caring for our country

Achievements ReportSYNTHESIS 2008 –2013

© Commonwealth of Australia 2013

This work is protected by copyright law. Apart from any use permitted by the Copyright Act 1968 (including research or study) no part may be reproduced, reused or redistributed for any commercial purpose without prior written permission.

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information set out in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Australian Government, its employee and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by the law.

Data included in the Caring for our Country 2008-2013 Achievements Report is correct as at April 2013.

This report may contain images, names of or references to deceased Aboriginal people.

CitationCaring for our Country 2008-2013 Achievements Report: Synthesis. Independent summary to Caring for our Country, 2013.

Acknowledgements and contributions:Jenny Boshier, independent author of the Synthesis chapter. Professor David Lindenmayer, Natural Resource Management expert. Roger Wickes, Natural Resource Management expert.The Achievements Report was developed in consultation with a wide range of Caring for our Country stakeholders including Australian Government staff, Catchment Management Authorities, NRM organisations, community groups and project proponents. These stakeholders provided unique insights into how the program has supported environmental activities from a community and regional perspective.

Cover photo credits:Western Australia Rangelands, Karijini National Park. Source C Zwick, DSEWPaCTasmanian Devil joey. Source: S. Graham.Coastwest, community seagrass monitoring project, Roebuck Bay, Broome, Western Australia. Source: Environs Kimberley.Returning crop stubble to the soil, near Yarrawalla, Victoria. Source: C. Burke, DSEWPaCSturt’s desert pea, Ningaloo, Western Australia. Source: T Howard, DSEWPaC.Kids Practicing Tracks. Source: R. Brittingham.

Summary This synthesis chapter is part of the Caring for our Country five-year Achievements Report, which consists of six national priority area chapters that explore in detail the achievements of the program against each set of intended five-year outcomes. This chapter adds an in-depth review of achievements, exploring some of the key characteristics, successes and challenges that have been the focus, or have emerged, from the program over the last five years.

This independently authored synthesis chapter has drawn on a number of information sources, including:

commissioned evaluations, reviews and research undertaken during the program that focus on particular thematic issues or five-year outcome areas

early drafts of the national priority area chapters, drafted by an internal working group of the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) and Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) staff

a selection of Caring for our Country project summary reports and project progress reports

interviews with Australian Government officials, including staff from DSEWPaC and DAFF

input from two natural resource management (NRM) experts (who have also contributed to this chapter)

information such as NRM scientific papers, the 2011 and 2006 State of the Environment reports.

It was beyond the scope of this work to systematically assess all investments and achievements associated with the program.

Key characteristics, strengths and challenges

Through the analysis of this information, key characteristics, successes and challenges of the program have been identified and are discussed here. In summary, these include:

People and partnerships are critical—the individuals, Landcare groups and organisations that were involved in the program were key drivers of NRM sustainable agriculture and biodiversity results.

Partnerships with a range of groups and organisations were created to achieve results and these were encouraged and generally succeeded. They included NRM organisations, Landcare and Coastcare, ‘friends of’ and other community groups are central to NRM efforts in Australia.

Some projects acted as ‘catalysts’ in bringing together organisations who hadn’t always worked together in the past. This supported delivery of on-ground activities and saw development of relationships that will underpin coordinated efforts in the future.

Funding was leveraged through cooperative partnerships with industry, business, environmental non-government organisations and other agencies and groups, which meant that project funding was often augmented, enhancing capacity to deliver.

A key challenge was staff and expertise retention in regional areas. Relationships, experience, technical and scientific knowledge and skills are critical.

Integrated efforts and benefits—Caring for our Country encouraged integrative approaches, which were appropriate given the scale and long-term nature of NRM challenges:

The program resulted in integrated benefits across many landscapes across Australia, such as the Great Barrier Reef catchments, the Rangelands and box gum grassy woodland habitats.

Continuity in addressing long-term NRM issues was achieved through the program for some NRM issues.

Increasing the involvement of Indigenous people, through the Indigenous Protected Areas and Working on Country Indigenous Ranger elements of Caring for our Country, particularly, had many environmental as well as social and community benefits.

A more integrated approach to consolidate on past investments would be supported by the availability of better spatial information on investment areas. This would help prioritise investments and measure impacts over time.

Innovation—Caring for our Country encouraged some significant innovative approaches to address NRM issues:

Where innovative approaches have been adopted either in design or implementation, they have proven successful. This suggests the need for the program to continue to foster innovation and creativity of the NRM

and biodiversity conservation community.

Innovation was generally at the individual project scale and was not well communicated to the broader community.

There was some level of program-wide innovation in the approach taken with the Working on Country Indigenous Ranger program, Reef Rescue and moving to an online application process.

Similarly, elements of the program and projects that developed innovative monitoring into their design were able to capture new NRM information and to demonstrate their achievements. Innovative communication techniques have also enhanced awareness and knowledge of some NRM issues.

The review of the program indicated that there was room to improve when it came to innovation.

A more focused and defined approach to monitoring outcomes is needed, as is targeting of innovation and a willingness to accept a level of risk of failure.

A scientific basis for prioritising and evaluating activities and results—Caring for our Country has accessed and integrated best available information to inform investment and evaluate achievements:

Information such as species or threat distribution maps, ecological change information and knowledge gained from trialling different approaches to NRM issues was assembled and used to inform some projects.

The program has added to a research and knowledge base through investment in relevant research, monitoring and other scientific products.

The design of the program—and, through it, individual projects—would benefit from information on the scale of the NRM issue to be addressed. This would support investment decisions made on a stronger evidence base.

A continuing challenge for NRM programs is the integration of monitoring and evaluation of outcomes at, and between, the program and project design phase. Doing so would support reporting of longer-term outcomes.

These characteristic successes and challenges were reflected in many of the Caring for our Country projects and the program as a whole. This synthesis chapter highlights a few examples.

At the end of this chapter, there is a discussion on some of the existing and emerging challenges that will be influential for future NRM. The discussion touches on how the first five years of Caring for our Country have engaged with, and helped build the capacity to deal with, these challenges.

Summary of achievements for the first five years

The natural resource base of Australia underpins the social wellbeing of the nation and it is imperative that it is retained for the future. The scale of the NRM issues across Australia, the different land uses and management and the long-term nature of change in environmental systems make assessing progress at an Australian landscape scale a challenging task. Additionally, in assessing the achievements, it is important to acknowledge that they build on previous NRM initiatives at all levels of government and on the efforts of many partner organisations. The production and environmental gains from Caring for our Country’s first five years of investment are sometimes difficult to attribute without an understanding of this previous work.

Consequently, in assessing the five years of the Caring for our Country program it can be useful to focus on management actions that are expected over time to lead to an improvement in the environmental asset and resource condition. It is also important to acknowledge that the scale of those management actions may not be significant enough to change the resource condition. However, they may slow the negative impacts that would occur without intervention.

Further, assessing the achievements against each of the five-year outcomes is challenging, in some cases, due to the absence of suitable data. That said, there is a range of qualitative and quantitative data and information to draw on. In some instances, investments made in monitoring during this first five years will not yield results within the five-year window of the program—monitoring results for the Reef Rescue, Environmental Stewardship and other aspects of the program, for example, will in the future provide valuable data and information.

With this in mind, key achievements from each of the national priority areas are highlighted here. All outcomes and their achievements are described more fully in each of the national priority area chapters (available at www.nrm.gov.au).

National Reserve System

Australia’s National Reserve System and the role of Indigenous management within it have been enhanced:

By June 2013, the total amount of land added to the National Reserve System through purchase, establishment and management is expected to be 30 million hectares, with 75 per cent of the funding being invested in land within under-represented bioregions.

At 31 March 2013, the declaration of 28 new Indigenous Protected Areas added over 15.6 million hectares to the National Reserve System. It is anticipated that up to eight additional properties may be declared before 30 June 2013.

All National Reserve System properties will be managed for biodiversity purposes under plans of management.

Biodiversity and Natural Icons

Investments in this national priority area were diverse, reflecting the complexity of the NRM biodiversity challenges in Australia.

As at 30 June 2012, the area of native habitat and vegetation being managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity had been increased by over 10.5 million hectares. Although the area target has been achieved, there is little information yet on whether the critical threats to biodiversity have been reduced sufficiently for any long-term recovery of biodiversity to occur (RM Consulting Group 2013a).

The eradication of rabbits, rats and mice from Macquarie Island is on track and is expected to achieve the long-term goal of restoration of the island’s natural values. Intensive hunting after aerial baiting has found no rabbits since November 2011 (Darby 2012). Early signs of recovery of flora on the island have been observed and birds are returning to breeding sites. Simultaneous eradication of these three pest animals at this scale has not been attempted in the world before.

The five tramp ant projects are attempting eradication or containment over areas ranging from 20 to 36 000 hectares—a significantly large area in comparison to efforts around the globe. It is typical for areas of 1 to 41 hectares to be addressed. The Red Imported Fire Ant Eradication Program, as at 30 June 2012, has supported the removal of the infested status of 1488 sites covering 13 555 hectares. The number of colonies found at new detection sites is decreasing. These projects are long-term and ongoing.

The Feral Camel Management Project, working across three states and the Northern Territory, is on track to reduce feral camel densities near 18 priority biological refugia and high ecological value aquatic ecosystems sites, to the revised target density of less than 0.25 animals per square kilometre. Monitoring data for the recovery of ecosystems following camel removal will be gathered in 2012–13, although there are early indications of biodiversity recovery at some refugia, including waterholes, and of threatened species recovery.

The Ningaloo Coast was inscribed on the World Heritage List in June 2011. Preparation of the documentation for the listing was in partnership with the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation. The success of the World Heritage listing and status will ensure the ongoing protection of its biodiversity and other values.

The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program, in cooperation with the Tasmanian Government, has made substantial progress over the last five years in conserving the species by establishing an insurance population, investigating innovative approaches to manage populations in the wild, funding scientific research to advance understanding of the facial tumour disease and establishing major partnerships to assist in meeting the program’s objectives.

Coastal Environments and Critical Aquatic Habitats

Investment through this national priority area has resulted in significant progress towards reducing the impact of agricultural run-off into the Great Barrier Reef:

Reef Rescue is a highly successful NRM program that is on track to meet or exceed ambitious targets to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Reef Rescue, a $200 million component of the Australian Government’s Caring for our Country program, was administered by regional NRM bodies with agricultural industry partners. The objective of Reef Rescue was to accelerate the adoption of improved agricultural practices to protect the Great Barrier Reef from the impacts of agricultural run-off. Over 2000 farmers in the sugar cane, horticulture, grains and cotton sectors and over 945 pastoralists in the grazing and dairy sectors have adopted improved land management practices in the Great Barrier Reef priority catchments. The grants program was supported by funding for partnerships (coordination, engagement and extension activities), monitoring and reporting and research and development.

At the industry level, peak agricultural industry groups have worked with regional NRM groups to develop and implement industry-specific programs to deliver grants, assisted in the development of management practice frameworks, provided industry-wide coordination and communication activities and supported cross-regional and cross-industry coordination.

The size of the investment, the commitment to five years of funding, and multi-year contracts (and ambitious targets) allowed delivery agents to plan strategically and deliver to scale. While there were challenges involved in the rapid expansion of existing programs, substantial practice change could be achieved and this will deliver water quality benefits on a scale not previously realised.

The effectiveness of efforts to sustain the environmental values of priority sites in the Ramsar estate was independently assessed as excellent (Alluvium 2013). The assessment was based on the extent to which NRM activities identified and addressed the key threats to the environmental values at these priority sites. Similarly, efforts to sustain the values of priority coastal and inland high ecological value aquatic ecosystems sites were assessed (using the same description) as good (ibid., p. 23). The conclusion was that, whether at priority sites or elsewhere, projects were addressing key threats in most cases and stated targets for activities were achieved in most cases.

