Camera traps are widely used in wildlife research and monitoring, so it is imperative to understand their strengths, limitations, and potential for increasing impact. We investigated a decade of use of wildlife cameras (2012-2022) with a case study on Australian terrestrial vertebrates using a multifaceted approach. We (i) synthesised information from a literature review; (ii) conducted an online questionnaire of 132 professionals; (iii) hosted an in-person workshop of 28 leading experts representing academia, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and government; and (iv) mapped camera trap usage based on all sources. We predicted that the last decade would have shown: (i) exponentially increasing sampling effort, a continuation of camera usage trends up to 2012; (ii) analytics to have shifted from naive presence/absence and capture rates towards hierarchical modelling that accounts for imperfect detection, thereby improving the quality of outputs and inferences on occupancy, abundance, and density; and (iii) broader research scales in terms of multi-species, multi-site and multi-year studies. However, the results showed that the sampling effort has reached a plateau, with publication rates increasing only modestly. Users reported reaching a saturation point in terms of images that could be processed by humans and time for complex analyses and academic writing. There were strong taxonomic and geographic biases towards medium-large mammals (>500g) in forests along Australia's southeastern coastlines, reflecting proximity to major cities. Regarding analytical choices, bias-prone indices still accounted for similar to 50% of outputs and this was consistent across user groups. Multi-species, multi-site and multiple-year studies were rare, largely driven by hesitancy around collaboration and data sharing. There is no widely used repository for wildlife camera images and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) is the dominant repository for sharing tabular occurrence records. However, the ALA is presence-only and thus is unsuitable for creating detection histories with absences, inhibiting hierarchical modelling. Workshop discussions identified a pressing need for collaboration to enhance the efficiency, quality and scale of research and management outcomes, leading to the proposal of a Wildlife Observatory of Australia (WildObs). To encourage data standards and sharing, WildObs should (i) promote a metadata collection app; (ii) create a tagged image repository to facilitate artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) computer vision research in this space; (iii) address the image identification bottleneck via the use of AI/ML-powered image-processing platforms; (iv) create data commons for detection histories that are suitable for hierarchical modelling; and (v) provide capacity building and tools for hierarchical modelling. Our review highlights that while Australia's investments in monitoring biodiversity with cameras position it to be a global leader in this context, realising that potential requires a paradigm shift towards best practices for collecting, curating, sharing and analysing 'Big Data'. Our findings and framework have broad applicability outside Australia to enhance camera usage to meet conservation and management objectives ranging from local to global scales. This review articulates a country/continental observatory approach that is also suitable for international collaborative wildlife research networks.

Earth’s anthropogenic-driven species extinction crisis is worsening. Communicating this crisis to diverse audiences is needed to catalyze action, yet it is proving difficult. To help overcome this communication problem, we designed a threatened species recovery report card with the aim of showcasing conservation progress on imperiled species to the wider public. Using commonly available datasets, we report on species recovery in Australia as a case study. The report card captures the major building blocks of species recovery including funding, recovery planning, habitat protection, threat status improvement, and persistence. It highlights the power of the results, with Australia failing most indicators. While our report card for Australia highlights many shortcomings, it provides a baseline from which decision makers can track progress and outline directions for improvement. Without an immediate step change in how the biodiversity crisis is communicated at varying scales across Earth, including in Australia, we will continue to fail future generations.

Abstract Australia's national environmental legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) has been criticized for failing to mitigate the national extinction crisis. Under the EPBC Act, projects anticipated to have a significant impact on protected matters must be referred to the Australian Government for assessment. Actions deemed unlikely to have a significant impact are granted permission to proceed, while actions expected to have a significant impact must undergo further assessment. We spatially analyzed potential habitat loss deemed either significant or non‐significant in Queensland and New South Wales for threatened species, migratory species, and threatened ecological communities between 2000 and 2015. Impact scores were developed to quantify and compare the value of woody vegetation cleared under each referral determination. We found no statistically significant difference between median impact scores for vegetation removed under significant and non‐significant determinations. Over half (63%) of all scored losses occurred under actions deemed non‐significant, with certain species disproportionately impacted. The tiger quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus) and grey‐headed flying‐fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) lost 82% and 72% of their total referred potential habitat under non‐significant actions, respectively. Our results indicate that the application of the EPBC Act is failing to adequately conserve the protected matters of this investigation.