wildlife populations gives no consideration to implementing Safe System speeds to protect wildlife from vehicle collisions where accredited projects increase the Road Affect Zone (article 5).
Wildlife rescue NGOs
Apart from landholders participating in protection and restoration of native vegetation to enhance and protect wildlife populations, wildlife rescue NGOs are physically and emotionally impacted by wildlife vehicle collisions and pick up the pieces for the approximate 2% of animals that survive, many of which are pouch joeys. Despite their advocacy for a suite of actions to be taken to avoid and reduce wildlife vehicle collisions, the evidence shows kills are increasing. A good example is the data contained in the Wildlife Victoria’s ‘Wildlife Road Toll Reduction Toolkit’ pilot project 2023, figure 12.
Like all the rescue NGOs Wildlife Victoria’s promoted solutions while seemingly positive ignore the key reasons explained in this series of six articles why wildlife vehicle collisions on rural and regional roads will continue unabated and increase as human populations and vehicle kilometres increase and as environment restoration programs increase wildlife populations. That is, wildlife living adjacent to roads are not under the jurisdiction of State Transport department engineers who implement the Safe System Model to achieve Vision Zero 2050, nor are they under the jurisdiction of State Environment Department ecologists implementing wildlife protection laws once they enter the road zone.
Wildlife rescue NGOs are run by volunteers who are already under extreme pressure to continue their work both physically and financially. Despite this, State Transport and Environment department politicians pay no attention to incorporating wildlife protection and welfare into their States’ Road Safety Strategies and Vision Zero 2050.
Figure 16: Wildlife rescue NGOs like Wildlife Victoria seem unaware that wildlife on roads are not a component of the Safe System decision making guidelines that form the basis of each State’s Road Safety Strategies. Similarly wildlife on roads are not under the jurisdiction of State Environment Departments. Sources: Wildlife Victoria; underlined comments and sign photos Patrick Francis.
Take home message
Wildlife road kills have virtually become ‘institutionalised’ amongst the majority of Australia’s driving public who are confident it is safe to travel at the default speed of 100km/hr on many regional and rural roads dotted with yellow wildlife signs warning of casualty collision potential. Despite the danger collisions represent, wildlife protection on public roads falls into a no-go jurisdiction black hole for transport department engineers and environment department ecologists and their political masters. Politicians constantly weigh up the voter appeal of retaining existing legal road speed limits, road user mobility and commercial logistics against voter criticism of reducing legal speeds to protect wildlife, to minimise vehicle occupant casualties from wildlife vehicle collisions, to minimise vehicle occupant hospitalisation and trauma costs, and to minimise vehicle insurance and repair costs.
As these six ‘Wildlife road kills versus Vision Zero 2050’ articles demonstrate, driver mobility, convenience and commercial logistics takes priority in determining speed limits on all Australia’s rural and regional road network even on those road where such objectives are less or not important compared with road user equity and wildlife protection and welfare. It means the unpredictably of wildlife on and crossing rural and regional roads will undermine the Safe System Principles behind achieving Vision Zero 2050 road fatalities and the Nature Vision that by 2030 there will be with no further biodiversity loss and 2050 all Australians will be living in harmony with nature.
Despite Transport and Environment Ministers failing in their duty of care to wildlife and to some extent vehicle occupants and pedestrians and cyclists on rural roads by allowing the wildlife jurisdiction black hole to continue the responsibility for road kills sits with vehicle drivers decisions. The evidence is clear in the big picture of road rules legislation around 40% of drivers exceed speed limits on the roads where most casualties and fatalities occur despite the risk to their own, passengers, other road users health and the direct and indirect costs of collisions. The question for Transport and Environment ministers is do they continue to sit on their hands and ignore wildlife as part of Australia’s natural heritage worth protecting and a contributor to road collisions or do they include wildlife on and around roads as part of the decision making processes to help achieve the Society’s visions for wildlife and road safety?
Figure 17: Wildlife on roads black hole. The wildlife vehicle collisions and wildlife road kills jurisdiction black hole is the reality while the Ministers responsible for Transport Departments and Environment Departments continue to ignore Safe System Speed solutions to accommodate the unpredictability of wildlife on rural and regional roads in favour of driver convenience, mobility and political support . Sources: Commonwealth of Australia, Queensland Road Safety Strategy 2021 – 2030; photos Patrick Francis.
References:
‘Australia’s Strategy for Nature 2024–2030’, Commonwealth of Australia June 2024.
Queensland TMR Fauna Sensitive Transport Infrastructure Delivery, Transport and Main Roads, June 2024
Transport for NSW ‘Using technology to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions literature review and directions paper’ December 2024
“A review of roadkill rescue: who cares for the mental, physical and financial welfare of Australian wildlife carers?”
By Bruce Englefield, Melissa Starling and Paul McGreevy, all Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney NSW; Wildlife Research, 2018, 45, 103–118
Victorian government DEECA Protecting wildlife
“Wildlife Management Methods – Kangaroos and Wallabies” Victorian government DELWP 2025
“Protecting Victoria’s Environment – Biodiversity 2037” ; The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2017
“Victorian Koala Management Strategy” The State of Victoria Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action 2023.
“Living with Wildlife Action Pan” The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2018
“Sharing the environment: Counting the cost of wildlife mortality on roads” by Dr Daniel Ramp School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences University of New South Wales
Transport for NSW “Biodiversity Management Guideline Protecting and managing biodiversity on Transport for NSW projects” March 2024
Quick guide to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. T2 Biodiversity values integrated
Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme
Borg, K., Smith, L., Hatty, M., Dean, A., Louis, W., Bekessy,
S., Williams, K., Morgain, R. & Wintle, B. Biodiversity Concerns Report: 97% of Australians want more action to protect nature. The Biodiversity Council, June, 2023.
“The top 10 actions you can take to make a difference for biodiversity” Factsheet April 2023 Biodiversity Council
Selinske MJ,Garrard GE, Gregg EA, et al. Identifying and prioritizing human behaviors that benefit biodiversity. Conservation Science and Practice.2020;2:e249. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.249SELINSKE ET AL . 19 of 19
Land for Wildlife Victoria, DEECA ,Land for Wildlife
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2025 “Wildlife management methods Kangaroos and Wallabies”.
Australian Conservation Foundation “The nature under threat in each state and territory, crying out for strong nature laws” by Daarcie Carruthers 16 February 2023
WWF: Taylor, MFJ, Dickman, CR (2018) Native animals lost to tree-clearing in NSW 1998-2015. An update to Johnson, C., Cogger, H., Dickman, C. and Ford, H. (2007) Impacts of tree clearing: The impacts of approved clearing of native vegetation on Australian wildlife in New South Wales. WWF-Australia Report, WWF-Australia, Sydney. (http://www.wwf.org.au/news_resources/ resource_library/?1482/Impacts-of-landclearing)
** “Road design factors and their interactions with speed and speed limits” Jessica Edquist et al Monash University Accident Research Centre May 2009