Sustainable Farm Practices

Caring for our Country has contributed to the uptake of more sustainable farm practices including no till soil management, conservation of landscapes and protection of threatened ecosystems, and adoption of supporting technologies.

An assessment has been made of the adoption of sustainable farm and land management practices that deliver improved ecosystem services. An analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Agricultural Resource Management survey has shown an improvement in trend over the period of the Caring for our Country program. The risk of soil erosion occurring through ground cover being removed by tillage has been further reduced by farmers adopting direct seeding technology and improving the management of ground cover and stubbles (Barson, Mewett and Paplinska 2012b). A similar result is occurring in grazing country, where farmers have been increasing the amount of ground cover, although more can be done to bring it up to a target of 70 per cent cover (Barson 2013a). Soil acidification is a major issue in higher rainfall areas and 13 per cent to 23 per cent of farmers are actively managing it (Barson, Mewett and Paplinska 2012c).

About two-thirds of Australia’s native vegetation is on agricultural land and about half of this is protected. Over the period of the Caring of our Country program the area of native vegetation protected increased by about two million hectares or 4 per cent (Barson, Mewett and Paplinska 2012a). There was a 12 per cent increase in wetlands protected for conservation purposes over the five-year period, bringing the wetland area protected to 57 per cent.

Through the Environmental Stewardship Program, 58 000 hectares of private land containing nationally threatened grassy woodlands and other ecosystems in South Australia is being protected and managed for up to 15 years.

Over 79 583 land managers and fishers in Australia attended events to build their knowledge and skills about NRM through Caring for our Country.

Northern and Remote Australia

Priority was given to investment in the northern and remote regions of Australia through the National Reserve System including Indigenous Protected Areas; uptake of sustainable grazing practices; control of pests, particularly cane toads (Bufo marinus), tramp ants and camels; and the expansion of the traditional fire management regimes across the savannas:

As at March 2013 the addition of 15 new Indigenous Protected Areas to the National Reserve System in northern and remote Australia contributed a further 15.5 million hectares.

There were over 9000 recorded instances of farmers and land managers participating in projects to increase sustainable farming practices. The area prepared for crops and pastures without cultivation increased from 47 per cent to 62 per cent between 2007–08 and 2010–11. However, the number of businesses monitoring ground cover fell from 76 per cent in 2007–08 to 11 per cent in 2009–10, which may be due to external factors affecting the grazing industries (Barson 2013b).

Traditional fire management regimes were expanded across 200 000 square kilometers. One project covered the north Kimberley, Central Arnhem Land, the Gulf and Cape York—an area of 10 million hectares. This and other projects in Western Australia helped to reduce the occurrence of wildfires, benefited biodiversity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Community Skills, Knowledge and Engagement

All Caring for our Country projects were encouraged to incorporate relevant community skills, knowledge and engagement targets using on-ground activities, and so outcomes for this national priority area were achieved through projects in the five other national priority areas:

Working on Country, a component of Caring for our Country, met its target of 690 Indigenous rangers to manage or deliver environmental outcomes by May 2012. Currently 690 Indigenous rangers are employed through Working on Country. The target is to increase this to 730 rangers by June 2015.

In 2009 Regional Landcare Facilitators were funded in each region and this contributed to more than 50 000 land managers and farmers being supported to improve their knowledge, skills and engagement in managing our natural resources and the environment. A recent independent evaluation of the Regional Landcare Facilitator initiative found that facilitators have strengthened networks, improved partnerships and increased information dissemination in the Landcare community.

As at 30 December 2012, 181 projects had supported over 481 Indigenous partnerships to use traditional ecological knowledge to underpin biodiversity conservation. Projects have ranged from the development of language maps and used DVDs to tell stories of the local environment to the use of traditional knowledge to improve modern monitoring and management programs for native species and feral pests and to improve fire management approaches.

Over 82 000 volunteers and short-term members and over 1200 groups, including environmental, Indigenous, Landcare, Coastcare and sustainable agriculture groups, had been involved in over 1500 Community Action Grant projects, allowing many projects to increase engagement and participation rates.

Table of Contents

Summary

Key characteristics, strengths and challenges

Summary of achievements for the first five years

Introduction

Data and information

Purpose of the Achievements Report

Structure of the report

Synthesis

People are key to natural resource management achievements

Recognition of achievements

Integrated results and multiple benefits were achieved

Case Study: Sustainable management of pastoral lands through Ecosystem Management Understanding (EMU™)

Innovative approaches to natural resource management

Role of science in Caring for our Country

Case study: Improving fertiliser usage and minimising environmental impact

Case Study: Management interventions in temperate eucalypt woodlands

Case Study: Better management of Australia’s soils

Case study: Monitoring the Environmental Stewardship Program

Strategic natural resource management challenges

Conclusion

References

IntroductionAustralia’s environment contains important natural resources which also support vital ecosystem services such as clean air and water, biodiversity, healthy soils, and food and fibre production. In 2008, the Australian Government developed a strategic focus to achieving environmental outcomes through the Caring for our Country initiative. The initiative built on the foundations of the National Heritage Trust program and integrated a number of other natural resource management programs such as Landcare, the Environmental Stewardship Program , National Wildlife Corridors, and Working on Country.

The objective of Caring for our Country was to achieve an environment that is healthier, better protected, well managed and resilient and that also provides essential ecosystem services in a changing climate. Over $2 billion was committed to the initiative over five years. The first phase of the program commenced in July 2008 and will end in June 2013, while the second phase will be implemented between 2013 and 2018. Over 3500 grants were funded by the Caring for our Country program between July 2008 and June 2013. The figure below demonstrates how projects, targets and outcomes contributed to the overall goals of Caring for our Country.

Data and information

The Caring for our Country Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) Strategy established a framework for measuring progress towards achieving program outcomes and demonstrating accountability for public expenditure. Progress was assessed based on aggregated project level data which was reported through annual report cards to inform the Australian Government and community about how the Caring for our Country investments were progressing over time. All funded projects were required to have a component of monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement, including reporting on progress every six months, annually, and at the completion of projects. MERI supports the collection of data and information to demonstrate achievements and allow ongoing improvements to be made at the project and program level.

The Australian Government also invested in strategic research projects across thematic areas to evaluate achievement of outcomes and to improve program delivery. These research projects are stored in an integrated digital archive to ensure that the information is publicly accessible over an extended period of time: NRM knowledge online. The reports are referenced throughout this document where relevant. The digital archive also stores information from previous natural resource management initiatives such as the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and the Natural Heritage Trust.

Purpose of the Achievements Report The purpose of this report is to capture the range of NRM achievements against the five-year outcomes of Caring for our Country. In addition to assessing the outcome achievements, the report seeks to identify and highlight the diverse range of other associated and unexpected benefits supported by the initiative, including environmental, social and economic impacts. The report identifies significant lessons learned and the legacy of investments which may help inform future Natural Resource Management efforts.

Importantly, the report also provides a platform for sharing experiences across a broad and diverse range of NRM activities within Australia, which involve many different individuals, organisations, partnerships and approaches.

The development of the Achievements Report included consultation with a wide range of Caring for our Country stakeholders including Australian Government staff, catchment management authorities, NRM organisations, community groups and project proponents. These stakeholders provided unique insights into how the program has supported environmental activities from a community and regional perspective.

Structure of the report Each national priority area is represented by an icon.

In the Synthesis chapter these icons are inserted in relevant places to assist the reader with which chapter they can refer to for further information.

The reader can access the additional information through the online national priority area Chapters at www.nrm.gov.au.

The report comprises a synthesis chapter, six national priority chapters and an appendix which provides information on the history of Caring for our Country and the structure of the program.

Synthesis chapter has been developed by an independent author and highlights key characteristic and achievements of

the program with contributions from two NRM experts.

The national priority area chapters are based on quantitative as well as qualitative data and information, including case studies. The national priority area chapters are available online: www.nrm.gov.au.

Australia’s National Reserve System demonstrates the achievements in protecting environmental values within Australia’s bioregions by expanding the protected areas network of the National Reserve System, including Indigenous Protected Areas.

Biodiversity and natural icons provides an overview of the protection of Australia’s biodiversity and natural icons, including World Heritage Areas, by tackling weed and pest animals and improving habitat of nationally threatened species and communities.

Coastal environments and critical aquatic habitats outlines some of the key actions taken to protect and rehabilitate coastal and aquatic ecosystems by increasing community participation; improving water quality; and protecting Ramsar wetlands, high ecological value aquatic ecosystems and the Great Barrier Reef.

Sustainable farm practices illustrates the successful engagement of farmers, land managers and communities to support the adoption of sustainable land management practices to deliver key ecosystem services and improve NRM.

Northern and remote Australia provides highlights from activities which addressed the unique environmental, social and economic challenges in northern and remote regions of Australia.

Community skills, knowledge and engagement outlines the many achievements in increasing the capacity, skills, knowledge and participation of Indigenous people, volunteers and community groups in managing natural resources and environmental assets.

Appendix: Caring for our Country – the past and the future provides background on the initiative, including funding streams and the second phase of Caring for our Country.

Synthesis

People are key to natural resource management achievements

Community groups, regional NRM organisations, volunteers, businesses, research agencies, environmental non-government organisations (NGOs), local government, state and territory agencies and land managers have been key to enabling and realising the achievements of the first five years of Caring for our Country.

Harnessing and supporting the capacity of these individuals and groups, together with the partnerships they developed, is vital for the success of the program. An independent evaluation of the community skills, knowledge and engagement national priority area emphasised that long-term sustainable NRM depends on individual and institutional capacity and active community stewardship (RM Consulting Group 2013b). There are opportunities to strengthen this in the next phase of Caring for our Country through encouraging capacity building, skills development and the sharing of learnings across the NRM community.

People and organisations involved in Caring for our CountryThe program encouraged a range of individuals and groups to be involved in Caring for our Country. The following section outlines the involvement of some of the participants. Regional NRM organisations continue to facilitate and deliver NRM projects while the involvement of Indigenous people has been greatly encouraged under Caring for our Country. The pivotal role of non-government organisations, industry, businesses and land managers in partnering with agencies and organisations to deliver NRM achievements is highlighted in this chapter and the national priority area chapters.

Regional natural resource management organisationsThe 56 (now 54) regional NRM organisations were a key part of achieving environmental and production results for Caring for our Country. These organisations developed regional action plans in consultation with local communities, which ensured

that the investments made were appropriate to the area and that local people and organisations were committed to them. The regional bodies received significant funding from Caring for our Country as well as from state governments (in some cases) and other sources, and made a strong connection with people in the regions.

Findings of the independent Natural Resources Commission of NSW were that, in 2010, the New South Wales catchment management authorities were engaging communities and delivering projects in a manner that was effective and likely to lead to local resource condition improvement (Natural Resources Commission 2010). Not only were they funded to deliver competitively funded NRM and sustainable production projects as outlined in successive business plans, but they also had a key role in delivering regional NRM priorities with their regional base funding and working closely with land managers and community groups to deliver NRM results.

In South Australia, the NRM Boards collectively engaged 2703 land managers in managing soils and land condition, 9672 land managers in developing biodiversity actions and property plans, 537 volunteer groups and 460 schools (Natural Resource Management Boards of SA 2010).

