Safe havens are an important conservation tool for protecting threatened species from invasive predators and other pests. They include fenced areas, islands where predators have been removed, fenced peninsulas, private conservation reserves, sanctuaries and some national parks.
This project assessed how well Australia’s current safe-haven network protects threatened non-mammalian fauna, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates. It also identified where future safe havens could provide the greatest conservation benefit under climate change.
The research found that Australia’s current mainland fenced safe-haven network offers limited protection for threatened non-mammal species. Many existing safe havens were originally designed to protect mammals from cats and foxes but threatened non-mammal species face a wider range of threats, including rats, pigs, trout, weeds, pathogens and problematic native species.
The project used species distribution modelling and spatial prioritisation to identify high-value areas for future safe havens. These priority areas can help guide investment in new or adapted safe havens that are designed around the threats faced by different species.
Professor Matt Hayward walks along the fence line of a feral animal enclosure. Photo: Sydney Morning Herald.
The project found that Australia’s current mainland fenced safe-haven network provides limited protection for threatened non-mammal species.
Key findings include:
74 mainland fenced safe havens were identified across Australia.
Of these, 54 were functional, 14 were proposed or under construction, and six were non-functional.
Only two of the 123 target species were known to occur within current fenced safe havens.
A further six species occurred in small, purpose-built fenced havens.
None of the 45 species modelled had suitable future habitat overlapping with current functional fenced safe havens.
Seventeen modelled species had suitable future habitat within 10 km of a current functional fenced safe haven.
Only nine of those species were threatened by large terrestrial pests that could potentially be excluded by current mainland fencing designs.
These findings show that improving protection for threatened non-mammal species will require careful planning of where safe havens are located, which species they target, and what threats they are designed to manage.
The project identified 74 mainland fenced safe havens across Australia, including functional, non-functional, partially fenced and proposed sites. Image: Gould et al. 2026 / Biological Conservation.
The project identified priority areas for future safe havens by combining species distribution modelling, climate projections and spatial prioritisation.
High-priority areas were mainly found along eastern Australia, including:
south-eastern Victoria
south-eastern New South Wales
north-eastern New South Wales
south-eastern Queensland
north-eastern Queensland
parts of Tasmania.
The highest-ranking bioregions included the Central Highlands in Tasmania, Highlands–Southern Fall in Victoria and the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales.
The locations of priority areas differed depending on pest type. For example, areas important for species threatened by pathogens were not always the same as areas important for species threatened by aquatic pests, weeds or large terrestrial predators.
This means future safe-haven planning should consider pest-specific designs, rather than relying on a single fencing model.
Priority bioregions for future safe havens. Green shading shows the number of high-ranking prioritisation points, with brighter green areas indicating stronger priority for future safe-haven planning. Image: Gould et al. 2026 / Biological Conservation.
The research highlights that safe havens need to be designed around the species and the threats they are intended to manage.
Current mainland conservation fencing is most suited to excluding large terrestrial pests, such as cats, foxes and pigs. However, many threatened non-mammal species are affected by pests that are harder to exclude using standard fencing.
Future safe-haven planning may need to consider:
modified fencing designs to exclude smaller pests such as rodents
natural or artificial barriers for aquatic species
island havens where pests can be eradicated or are unlikely to colonise
netting or other structures where aerial pests are a threat
targeted management for weeds and pathogens
whether species can be contained, translocated or supported within a safe haven
whether multiple target species can coexist within the same haven
how climate change may alter future habitat suitability.
The research also found that some priority areas may be in hilly or complex terrain, which can increase the cost and difficulty of building and maintaining fences.
This project provides evidence to help conservation managers and decision-makers improve the national safe-haven network.
The findings can support:
more strategic investment in future safe havens
identification of threatened species missing from current safe havens
planning for safe havens that remain suitable under climate change
decisions about where new safe havens could provide the greatest benefit
consideration of pest-specific safe-haven designs
better coordination across safe-haven managers, government agencies and conservation organisations.
The project also contributes to national efforts to improve the representation of predator-susceptible threatened species in safe havens.
Matt Hayward walks along the fence line of a feral animal exclosure. Photo: Sydney Morning Herald.
Places like Kangaroo Island can also function as safe havens. Photo: Greg/Adobe Stock.
Determining the biological attributes (e.g. burrowing, home range, flight capabilities etc) is an important step to determine species best suited for protection in safe havens. Photo: Avril/Adobe Stock.
This project was led by Professor Matt Hayward from the University of Newcastle.
Project team members included Darren Southwell, Andrea Griffin and John Gould from the University of Newcastle, with collaborators Katherine Moseby and Sarah Legge contributing to the published research.