A review of regional NRM organisations and over 500 stakeholder organisations undertaken in 2012, found that regional NRM organisations have built strong relationships with people and other organisations and are often the key source of NRM information in their region (Inovact Consulting 2011). These organisations are generally seen as being informed about regional issues, willing to listen to stakeholders and providing leadership in NRM. In highly urbanised regions in particular, local government may be the key manager of natural resources and therefore the main target for collaboration. For example, Sydney Catchment Management Authority, presently operating in a region with 39 local governments, facilitates changes in the way local governments manage storm water and urban catchments (ibid., p. 15). One of the five-year outcomes for regional NRM organisations is that they are positioned to deliver best-practice landscape conservation and sustainable land use planning to communities and land managers within their region.

Indigenous communities and organisationsIndigenous people were encouraged to participate in Caring for our Country through a variety of mechanisms, including the Indigenous Protected Areas and Working on Country programs and integrated projects in partnership with regional NRM organisations and environmental non-government organisations. A key benefit of working with Indigenous groups has been the promotion and harnessing of Indigenous ecological knowledge and land management techniques and the cultural values of natural assets.

For example, in 2010, 80 per cent of Working on Country ranger teams undertook activities that involved sharing traditional ecological knowledge and 76 per cent of ranger teams undertook management of culturally significant sites (Australian Government Land and Coasts 2012). Through the Working on Country program, 94 per cent of ranger groups were managing Matters of National Environmental Significance (under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)), including 64 per cent that were managing key threatening processes and 41 per cent that were managing Weeds of National Significance (ibid, p.78).

Indigenous groups collaborated with state and territory agencies, business and land managers in a range of NRM projects—for example, in the control of Weeds of National Significance in the Northern Territory.

Land managersLand managers, mainly farmers, own 60 per cent of the land of Australia and are an important group to target through NRM programs. Over 46 200 land managers, aquaculture farmers and fishers were assisted through 750 projects to reduce soil loss, increase the carbon content of their soils and reduce soil acidification. Many land managers also were involved in biodiversity projects protecting wetlands and native vegetation.

YouthThere was an emphasis on involving youth with a view to increasing young people’s interest in and knowledge of NRM. Today’s youth represent the NRM managers and decision makers of the future. Although aggregated information on the number of young people who were recruited and retained in community groups is not readily available, many projects involved young people. About 15 per cent of the first round of Community Action Grants projects directly engaged schools, resulting in about 4600 students participating in Caring for our Country activities (DSEWPAC and DAFF 2012).

School students were involved in Coastcare activities such as the four-day camps on Phillip Island, Victoria, combining activities such as building penguin nesting boxes and learning from scientists and rangers. In 2011, 89 students from 19 schools attended these camps (ibid, p. 50). Engaging youth is not always straightforward, as observed by one regional NRM organisation: “In regards to youth, participation requires intense supervision by project officers and there are limited activities in which they can participate (e.g for OHandS reasons, they can’t handle chemicals).”

VolunteersVolunteers have contributed to the program in a variety of ways—through their involvement with community groups such as

Landcare and Coastcare and by addressing local NRM issues of restoring local habitats and addressing key threats to biodiversity and sustainable production. Volunteers have contributed to many Caring for our Country projects in both regional and urban locations. In some individual projects, the number of people who volunteered exceeded the estimates of the number of people that would contribute. For example, a project in Tasmania had a target of 300 volunteers and 30 groups to be involved whereas the actual numbers were 944 volunteers and 49 groups (Tasmanian Landcare unpublished).

Conservation Volunteers Australia received a grant to research increasing the long-term engagement of volunteers in South Australia’s rural coastal community environment groups. The project adapted a new events-based model for increased volunteer participation, particularly amongst young people, developing the ‘icare communities’ web-based community engagement site to market and coordinate volunteer projects. The project facilitated an increase of nearly 2000 volunteers undertaking on-ground works, with Conservation Volunteers Australia providing managed teams of volunteers to 48 different community groups across the northern, Yorke, Eyre Peninsula and Kangaroo Island regions of South Australia.

Motivations to become involved in natural resource managementUnderstanding why individuals and groups become involved in NRM is a first step toward encouraging participation:

they [people engaged in NRM] feel the return that they get from their commitment justifies the contribution that they are asked to make. This return may be measured in terms of such things as personal satisfaction, support from peers, improved business outcomes or economic gain. Decisions about becoming involved are most often made on the basis of personal perceptions and expectations of outcomes and sustained by how those expectations balance against the realities of their participation (Larson and Williams 2009).

To better understand what motivated farmers and land managers to adopt sustainable farm practices, including those identified in the sustainable farm practices national priority area, a survey of 1329 farmers and land managers was undertaken in 2010–11 (Ecker et al. 2012). The major finding was that decisions to adopt different land management practices were influenced by financial, environmental and, to a lesser degree, personal motivations. Lack of funds was the main factor limiting farmers’ ability to change management practices, followed by available time and workload.

Other factors that motivate people are mentioned, for example, in relation to one project in Queensland: “Landholder capability and motivation are enhanced through professional benchmarking and networking opportunities” (Fitzroy Basin Association 2009). This Caring for our Country project, facilitated by the Fitzroy Basin Association, assisted 129 beef farmers to form four new producer groups to assess the financial implications of different cattle management strategies. One of the groups is using remote sensing technology to benchmark land cover changes to help monitor land condition and maintain sustainable stocking rates. By working cooperatively, common production issues can be addressed and new information sought to improve production in this case.

Provision of support and coordinationCaring for our Country is a key enabler of NRM activities in Australia. The over $2 billion commitment over the five years was an important Australian Government investment to support NRM efforts.

One way this support has been harnessed is through the resourcing of project coordinators for specific complex projects with multiple partner organisations. It is apparent that the appointment of a project coordinator has had clear benefits in keeping projects on track to achieve their targets; ensuring that the different partner organisations in a project were fully informed on developments and when their contributions could be affected; and liaising with people such as land managers.

For example, the mimosa (Mimosa pigra) control project in the Northern Territory (Territory Natural Resource Management, unpublished) partners considered the coordinator for their project as the most important factor to their success, since the coordinator organised the logistics, helicopters and technical advice; motivated groups; and brought them together to work at a catchment level over a vast project area.

The provision of support to enable capacity building and the coordination of a large number of community groups can result in longer-term benefits. For example, a project to restore the health of the New South Wales coastline aimed to build the capacity of coastal communities to deliver conservation projects (Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority Project, unpublished; Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority 2013). In addition to the conservation projects undertaken, the improved capacity of community members has resulted in ongoing enthusiasm and support for conservation efforts in the community. Conservation achievements for this project to date include the restoration of 452 hectares of land within the coastal zone, with a further 892 hectares treated for weeds; and support for a total of 233 groups to carry out coastal and marine projects involving more than 1000 volunteers. This included 17 partnerships developed with local Indigenous communities and groups.

Support for these 233 community groups meant that improvements could be made in the standard of volunteer groups’ planning, coordination, governance, monitoring, and reporting at the community level. This added to the groups’ motivation and retention and increased their capacity to maintain on-ground achievements beyond the project period.

Access to knowledge and skillsA key driver of participation is the interest of some NRM and biodiversity conservation practitioners in acquiring new skills and knowledge. Caring for our Country has played an important role in funding processes and activities that resulted in people accessing relevant information.

The provision of scientific and technical information to land managers through the engagement of relevant scientists and technical experts was a feature of many individual projects. For example, soil scientists worked closely with land managers in the north-east region of Victoria to conduct soil management training and give agronomic advice, with the result that over 2000 landholders are using improved soil management practices over nominated areas of their property and over 3000 landholders have gained improved NRM knowledge and skills (North East Catchment Management Authority Project, unpublished).

Water quality scientists were an integral part of the team that delivered the Reef Rescue achievements. The Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program is a critical component of the assessment of any long-term improvement in regional water quality that will occur as best-practice land management is widely adopted across the catchments feeding into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon (Reef and Rainforest Research Centre 2006). The monitoring program assesses the health of key marine ecosystems—inshore coral reefs, intertidal seagrasses and the inshore Great Barrier Reef lagoon. The monitoring program has been developed using the best available science and is continuously improved with the advancement of scientific understanding.

Tailored solutions Where tailored solutions, including provision of knowledge and skills, can be provided, there is information to suggest this results in greater motivation and better NRM achievements. One project in Tasmania, for example, offered a range of support, including introductory workshops, field days and farm visits by industry experts, with the result that nearly 600 participants attended workshops on the importance of soil health to animal and plant production (NRM South Project 2012). Independent research conducted a year later highlighted that 79 per cent of attendees had introduced new practices as a result of the workshop and 84 per cent reported a better understanding of NRM issues. This suggests that localised solutions are needed to attract interest and support ongoing achievements.

A horticultural project in South Australia trained ‘Champion Growers’ and matched them with 10 other growers in an active mentoring program to meet the individual growers needs. This resulted in an uptake of improved management practices. Support material in Vietnamese and Khmer was also developed and used.

Recognition of achievements Whether recognition was nationally bestowed or celebrated at a regional level, volunteers and volunteer groups’ activities were frequently recognised and showcased to the wider community. Such recognition is not only useful for increasing visibility and knowledge of the diversity of NRM achievements but also helps to attract and retain people in long-term NRM issues.

One example is the Moreton Bay implementation of the Water Quality Improvement Plan that won awards for best-practice NRM (Ogden and Jones 2013). In addition, funds for rehabilitation and recovery from the Moreton Bay Oil Spill in 2009 were provided to SEQ Catchments to implement a community-based environmental restoration program.

The program received a tremendous response from the community and a total of eight projects, with six project partners, were developed to restore habitat and monitor key species as part of the recovery.

Caring for our Country has also been a primary sponsor of the National Landcare Awards. Every two years the Landcare Awards are judged at a state level and then at a national level. The recognition is highly sought after; a wide range of individuals, Indigenous people groups and schools are involved and many Caring for our Country projects were recognised. Five of the awards were sponsored by Caring for our Country.

Recognition of volunteers is also mentioned in one of the community skills, knowledge and engagement reviews as being essential for maintaining ongoing enthusiasm and participation. Recognition makes individuals think that their contributions are valued, and a ‘thank you event’ is seen as respecting people’s efforts (RM Consulting Group 2013b).

New people participating in natural resource management activitiesOne of the heartening aspects of Caring for our Country was the participation of new people in NRM activities. Attracting new people to NRM activities at different levels is considered a key objective—not only can it help to achieve more effective landscape scale outcomes, as demonstrated in the example below, but also it is key to sustaining the human and social capital needed to support continued NRM efforts in the future, as discussed elsewhere in this chapter.

Projects attracted new people to NRM activities in a variety of ways. Although aggregated information on the numbers of

new people is not available, there were some projects that recorded these numbers. The Environmental Stewardship Program, for example, attracted a broad range of participants. Research by the then Bureau of Rural Sciences found that the program had successfully engaged land managers who are typically not part of conservation or other environmentally-focused programs, with new starters in NRM activities well represented amongst the participants (Binney, Whiteoak and Tunny 2010).

Another example is the successful targeting of land managers who had not previously been involved in NRM programs for a project that aimed to restore woodland in the Stony Rises landscape of the Victorian Volcanic Plains (Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Greening Australia project, unpublished). The catchment management authority ran a series of events to both increase community skills and knowledge and engage land managers in the project. The achievements included:

19 landholders adopting activities that contribute to the ongoing conservation and protection of biodiversity

the assessment of 23 remnant vegetation sites and the development of management plans for 865 hectares

seven four-year contracts to protect 623 hectares of woodlands.

Before this project, approximately 3 per cent of the total extent of the Stony Rises Woodland in the Corangamite region was managed for conservation purposes. As a result of this landholder incentive program, this area has now increased to 11 per cent.

Another example of engagement of new people is provided by the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority, which facilitated a collaboration of state agencies, Indigenous Traditional Owners and local government known as the Glenelg Alliance in western Victoria. It was formed to address landscape-scale issues in the Lower Glenelg and Discovery Bay area, regarded as a critical aquatic ecosystem. Historically, it had been difficult to get the community interested in NRM activities but, by the third year of the project, the Alliance had engaged 90 per cent of targeted land owners. This participation has proven to be effective for long-term weed and pest control, with less reinfestation occurring across the targeted 34 000 hectares of landscape because of the shared priorities of public and private land managers.

Partnerships and cooperation achieve resultsWhere relationships among agencies and organisations had been fostered in the past, those partner organisations were well positioned to apply for Caring for our Country funding where the formation of partnerships to deliver on-ground NRM activities was emphasised. However, building and maintaining relationships among partner organisations can take time and may not always be appropriate to implement NRM projects, so an emphasis on the use of partnerships to deliver NRM activities may not be required in every situation.

Building new relationships was often unexpectedly successful. For example, in the Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association’s project to control Weeds of National Significance, new relationships were established between pastoralists and industry experts who will be available to provide technical advice to those pastoralists in the future (Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association Project, unpublished).

The effectiveness of many partnerships and cooperation among partner organisations was a key to success for some projects and something that could be fostered in future NRM and biodiversity conservation efforts.

The following examples illustrate the diversity and additional benefits of partnerships.

Reef Rescue was consistently mentioned in feedback to the 2012 Review of Caring for our Country as a good model for engaging multiple industry and regional partners and building strong relationships to address a specific NRM issue—in this case, improving the Great Barrier Reef lagoon’s water quality (Australian Government Land and Coasts 2012). The partners included six regional NRM organisations, five peak agricultural industry bodies, conservation groups and scientists. This collaboration brought together critical leadership skills, networks and experience that benefited the program delivery while maintaining a focus on achieving public benefit environmental outcomes and private benefits to landholders.

Efficiencies were achieved through partnerships in some projects. For example, a partnership among nine organisations was instrumental in restoring the values of a Ramsar wetland (Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority 2012). Their observation was that greater environmental outcomes and cost efficiencies were achieved than if each organisations had worked separately. To date, the project achievements are the removal of foxes, feral cats and rabbits from 5473 hectares of wetlands, weed treatment over 531 hectares, and fencing of 36 hectares. There have been reported increases in key native species in priority areas.

Indigenous participation and traditional ecological knowledgeAs Indigenous people have significant land and sea management responsibilities, there are benefits to using traditional ecological knowledge in conjunction with science to enhance the management of biodiversity. Integration of Indigenous knowledge and land management experience can also result in benefits to the Indigenous communities involved, such as the opportunity to participate in the emerging carbon market based on traditional fire and land management practices.

In some of the projects engaging Indigenous people to achieve biodiversity outcomes, the approach of using both traditional knowledge and science was referred to as the two-toolbox approach to biodiversity conservation (Warddeken Land Management Ltd 2012).

Community and Indigenous partnerships

In some projects where Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities worked together to achieve NRM results, many other benefits were realised, including:

increased cross-cultural awareness

increased trust and respect between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities

better relationships throughout the community and support in times of need—for example, in drought

acknowledgement of the different roles, knowledge and skills that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people can bring to NRM (DSEWPaC 2012a)

capacity-building opportunities, including employment opportunities, which align with Closing the Gap strategies.

These benefits are illustrated in a project to protect biodiversity in 8000 hectares of the Lower Daly River catchment (Wangamaty Lower Daly Land Management Group Inc project, unpublished). A high level of trust and mutual respect was developed between the local Indigenous communities and the Wangamaty Lower Daly Management Group, facilitated by the expertise of the Wangamaty coordinator. This relationship is regarded as a solid foundation for achieving NRM outcomes in the future and to date has helped reduce the amount of newly identified gamba grass and other grassy weeds and their densities in the project area.

Integrated results and multiple benefits were achieved

The design of Caring for our Country clearly sought to support integrated activities and achieve integrated results. As stated in the Caring for our Country business plan for 2009–2010 (p 6):

In order to select the best arrangements for delivering an integrated package of activities for a particular geographic region or natural asset, decisions will be based on (inter alia) achievement against at least one of the Caring for our Country targets.

The long-term nature and complexity of many NRM issues is such that an integrated approach is best to achieve production and environmental results. Such integrative approaches enable and are supported through:

accessing knowledge and information

consulting with technical or scientific experts

addressing more than one threat to productive lands or to biodiversity

engaging a range of relevant people in specific on-ground activities.

This section of the synthesis chapter highlights some examples of integrated projects across geographic areas as well as projects that managed a natural asset across different landscapes. The multiple benefits that accrued to some projects and people are also described in this section.

Long-term natural resource management achievements Some NRM activities had been operational before 2008 and, where their aims coincided with those of the relevant national priority areas, could continue with Caring for our Country support. In this way Caring for our Country has helped efforts to build solutions to long-term environmental challenges that take time to identify, plan for and address. For example, Caring for our Country has built on the success of Landcare and related ‘care’ programs and the indicators are that there has been a steady improvement in land management and protection of native vegetation and wetlands in Australia over time (Barson, Mewett and Paplinska 2012).

Water quality issues, for example, have been on the agenda of Australian governments since the 1990s (DSEWPaC 2013a), and partnerships to plan for improved water quality in estuaries and coastal hotspots commenced around that time. Water Quality Improvement Plans, developed for coastal hotspots and other priority areas, were underpinned by a range of scientific studies and outlined long-term plans and strategies to address issues in the different catchments around Australia. Activities by state agencies and other organisations, including volunteer groups, have been ongoing in many of these catchments since the 1990s to address the historical causes of poor water quality. In some instances, works to divert storm water from an estuary have been necessary while, in other cases, control of point or non-point sources of pollution has been the major activity. Caring for our Country targeted some of the coastal hotspots and co-invested in some of the activities arising from the Water Quality Improvement Plans.

An added benefit to implementing some Water Quality Improvement Plans in coastal hotspots was that they attracted additional investment from project partners. Several of the Coastal Hotspots projects were able to leverage significant additional co-investment funds. For example, in Botany Bay, the $700 000 Caring for our Country investment became a $3.2 million co-investment. In the Swan–Canning Coastal Hotspot, $2.5 million of Caring for our Country funds, combined with co-funding from project partners, resulted in an $8 million-plus in-kind support project. Such leveraging greatly expanded the extent of restoration activities that could be done.

Most of the five tramp ant eradication programs have been in existence for more than 10 years. The red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta), for example, was first detected in 2001 and first treated in March 2001, and treatment is expected to be ongoing for another three years. The first ‘super-colony’ of yellow crazy ants (Anoplolepis gracilipes) was detected on Christmas Island in 1989, with the first treatment in 2000. The program is scheduled to continue to 2015 (Lach and Barker 2013). Caring for our Country funding, along with funding from state agencies, has enabled these programs to be continued in the 2008 to 2013 period, again allowing long-term efforts to be pursued.

Integrated results across national priority areasWhile the stand-alone national priority area and five-year outcome structure of the program provided a focus to direct NRM investments and efforts, the program also recognised and was designed to be delivered as an integrated package, whereby achievements against one national priority area would complement or build on achievements in another priority area.

For example, the World Heritage work undertaken through Caring for our Country demonstrated links with two national priority areas. The management arrangements for the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area included engagement and partnerships with the rainforest Indigenous people (community skills, knowledge and engagement national priority area), conservation of endangered species (cassowary (Casuarius casuarius) and mahogany glider (Petaurus gracilis)), programs to manage the emerging threats of myrtle rust (Uredo rangelii) and crazy ants and vegetation mapping of the entire World Heritage area (biodiversity and natural icons national priority area).

An example of an integrated project is the control of mimosa (Mimosa pigra) (a Weed of National Significance) in the Anson Bay coastal floodplains, a high ecological value aquatic ecosystems, in the Northern Territory. The Anson Bay site covers a terrestrial area of 348 000 hectares and is dominated by 199 100 hectares of seasonally inundated freshwater floodplains. Targets for this project included some from the biodiversity and natural icons national priority area (with the focus on treating a Weed of National Significance), the coastal environment and critical aquatic habitats national priority area (regarding the natural asset), the northern and remote Australia national priority area (regarding the location) and the community skills, knowledge and engagement national priority area (regarding the people and partnerships developed through the project).

As at 30 June 2012, results from this project included the following:

over 30 000 hectares had been surveyed for mimosa infestations

16 776 hectares of mimosa infestations were treated

11 209 hectares of mimosa infestations were retreated

a catchment plan for mimosa control was developed

41 land managers demonstrated an improvement in relevant knowledge

four partnerships were developed with Indigenous groups to deliver on-ground management of mimosa.

The Working on Country program, one component of Caring for our Country, has environmental, social and economic objectives. Reviews of Working on Country found that the social outcomes and related Indigenous NRM initiatives are diverse, wide-ranging and interconnected (Allen Consulting Group 2011; Urbis 2012). The outcomes could be categorised according to health and wellbeing, economic, and cultural and educational outcomes for the individual rangers, their families and communities. The evaluation of the multiple benefits in both these reviews could be attributed to not only Working on Country but also the Indigenous Protected Areas Program and other elements of Caring for our Country.

The multiple benefits for Indigenous rangers, for example, included:

employment, and the flexibility to take account of cultural needs in employment situations

increased skills and knowledge—for example, with training that is linked directly to employment

developing leadership skillsthe spiritual and psychological health benefits of maintaining a strong connection to country and culture

delivering environmental achievements.

The four-year Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Australia project (NAILSMA) demonstrated the achievement of multiple benefits such as:

collaboration of Indigenous land managers and communities, land councils, scientists and governments with the regional NRM organisation

emissions research demonstrating reductions in greenhouse gases as a result of altered fire regimes

development of opportunities for Indigenous communities to participate in the Carbon Farming Fund Initiative

the opportunity for Indigenous people to work on country.

The acquisition of Fish River Station on the Northern Territory’s Daly River is another example of multiple benefits being achieved through a partnership—in this case, it was between the Indigenous Land Corporation, non-profit conservation organisations the Nature Conservancy, Pew Charitable Trust and Greening Australia and the Australian Government through Caring for our Country. The property protects some 255 animal species, including such threatened species as the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), Gouldian finch (Erythrura gouldiae), northern masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli), and the partridge pigeon (Geophaps smithii). Scattered throughout Fish River Station are small patches of fragile, fire-sensitive monsoon rainforest, home to unique birds such as the rainbow pitta (Pitta iris), orange-footed scrubfowl (Megapodius reinwardt), emerald dove (Chalcophaps indica), rose-crowned fruit-dove (Ptilinopus regina) and the pied imperial pigeon (Ducula bicolor).

The benefits from this purchase include:

creating new employment and business opportunities for Indigenous people

supporting Indigenous access and ongoing connection to their country

continuing the management of this property for its outstanding biodiversity values

adding a significant property to the National Reserve System.

Achievements across a broad geographic areaNRM and biodiversity conservation issues usually occur at a range of landscape scales. Given land tenure and administrative and legislative restrictions, it can be hard to tackle these issues at the most appropriate level, which is often at a whole-of-system or landscape scale. Addressing this challenge will often require a highly coordinated and collaborative approach—a challenge for future NRM investment programs.

While an assessment of the linked results among several Caring for our Country projects in a specific geographic area cannot be undertaken at present, as spatial presentation of projects is at an early stage of development, the written project reports of several Caring for our Country projects indicated where there was a degree of complementarity among projects.

Some Caring for our Country projects were complementary to those of other agencies and organisations, as they were working in the same general landscape to, for example, address similar threats to biodiversity. A shared effort to address an NRM issue was shown to be effective in the use of resources and people to achieve agreed results.

One example is the Caring for our Country aerial fox control project that linked to the South Australian Government’s BounceBack program—a recovery project targeting reserves and properties managed for conservation in the Flinders and Gawler Ranges and the Olary Hills. The BounceBack program started in the early 1990s with the aim of restoring the natural ecological processes across the region, with particular focus on core areas of the Flinders Ranges National Park and Gammon Ranges National Park.

Caring for our Country funded a separate aerial fox baiting project in the central and northern Flinders Range during 2011–12 (South Australian Government, unpublished). Aerial fox baiting was carried out across 650 000 hectares of crown lands, pastoral leases, perpetual leasehold and Indigenous Protected Areas in August and February and followed up by ground baiting in November and May. The areas targeted for this project provided an important link between areas where yellow-footed rock-wallaby (Petrogale xanthopus) populations are currently showing signs of recovery. This project of aerial fox baiting was expanded to properties adjoining National Park reserves where colonies of yellow-footed rock-wallaby are known to occur. A ridge-top survey in the National Park showed that 90 cats and 47 foxes were removed, but this was only a fraction of the animals that are seen—perhaps 20 per cent to 30 per cent. Results are indicating a steady growth of yellow-footed rock-wallaby populations (Natural Resources SA Arid Lands 2012).

Another example that demonstrates how a particular natural asset can be managed across a broad geographic region is a Birdlife Australia project. Funded by Caring for our Country, this project coordinated and undertook restoration and reconnection of habitat for some threatened woodland birds in south-eastern Australia, including in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. The project built on their past bird recovery efforts. Birdlife Australia developed an innovative landscape prioritisation tool that showed where the highest concentrations of woodland bird species have been recorded.With this information, land managers in particular areas were approached to see if they were interested in covenanting land to protect habitat for woodland birds. Birdlife Australia secured covenants on 340 hectares of land adjacent to nature reserves in Victoria, 171 hectares in Tasmania, and 307 hectares of land in New South Wales, all of which is critical habitat for the woodland birds (Ingwersen and Tzaros 2011).

Sustainable management of pastoral lands through Ecosystem Management Understanding (EMU™)EMU™ is an approach that empowers pastoralists on large rangeland properties to manage the land under their control in a sustainable and productive way (Walton, Pringle and Stanton 2012). The approach guides them in assessing their properties and making their own decisions about priorities that could improve the productive areas of their property and then seeking assistance from the experts to help develop management options. Funding obtained through the Caring for our Country program has made it possible for the Arid Lands Natural Resource Management Board of South Australia, the Natural Resource Management Board (NT) and the Centralian Land Management Association in the Northern Territory to engage one of the founders—landscape ecologist Dr Hugh Pringle—to commence work with groups of pastoralists in South Australia (Pringle 2009) and the Northern Territory, often with adjoining properties.

The pastoralists acquire a greater appreciation of key landscape processes and tend to focus on the more productive landscapes on their land. They develop initiatives to improve it such as grazing strategies, preventing and stopping soil erosion on productive landscapes, redesigning infrastructure to protect fragile landscapes, getting water out of tracks and back into the landscape, protecting special areas, managing pests and weeds and working together across boundaries.

The pastoralists build an ecological baseline of the property by mapping answers to structured questions put to them by EMU™ support staff on a series of clear overlays over a satellite image and then making an aerial traverse of the property. From this, participants are helped to establish and address the key issues on the property. These are inspected from the ground to establish what ecological processes are occurring at the site. They are then mapped and priorities for action are established. The program developed for each property is kept confidential with the pastoralist unless the pastoralists decide to share the findings.

In the Northern Territory more than 14 pastoral properties have participated in the EMU™ process. The total area covered in the Northern Territory alone equates to some 3 840 100 hectares, with many more large properties beginning to participate. Properties are also joining up across the landscape, making for cross-property and eventually cross-tenure land management at a grand scale.

In South Australia, 17 pastoral properties or 4.9 million hectares in the Marla Oodnadatta, Kingoonya, North Flinders and Gawler NRM districts have applied EMU™ principles to the land. One of these was Douglas Lillecrapp of Todmorden Station, near Oodnadatta. After an aerial survey of Todmorden he decided to choose Wooldridge Creek Catchment to focus on, as it is largely ecologically intact and has a high potential for cost-effective restoration work. He found the EMU™ process made him focus on his best and healthiest country which included signs of top soil stripping and lost productivity. He said that since being involved he has learnt how to identify and read landscape processes and trend and apply information to daily management practices. The focus on the catchment led to a number of on-ground projects to achieve the following aims:

capture and more effectively utilise small rainfall events

increase soil moisture and vegetation cover

slow water velocity and run-off

reduce further topsoil and seed bank loss

plan interventions to improve productivity of the most important landscape

build capacity and expertise to expand EMU ™principles across Todmorden.

The EMU™ process is now being used widely in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory to improve the sustainability of the rangelands. Support staff have been trained in its use in South Australia and the Northern Territory with funding obtained from a number of sources, including Commonwealth programs. It has also been adapted and is being used on Indigenous lands in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland.

Author: Roger Wickes

Natural resource management in the futureSome of the Caring for our Country projects acted as a catalyst by investing in a critical aspect of an NRM issue with a view to ensuring that future work is possible. In some instances a project brought together agencies and organisations that had not previously worked together. In other instances the tools or information developed as a result of investment provide a common and shared information base for future NRM activities.

An example is the Phytophthora cinnamomi dieback project in the south-west of Western Australia (South Coast NRM Inc, unpublished). Phytophthora cinnamomi is a soil-borne water mould that produces an infection which causes a condition in plants called root rot or dieback. The plant pathogen is one of the world’s most invasive species. P. cinnamomi is virtually impossible to eradicate and has had a severe impact on native vegetation in south-west Western Australia, so managing the

problem to avoid new infestations, limiting its spread, minimising damage in the areas where it does exist and identifying and protecting disease-free areas have become the strategies to deal with it.

This project achieved good coordination among the interested parties. The major achievement is the mapping of P. cinnamomi identified areas that were uninfested and ‘protectable’, other areas where the disease might spread to important biodiversity locations, and areas where there was a high degree of confidence that an area was uninfested. This map of over 600 000 hectares of land provides critical information for future management activities.

Future benefits in pest animal control in the Northern Agricultural Catchments Council’s region in Western Australia will accrue from the council recognising, when implementing a rabbit control project over 1000 hectares (Northern Agricultural Council Project 2011), that working with the 16 local governments in their region to develop a coordinated set of Invasive Species Plans would lead to a more strategic and integrated response in the future to the issue of invasive species control. Although in 2010–11 none of the local governments had invasive species plans in place, the council worked with local governments to develop such plans.

Innovative approaches to natural resource management

Innovation in NRM can be found in program design, which helps to prioritise where and how best to invest for greatest environmental gain; and program delivery, which finds new ways of solving ongoing NRM challenges, engaging people and communities and achieving new and more cost-efficient delivery methods for on-ground activities.

Innovative approaches are evident in many Caring for our Country projects. The following projects illustrate how the innovations contributed to achieving results.

Innovative program designCaring for our Country supported alternative and innovative market-based NRM delivery instruments that have proven effective in supporting NRM and biodiversity conservation outcomes. As noted by one NRM expert, “one emerging and increasingly popular approach to addressing biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes has been to create market-based incentive schemes that pay private land managers (often farmers) to undertake specific conservation actions as part of a funding agreement” (D. Lindenmayer 2013, pers. comm.).

The Environmental Stewardship Program The Environmental Stewardship Program contained several innovations in its design, including the use of a market-based incentive approach. The program’s aim is to maintain and improve the condition and extent of targeted Matters of National Environmental Significance on private land. The first asset that was targeted was the threatened box gum grassy woodland ecological community across southern Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria and the second asset was multiple ecological communities in parts of South Australia.

For these targeted assets, the Environmental Stewardship Program employed a competitive process to contract individual land managers for up to 15 years to protect and manage the nationally threatened ecological communities through management actions such as plant and animal control and grazing management. The long-term nature of the funding agreements is an innovation in NRM and recognises the commitment by land managers to manage these areas of threatened native vegetation. Another innovation is that the ecological outcomes are monitored through a scientifically robust monitoring program designed by researchers at the Australian National University.

The achievements to date are that 58 000 hectares of threatened ecological communities will be protected and managed on private land by 69 land managers for up to 15 years.

Managing erosion-prone soils on Eyre PeninsulaAnother example of innovative program design is the four-year project to address soil erosion risk on the Eyre Peninsula in South Australia (Eyre Peninsula NRM 2011). Approximately 1.8 million hectares of land on the Eyre Peninsula has a moderate to high potential for soil erosion. The scope of the problem is daunting, but a starting point was targeting 500 000 hectares of marginal land.

A pilot market-based instrument—the first known demonstration of reduced soil erosion risk achieved through tender for management contracts—was trialed as part of this project. Land managers submitted expressions of interest and 12 were successful. They signed ‘soil cover agreements’ to increase soil cover to a minimum of 50 per cent on designated areas of their property over three years. The average district soil surface cover level at the time of offering these contracts was 47.7 per cent and the contracted sites were markedly below similar land classes in the region. By early 2010, the soil surface cover on the targeted sites had increased and difference in soil surface cover between managed and control sites was no longer significantly different from the district average. The change in soil surface cover at managed sites was significant and about 80 per cent of sites complied with requirements for introducing new soil management techniques in the first year of the

program.

These examples demonstrate how different NRM and biodiversity conservation challenges, which can involve a range of people with different motivations, can be achieved through the use of appropriate intervention mechanisms—in this instance,

well-designed market-based approaches—to achieve significant NRM and biodiversity outcomes.

Reef Rescue delivery modelThe Reef Rescue delivery model represents innovation in the delivery of the program to a large number of participating land managers. The Reef Rescue investment aimed to improve the water quality of the Great Barrier Reef lagoon by increasing the voluntary uptake of improved land management practices. This component was delivered through an innovative partnership with regional NRM organisations and peak industry bodies.

The key features of the Reef Rescue delivery model were:

an integrated program where grants to land managers to improve land management practices were supported by monitoring and research

Sharing decisions on the allocation of grants to land managers in the different industries and catchments to regional NRM groups and industry partners

a greater understanding of the environmental and sustainability benefits of diverse agricultural practices across the regions

ensuring that the design of the overall program remained a collaborative undertaking, with the design evolving as different issues were identified by the project partner organisations

using an industry-specific, risk-based farm planning approach

developing tools (metrics) to prioritise on-ground investments in an open and transparent manner.

As at 30 June 2011, over 90 per cent of the targeted land managers had adopted improved fertiliser and pesticide management practices. Scientific modeling will be used to estimate the resulting reductions in dissolved nutrients and chemicals in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon and should be available at the end of 2013.

There were many creative approaches to communication used in Caring for our Country projects to raise awareness of NRM issues. Some examples are given below to illustrate the diversity of approaches, together with the success of these communication methods.

Communication through art Since 2004, GhostNets Australia (formerly the Carpentaria Ghost Nets Program) has recovered used fishing nets that had accumulated as marine debris on northern Australian beaches and freed wildlife entangled in the nets. The Northern Gulf Resource Management Group coordinated a Caring for our Country project to, amongst other things, raise awareness of the issue in northern Australian communities.

GhostNet art as a communication medium started in about 2006 through a competition for creative solutions for reuse of the nets. In 2009 a suggestion to mount a travelling art exhibition to tell the ghost net story to a wider audience was taken up and artworks were created. Five Ghost Net Art workshops, including Garma and the Cairns Indigenous Art Fair, have been held. Ghost net art is now exhibited in Australia and around the world—for example, in Paris, France, in October 2012; and in Sydney, Australia,in October–November 2012.

In addition to creating inspiring art, in 2011 the project achieved (GhostNets Australia 2011):

removal of 2132 ghost nets from approximately 1190 kilometres of coastline

release of an estimated 130 marine animals found tangled in nets, including turtles, sharks, seabirds, fish, crabs and coral.

Camera traps Wheatbelt NRM in Western Australia uses camera trap photos to show land managers the reptiles and mammals that are present on their land. As part of the engagement model for Wheatbelt NRM’s Healthy Bushland project, 20 remote cameras have been provided to land managers in the Avon region who have entered into a conservation agreement on priority bushland (Wheatbelt NRM, unpublished).

Since 2010 Wheatbelt NRM has organised five remote camera workshops so that over 80 Avon land managers have the knowledge and skills required to operate remote cameras on their own properties. The photos from the camera traps assist the land managers’ understanding of what animals use the bushland and what animal management actions may be required in the future.

The workshops have led directly to land managers identifying previously unobserved reptiles, birds and mammals on their farms; increased their knowledge of species across the landscape; renewed their interest in the wildlife; and helped their understanding of the feral animal threats on their property. In one instance, a remote camera overlooking a malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) mound took footage of a fox digging up malleefowl eggs. The area around the mound had fox baits in place very promptly, thanks to a well-informed and keen land manager (Hegglun 2013).

Applications for biodiversityThe Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area website (Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania 2012a) features many web pages with comprehensive information on the property.

In addition to the web pages and hard-copy material, iPhone and iPad apps (Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania 2012b) have been developed to provide information for visitors to the World Heritage Area, including:

60 Great Short Walks, which provides details of Tasmania’s most popular short walks. It contains photographs, stories, maps and other essential details. Nearly one-third of the walks are in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area

Frog Log—a hand-held guide to the frogs of Tasmania, with frog calls, high-quality images and information on habitat, distribution and breeding. The app can be used to ‘log’ occurrences of frogs in the wild for later scientific study

A Bird in the Hand, which provides quality photographs, bird call audio and detailed information about 49 of Tasmania’s common and endemic birds.

Walking on Country One way to transfer Indigenous knowledge between generations is to undertake cultural walks for younger people. The walks in the Warddeken Indigenous Protected Area in the Northern Territory, for example, are supported by visits from senior people who explain the country and its significance to the young people (Warddeken Land Management Ltd 2012). These walks have been undertaken since 2000, when 12 Aboriginal people and two non-Aboriginal people walked 120 kilometres east–west across the Arnhem Plateau following an ancient trade route. In 2009, some 80 Aboriginal people, including many children and young adults, took part in a walk.

Social media for land managers Social media has been used to bring information to farmers on new and innovative farm practices. The Agriculture Excellence Alliance in South Australia has produced short videos and loaded these onto social media internet sites to assist with delivery of agricultural extension around soil condition and landscape-scale conservation. The videos are available through Vimeo and YouTube on computers or smart phones.

CyberTracker The recording and use of both traditional ecological knowledge and contemporary scientific knowledge occurred in many projects.

A project in South Australia’s Gawler Ranges was funded to conduct cultural and ecological assessments of 23 Indigenous rock-hole site complexes and record traditional ecological knowledge. The project started as a pilot with the South Australian Arid Lands NRM in 2008 and was further developed with Caring for our Country funding. The specifically designed CyberTracker technology was used by Indigenous people to collect ecological and cultural heritage-related data. The data was then downloaded to a database management system. New databases were created so that traditional ecological knowledge, and plant and animal species recorded in the field, could be accessed. The application of CyberTracker for monitoring environmental outcomes is discussed later in this report.

The project to prevent the extinction of the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus harrisii) comprises many aspects and involves a very large number of partner organisations and community involvement. The aspects include research, monitoring and the establishment of insurance populations of disease-free Tasmanian Devil locations around Australia.

Of the many innovations associated with this project, the establishment of the insurance populations of disease-free and genetically diverse Devils has been a significant achievement. The insurance population is currently in excess of 500 individuals and has very high genetic diversity—a characteristic that is critical to the success of the project.

Role of science in Caring for our Country

The complexity of many of the NRM issues addressed in Caring for our Country has meant that, where relevant, scientific knowledge has been accessed and incorporated into projects.

This section outlines some of the projects that used science to inform their design, implementation or approach to monitoring

and evaluation. These projects illustrate the range of scientific input into the first phase of Caring for our Country and how science has contributed to project outcomes.

Conservation advice on nationally listed threatened speciesOnce a species is nationally listed as threatened, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee develops conservation advice to assist the species’ recovery (DSEWPaC 2013c). Conservation advice provides guidance on known threats and priority recovery actions for an ecological community that can be immediately undertaken at a local and regional level. Recovery plans for specific species may also be developed, as may threat abatement plans that provide advice on threat reduction.

Caring for our Country used this scientific advice as a basis for funding relevant projects. Successive Caring for our Country business plans referred to information such as which species are nationally listed as threatened and why, as well as which pest animals were a priority for threat abatement.

NRM knowledge online: A repository of research, evaluation and information

Funding provided under the Caring for our Country initiative has supported many projects that have produced a range of information products that are currently stored in a variety of widely dispersed locations. The Australian Government has developed a digital archive to manage these information outputs to ensure that the information produced is readily discoverable and publicly accessible over an extended period of time.

The content of the archive is publicly available as NRM knowledge online (www. nrmonline.nrm.gov.au ), an integrated knowledge management and discovery tool for information products related to primary production and natural resource related research and management activities. NRM knowledge online has been designed to also hold information products produced from previous NRM programs and initiatives such as the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, Natural Heritage Trust, National Landcare Program and Defeating the Weeds Menace.

Items for inclusion in the NRM knowledge online digital archive are publicly available in print and electronic format documents reporting on or derived from biodiversity conservation activities; land management activities; biophysical, social and economic research; and policy activities and related initiatives supported by Australian Government NRM funding.

The initial focus has been on publications, but the archive has the capability of expanding to include a wide range of other digital formats, including images, audiovisual products, maps and databases.

The development of outcomes and targets The development of outcomes and targets in any NRM program can be shaped by a number of factors, including national NRM strategies and policies, matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, scientific information on the state of natural assets and actions that are likely to lead to improvements in asset condition.

The sustainable farm practices national priority area emphasis on improving soil condition, for example, was based on a body of science relating to soils and their relationship with land management practices that was summarised in a recent report (Cork et al. 2012). Based on scientific and economic evidence over the past 10 to 20 years, this work concluded that:

identified approaches to improving the soil organic carbon content of soils have been successful

regular monitoring of soil pH and application of lime at appropriate rates has been shown to reduce acidity in surface soils

maintenance of ground cover above 50 per cent to 70 per cent has been shown to be effective in reducing wind and water erosion

one of the most substantial benefits of better management of ground cover is reductions in dust storms.

Another example of science being used as a key information resource in the sustainable farm practices national priority area is the wind erosion research conducted by the Atmospheric Environment Research Centre at Griffith University, partially funded by Caring for our Country. This compilation of research gave regional NRM organisations long-term wind erosion histories based on records from the Bureau of Meteorology’s 120 stations around Australia. These histories provided valuable new information on temporal and spatial aspects of wind erosion within each NRM region. The target of improving land management practices to reduce the risk of soil loss through wind and water erosion was informed by this and other science.

The sustainable farm practices national priority area incorporated this research in the development of targets to improve soil organic carbon content, address acidic soil issues and improve the extent of ground cover to minimise the effects of wind

and water erosion.

Science conducted over the past 10 to 20 years has provided important information to inform some of the resource management issues in Australia.

One example of this is the work of the then Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, which published a detailed study in 2008 of the ecology of feral camels, the impact of feral camels on Australian deserts and desert communities and options for the control of these camels (Edwards et al. 2008). Remote Indigenous communities, the pastoral industry and the environment have been significantly affected by increasing camel numbers, which has resulted in damage to infrastructure and to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems of arid lands.

The Caring for our Country project to reduce camel densities around important biological refugia and high ecological value aquatic ecosystems sites was largely based on this science.

Improving fertiliser usage and minimising environmental impactDairySA (www.dairysa.com.au) is one of eight Dairy Australia (DA) Regional Development Programs that operate in the nation’s key dairying areas. DairySA and industry leaders are addressing the challenges of dairying in South Australia as part of a national program that examines the impacts of dairy intensification.

Forty-two dairy farms covering 1300 hectares spread throughout the Upper South East, Fleurieu Peninsula and Barossa/Mid North have been involved in the Dairy Soil Nutrients project, supported by Caring for our Country funding. The project is designed to help farmers to identify, map and monitor soil acidity and nutrient levels in individual paddocks. Data from soil test results are collated into colour-coded farm fertility maps of the paddocks on the farm, highlighting nutrient levels and requirements, giving farmers and their advisors the knowledge to design a fertiliser plan that matches the nutritional needs across the whole farm.

The groups of farmers in each region have been working closely with local agronomists throughout the project, helping them to understand the results, adapt their existing fertiliser plans and build a local knowledge base so that people outside of the project can also benefit from the findings. In the project, the national summary of nutrient targets established for optimal production and titled Accounting for Nutrients was used as a starting point. It was found that not only are farmers applying fertiliser as ‘insurance’ and subsequently maintaining higher soil fertility levels than may be necessary but agronomists that advise them also appear to be targeting higher levels.

The project has found that 42 per cent of the paddocks had Cowell Phosphorus more than 150 per cent above the suggested critical levels. When the farmers reduced their phosphorus application rates, only one farmer believed the reduction in phosphorus fertiliser appeared to have reduced pasture productivity. Farmers who added lime and gypsum recognised that it was a slow process to see change but could see the benefits of the application, while those who had not added it noted that the pH in the soil continues to decline.

The most significant development from the project has been the ability to treat paddocks individually to correct specific nutritional deficiencies rather than treating the whole farm with a traditional blanket fertiliser application. The farmers are finding that the comprehensive farm fertility maps have been a really useful tool that makes soil test results real for them. Soils can vary greatly, and without comprehensive testing this can go unrecognised.

As a result of soil testing, some farmers reduced their costs on fertiliser, while the few with low nutrition used more. A number of farmers have found that they can get better value by redirecting their expenditure on fertiliser toward lime potassium and sulphur.

The key messages for other farmers from the participants include:

the benefits of soil testing far outweigh the costs

they use soil testing more often and by testing every paddock they can use fertiliser more efficiently

undertake enough soil testing to identify specific areas of difference, as the whole farm is not the same.

The information gained from this project will be available to other farmers nationally through Fert$mart—a national initiative of Dairy Australia supported by Caring for our Country. Fert$mart is bringing together the latest nutrient management science, the industry’s best management practices, nutrient plan cycling and decision support tools into one website designed specifically to help farmers and their advisors with more profitable fertiliser management decisions. A simple paddock record-keeping tool is being developed that will allow farmers to track soil test results and nutrient application and compare fertility levels with the

optimal range for production.

Author: Roger Wickes

Research and development as an integral part of some projectsWhere scientific knowledge about an NRM issue was incomplete, some elements of the Caring for our Country program incorporated research and development into their design and implementation. In this way, the science developed though the project was able to inform the subsequent implementation.

Sometimes during implementation of a project, unexpected benefits were identified that added to scientific knowledge of the NRM issue. For example, the management of yellow crazy ants in North East Arnhem Land (Lach and Barker 2013) revealed previously unknown infestation dynamics. The unexpected finding has implications for understanding how such infestations spread, how their impacts are measured and the effort required for post-treatment assessments.

Reef RescueReef Rescue research and development aimed to improve understanding of the link between land management practices and environmental impacts, and thus to improve water quality in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon (Reef and Rainforest Research Centre 2006).

Reef Rescue research and development incorporated three main programs:

adoption and development of sustainable practices that improve water quality outcomes for the sugar, grazing, horticulture and dairy industries

pesticide threat, delivery and management

improved techniques for monitoring and reporting the success of water quality investments.

Research information was also used to allocate the first year’s funding to each of the six partner regional NRM organisations. The allocation was based on an analysis of key Reef water quality science, including the Scientific Consensus Statement on Water Quality in the Great Barrier Reef.

Reef Rescue investment for the following four years was determined using a multiple criteria analysis (MCA) process, one of the first times that MCA has been used to involve a wide range of groups and people to make decisions on funding allocations. The MCA model was used as a decision support model based on an ‘assets, threats and solvability’ framework. Reef Rescue participants and key Reef scientists helped refine the model and supplied information needed to generate an MCA ‘score’ for each NRM region. The results of the workshop were presented at forums to inform the development of proposals to address Reef water quality issues. The multiple criteria analysis thus played a key role in the allocation of Reef Rescue funds to NRM organisations and also shaped the funding parameters for land uses in the NRM regions.

Fox eradication in TasmaniaThe eradication of foxes from Tasmania has not been attempted on this scale before. Research and development is a key component of this joint project with the Tasmanian Government and is contributing to:

improved knowledge on the impacts of foxes in Tasmania

improved control and destruction activities

developing a better understanding of detection probabilities in monitoring activities.

There have been two science-based reviews of the Fox Eradication Program to date. The first in 2006, led by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, who assessed the potential impacts if the fox was to become established in Tasmania. The second, led by Landcare Research New Zealand in 2009, which recommended, amongst other matters, that the program adopt a different baiting strategy. The Landcare Research New Zealand review also found that the program had success around improving the technical ability to detect foxes with increasing certainty using scat searches and DNA testing. The research and development and the scientific reviews have significantly contributed to the program as a whole.

Over 299 000 hectares of core fox habitat has been baited. Since the implementation in 2010 of a precautionary approach to baiting, through the operation of two rolling fronts of baiting in core fox habitat, extensive monitoring indicates that there has been no evidence of foxes establishing behind the baiting fronts.

The presence of foxes has recently been confirmed in Tasmania. A paper by Sarre et al. (2012) combined DNA detection approaches for trace samples and data from surveys of carnivore scats to estimate the current distribution of foxes in Tasmania. The paper also built a predictive model of fox habitat suitability for all of Tasmania.

Management interventions in temperate eucalypt

woodlands Australia’s temperate woodlands are among the most heavily modified ecosystems in the world and this has resulted in an array of major environmental problems such as secondary salinity, land degradation and loss of biodiversity (Lindenmayer, Bennett and Hobbs 2010). Substantial restoration and vegetation management programs have developed throughout Australia’s temperate woodlands in an attempt to address these problems. As an example, a major partnership has been developing between the Murray CMA and researchers at the Australian National University since 2002. The partnership aims to improve delivery of restoration and vegetation management programs in temperate woodland ecosystems within the Murray CMA and support other organisations, like Landcare, to deliver more targeted programs.

The research conducted by the Australian National University has encompassed repeated surveys at over 200 sites on 46 farms across an array of temperate woodland vegetation types and structural classes (plantings, regrowth and old growth). The research aims to quantify the effectiveness of plantings and other kinds of management interventions for the conservation of birds, mammals and reptiles.

The work by the Australian National University within the Murray catchment has led to some important discoveries. These include:

Block-shaped plantings are important habitats for many species of woodland birds and some reptile taxa, including an array of species of conservation concern. In addition, plantings along watercourses, plantings that intersect with other plantings and planting established around paddock trees have the highest species richness for native birds and reptiles (Lindenmayer et al. 2009).

Management interventions such as fencing, grazing control and weed control lead to significant positive changes in native vegetation, such as improved native ground cover and increased eucalypt regeneration. These changes lead to positive increases in woodland birds, particularly small-bodied species (including several of conservation concern) (Lindenmayer, Wood et al. 2012).

Rocky outcrops are key micro-hotspots of reptile diversity. Grazing management around these outcrops has positive benefits for a suite of skinks and geckos (Michael et al. 2008).

There has been a 3.5 per cent increase in native vegetation cover across 23 landscapes in bioregions such as the South West Slopes of New South Wales. This is the result of an increasing amount of planting and natural regrowth. A strong and positive increase in overall bird species richness, from 38 to 42 species per landscape and from 27 to 31 species per farm, has been linked with vegetation change (Cunningham et al. in review).

There have been increases in detections of several species of conservation concern, including birds such as the superb parrot (Polytelis swainsonii), brown treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus), diamond firetail (Stagonopleura guttata), flame robin (Petroica phoenicea) (Lindenmayer and Cunningham 2011) and reptiles like the olive legless lizard (Delma inornata).

Importantly, these new scientific findings have stimulated major changes in on-farm management within the Murray Catchment Management Authority. These include changing the width and location of newly replanted areas, altering patterns of grazing intensity, increasing the recognition of the importance of regrowth vegetation as habitat for wildlife and improving the management of vegetation around rocky outcrops.

Author: David Lindenmayer

Developing tools for the futureScience has also underpinned the development of new techniques and tools that can assist in the next phase of Caring for our Country. The examples discussed below will be of value to future investments in biodiversity restoration or conservation in assessing change in condition of native vegetation.

Assessing vegetation conditionOne of the five-year outcomes for the biodiversity and natural icons national priority area is to increase the area of native vegetation and habitat that is managed to reduce critical threats to biodiversity and to enhance the condition and other attributes of habitats and landscapes.

Assessing the increase in the area or extent of native vegetation is the more straightforward of the two tasks. The difficult issue has been to develop a consistent scientifically-based technique to assess native vegetation condition. The states and territories and the Australian Government have worked cooperatively on this issue over the past 10 years. A workshop in May 2010 brought together experts who supported the development of a nationally consistent protocol for assessing the condition of native vegetation and changes in condition as a result of management actions.

Following from this a Standard Field Guide for Assessing Vegetation Change has been developed (Eco Logical Australia

2012, unpublished). This field guide will be invaluable in setting baselines for future Caring for our Country native vegetation and habitat projects and, indeed, for assessing native vegetation condition at regular intervals. The guide has already served as the basis for developing the native vegetation monitoring guide for the Biodiversity Fund.

Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information System (ACRIS) The Australian Collaborative Rangeland Information System (ACRIS) is a coordinating mechanism that collates rangeland information from state, Northern Territory and Australian Government agencies and other sources. It is a collaboration of these partner agencies, CSIRO and Ninti One Ltd.

ACRIS collates and synthesises monitoring data describing change in the rangelands. The extreme climatic variability in the rangelands makes it difficult to separate change resulting from seasonal climate variation from that driven by human activities.

The ACRIS information assists the Australian Government, state agencies and rangeland NRM groups in meeting reporting obligations, planning investments to facilitate change and evaluating the effectiveness of their investments.

Better management of Australia’s soils

Caring for our Country’s 20-year projection is for agricultural soils to support and maintain clean water, biodiversity and healthy soils while improving food and fibre productivity. Improving the condition of soils, particularly their carbon, pH and wind and water erosion status, has a major impact on short-term and long-term agricultural productivity. Better soil condition also improves air and water quality by reducing soil loss through wind and water erosion and lowers the risk of soil acidification, which can lead to irreversible losses of productive land in the long-term. Increasing soil carbon generally improves soil nutrients and water-holding capacity whilst storing greenhouse gas emissions.

Longer-term monitoring of soil condition provides feedback to governments and industry on where investments in practice change are working, and where more is required, and deliver the resource condition reports expected by the community. Caring for our Country has invested in protocols for the 20-year monitoring effort needed to capture changes in carbon and pH (Grealish et al. 2011); implementation will require investment (estimated recently by CSIRO at $75 million over 20 years) with support from state and territory agencies.

Wind erosion, particularly in the extensive grazing lands, is expected to be an ongoing threat unless good ground cover levels can be maintained through droughts and drying climates. Caring for our Country and DAFF have invested in projects that will deliver monthly reports on the extent and severity of wind erosion for Australia by combining remote sensing of ground cover (DAFF 2012) and wind erosion modelling. Caring for our Country has also funded an initial examination of possible methods for monitoring water erosion on hillslopes (Bui et al. 2010); further investigation is needed to establish practical methods for monitoring water erosion on streambanks and in gullies.

Author: Michele Barson

This information system is unique in that the information has been collected by state and Northern Territory agencies and other agencies since 1992 and is ongoing. ACRIS information is available at a national scale and at a bioregional scale. ACRIS provides the Rangelands NRM Alliance with an excellent link to the only national collated information available on the state of Australia’s rangeland environment (DSEWPaC 2013b). An overview of ACRIS is provided in the biodiversity and natural icons chapter.

Monitoring for environmental outcomes Monitoring for environmental outcomes can be a technically challenging and costly pursuit. Knowing what to monitor for, and having the resources and technical know-how, for many projects has to date been a prohibiting factor in integrating monitoring activities into projects.

Further, as NRM and environmental outcomes can take years to manifest, establishing a monitoring element to projects that may only exist for a fraction of that time may seem unfeasible or even unnecessary, particularly at the project level.

At the program level, however, it is essential to be able to demonstrate, through a well-designed and appropriate monitoring program, that NRM investments do indeed make an ecological or production difference and the condition of many significant natural assets can be improved over time. It is not sufficient just to measure, for example, the number of people adopting new land management practices without following up with some ecological data designed to assess progress towards an outcome. In some instances, a photo point monitoring record over three to five years may be sufficient to demonstrate environmental improvements as a result of program investments; in other instances, more detailed ecological monitoring may be required.

CyberTrackerThe potential for consistent environmental data collection in the rangelands in particular was greatly enhanced as a result of the development and use of the CyberTracker technology. The flow-on effect of this technology will be its future use in providing data on the state and change over time in the condition of natural assets in Indigenous Protected Areas and Working on Country projects.

Recognition of the importance of this technology came through the 2012 Banksia Indigenous Award—Caring for our Country, which went to the I-Tracker Initiative: Best Practice Tools and Partnerships for Indigenous Land and Sea Management, North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd (NAILSMA), Northern Territory.

The case studies in this report written by Professor David Lindenmayer, demonstrate how ecological monitoring can be achieved and add value to a project as a whole.

Baseline biodiversity monitoringRelevant baseline information is essential in order to assess any change in the condition of an environmental asset or in the extent of change in the number of volunteers involved in NRM activities. Decisions are required about what to monitor,the time and spatial intervals to use, the use of control and replicate sites and monitoring methods. As the duration of many of the Caring for our Country projects was one to three years, monitoring for environmental change within that period of time was not always possible. Annual progress reporting tended to focus on reporting against targets, which, for example, assessed how many people participated in workshops or adopted new management practices.

Monitoring the Environmental Stewardship ProgramA monitoring program commenced in 2010 to track changes in vegetation condition and in populations of birds and reptiles on 153 patches of temperate woodland managed under the Environmental Stewardship Program’s Box Gum Grassy Woodlands Project on farms in various locations from southern New South Wales to south-eastern Queensland. In addition, a matched control site was established on 115 of the 153 farms. Establishing matched stewardship and control sites on the same farm helps to determine if the observed changes on a stewardship site are due to management intervention rather than other factors, including those operating at larger spatial scales (for example, climate, population fluctuations and wildfires). The work of the Environmental Stewardship Program’s box gum grassy woodlands monitoring program also aims to explicitly link changes in vegetation condition over time with changes in bird and reptile biota.

The first two seasons of monitoring has entailed gathering data on vegetation condition, reptiles and birds. This has yielded many records of threatened woodland birds and reptiles including those of four nationally threatened bird and reptile species and 12 other species of birds of conservation concern (Montague-Drake et al. 2009). Thus, it is clear that the sites that have been funded are of considerable conservation value. Therefore, management actions will take place in areas where threatened and declining species do occur.

Preliminary analyses of field data have revealed statistically significant differences between stewardship and control sites for plant and bird species richness (Lindenmayer, Zammit et al. 2012). Hence, these groups of sites have different starting points before commencing the management interventions at the stewardship sites. These differences can be accommodated in analyses of future data gathered during monitoring programs, for example, to quantify the levels of differences between control and stewardship sites after the Environmental Stewardship Program has been in place for some years (Lindenmayer, Zammit et al. 2012).

Ongoing monitoring will further quantify the effectiveness of the management interventions (such as grazing and weed control) for improving vegetation condition and enhancing the conservation of biodiversity (Lindenmayer, Zammit et al. 2012).

Author: David Lindenmayer

Strategic natural resource management challenges The challenges for NRM in Australia are influenced by a unique set of circumstances and pressures. Australia is the driest inhabited country on the planet, most of the population lives around the coast, the soils are nutrient poor and the climate is highly variable. There are uneven but increasing pressures on coastal environments as populations grow and urban areas expand. Australia’s land uses have been, and will continue to be, influenced by thousands of years of Indigenous use and two centuries of European settlement.

The NRM challenges facing Australia over coming decades include the legacy of past land uses, maintaining our unique biodiversity, coping with increasing demands for water, managing competition between new and existing land uses, influencing the location of urban and peri-urban expansion of settlements, and negotiating through complex institutional and governance arrangements.

This section outlines a set of challenges that are considered likely to influence NRM in the future and briefly discusses how the first phase of Caring for our Country has recognised and worked to help address these challenges. There is also a set of program challenges considered relevant to the implementation of the second phase of Caring for our Country.

The strategic challenges identified are:

climate variability

water quality and availability

new incursions of plant and animal pest species

improvement in land management to support food production

a potential decrease in social and human capital.

Climate variability Climate variability has always been a feature of the Australian continent. The recent drought was characterised not only by low rainfall but also by higher than average temperatures. In southern Australia, the drought lasted from 2000 to 2010 across most of the country and was followed by extreme flooding in Queensland and Victoria. The pattern of periods of average or below average rainfall followed by extreme rainfall events is evident in the Australian rainfall records since 1890, as shown by a series of maps at The Long Paddock website (www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/).

The challenge for NRM in Australia is the unpredictability of the climate as both day-time and night-time temperatures may rise further and rainfall patterns may become even more variable. Detailed research on future climate trends is readily available in the literature. More variable climatic conditions will place a greater emphasis on risk management and adaption in both urban and rural communities. The implications of a more variable climate for ecosystems, water availability and food production will mean that NRM innovations will continue to be needed, and a variety of solutions are being developed and trialed to ensure that businesses and communities remain viable.

Caring for our Country’s contribution Mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate variability has not been an explicit focus of Caring for our Country, as climate variability is primarily being addressed by other Australian Government programs.

However, the adoption of improved land management practices under Caring for our Country, for example, has assisted some land managers to use a risk management approach to climate variability as a secondary or additional benefit. Similarly, the alteration of fire regimes, aimed at reducing the number and extent of late-season wildfires, is assisting in the management of land where wildfires may become more common in the future if drier conditions prevail.

Water quality and availability The challenges related to water include the mismatch between where the supplies of ample water occur and where the majority of people and industry are located; the increasing demand for both surface water and groundwater; and the allocation of available water to new and current industries (for example, the mining industry), to a growing population and to restore ecosystem function in inland river and wetland systems will all continue to be future challenges for Australians. Agriculture is still the major user of water in Australia, at about 52 per cent of total consumption in 2009–10, with households and industry using 14 per cent each. The drive to implement more efficient uses of water for both urban and rural communities and industries is likely to continue, with the adoption of water sensitive urban design and increased re-use of urban stormwater where this is feasible.

The historical legacy of the effect of land uses on water quality is significant in some catchments. Water Quality Improvement Plans for coastal areas describe the effect of the discharge of nutrients and sediments into inland waters. Where there are point sources of pollution, these have largely been identified and managed over the last 20 to 30 years, whereas diffuse sources of pollution are still an issue in some catchments. Urban stormwater run-off containing heavy metals has led to pollution of waterways and coastal environments. The effects may include the production of algal blooms, the alteration of aquatic habitats in rivers and streams, water not being fit for particular uses, and the introduction of weeds in estuaries and in coastal lakes.

The Australian State of the Environment 2011 Report noted that there is less monitoring, coordination and effort applied to the remediation of catchment water quality. Planning and management of these two dimensions of catchment health are still largely separate. A review of some of the Caring for our Country coastal hotspots projects found that catchment-scale water quality monitoring, maintained over time, is important to be able to demonstrate improvements in water quality as well as the effectiveness of installed water infrastructure (Ogden and Jones 2013).

The challenge for improving water quality from both point sources and diffuse sources is for all responsible agencies to continue to work at a whole-of-catchment scale to set priorities for works in parts of the catchments that contribute most of

the sediment, chemicals and nutrients to waterways. Considerable resources and time can be required to make a measurable difference to water quality of some aquatic environments.

Caring for our Country’s contributionThe major focus of the coastal environment and critical aquatic habitat national priority area was on water quality improvement, as the Council of Australian Government’s National Water Initiative is targeted at, amongst other matters, achieving sustainable water use in over-allocated or stressed water systems and better management of urban water demands.

Several of the areas targeted as coastal hotspots have had longstanding water quality issues connected to increasing urbanisation of catchments as well as past land uses. The relevant Water Quality Improvement Plans have been used to guide investment in addressing water quality issues by national, state and local governments. Several of the coastal hotspots projects were able to leverage significant additional co-investment funds.

Consolidating the gains made to date in improving water quality in these and other coastal hotspots will continue to be a long, slow process, with incremental change and improvement. However, with increasing urbanisation of some coastal catchments, an important issue will be the prevention of inappropriate land uses and urban land management practices so that water quality can be maintained or improved. So too will the fact that the scale of effort required to effect significant improvements in some coastal hotspots can be much greater than the resources available. Whether Caring for our Country investment alone will make a measurable difference should be considered.

Caring for our Country also invested in restoring the values, including water quality, of priority Ramsar and some non-Ramsar wetlands, and in improving water quality in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon through the adoption of improved land management practices.

New incursions of plant and animal pest speciesSome 73 invasive pest animal species (amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles) have established populations in Australia. In many cases—for example, feral cats, foxes, rabbits and wild dogs—these populations are long established and distributed over much of the continent. The discovery of the Asian honey bee (Apis cerana) in Cairns in 2007 is a recent example in a long list of incursions.

Weeds are found all across the continent, with the worst 20 being listed as Weeds of National Significance, and with another 28 weeds clamoring to be added to the list. The widespread nature of these weed invasions and the effects on farm production and biodiversity means that weeds are still a serious threat.

A more variable climate may alter the occurrence and distribution of diseases, pests and weeds, and their impacts on land uses and biodiversity. The scientific literature predicts that diseases and pests are likely to move south as temperatures increase, impacting on both native vegetation and production systems. New incursions of pest species need to be detected promptly after their introduction, otherwise eradication may not be feasible. Current eradication efforts take a number of years and continued vigilance to make progress, as evidenced by the five current efforts to control tramp ants in Australia. So-called sleeper weeds that are present in an area for some years and then start spreading—for example, after fire or flood—have potentially significant effects on the environment and on productive land uses.

The challenge for Australia posed by new or current invasive plant or pest species establishing or spreading beyond their current extent is the potentially significant threats to urban communities, industries, agricultural production and ecosystem function. In the case of invasive plants and animals, the threat of new incursions can arise from less than stringent quarantine requirements for plants or animals. Some industries—for example, the pet trade and the horticulture industries, which seek the import of plants and animals that could become threats to production or to the environment as species adapt to the Australian environment—can have perverse effects.

Caring for our Country’s contributionCurrent Weeds of National Significance and some priority animal and insect pest species have been targeted during the five years of Caring for our Country across some the areas affected by these species. Reducing the threat of pest animal or plant species to biodiversity or production systems by removal or eradication has been the focus of many of these projects. Monitoring systems to assess the reduction in impact have been established for some projects, but in many instances it is too early to assess whether the impact of the invasive species has been reduced in many areas.

Improvement in land management to support food production

The natural resources that support food production have been improved in recent times through the gradual adoption of improved land management practices such as no-till and grazing practices that retain cover on the ground. While the nutrition level of soils used for production has been significantly improved by a long period of fertiliser addition, the cost is increasing and the availability, particularly of phosphorus, may be a challenge in the future. The developing world most likely will increase its competition for fertilisers, as nutrient management is seen by the international science

community as a way of significantly improving crop yields in developing countries. The better management of inputs, the use of lower nutrient requiring pastures such as native grasses, and nutrient recycling need attention. In higher rainfall country the slow acidification of soils from improved legume pastures is a challenge to overcome. New emerging technologies and innovations are allowing land managers to be more precise about managing the soil and its nutrient requirements.

The challenge for Australia is to continue to improve land management practice, identify methods of using nutrients wisely, manage to reduce offsite impacts and integrate production with the protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity assets.

Caring for our Country contributionThe assessment of progress in Australia of adopting better land management practices and protection of native vegetation and wetlands has shown a continual improvement. Reef Rescue has shown that improved land management can reduce the level of nutrients affecting the reefs. Caring for our Country provided funding to many projects as well as to Landcare Facilitators, who provided the links and technology support to these projects. While there was great interest in improving the ground cover on grazing lands in the northern Australia, external pressures have most likely reduced the uptake of these techniques in the past two years. While the gains in the past five years have been heartening, the issue has not been resolved.

A potential decrease in social and human capitalsThere are some demographic and social trends at work in Australia that could affect the future ability of people and communities to be involved in NRM activities. The trends are discussed in terms of social and human capitals and the gap between people’s awareness of NRM issues and any actions they may take.

Social capital can be thought of as a measure of community intangibles such as networks, cultural pursuits, trust, linkages and commitment to local wellbeing and shared values. Social capital determines the ability of a community to absorb shocks, exploit opportunities and orient toward the future. If current trends of population decline in inland Australia continue, that could mean a diminution of social capital for some communities and lead to a decline in NRM effort in the future. Decline of rural and regional population is not a new phenomenon; it has been a feature of rural life since at least the 1970s. The latest ABS data shows that population declines between June 2001 and June 2011 were most prominent in inland and rural areas, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria (and well-established areas within capital cities). Many of these inland areas have been affected by drought since 2000.

If young people move away from regional towns and cities to find work or training opportunities in metropolitan centres, it could result in a reduction of social capital over time. The population distribution in a town may become skewed to older age groups, and commercial services may be withdrawn from towns as not being economically viable any longer. The motivation of remaining people to become involved in NRM activities may fade with time.

Human capital is often regarded as a subset of social capital, as its components (individual knowledge, average formal education levels in a community and individual skills) are important in considering how to use awareness, skills and finance to address the improvement of the environment (Beeton 2006).

Australia’s Chief Scientist reported in May 2012 that there had been a decrease in the number of university students studying agricultural sciences, physics, mathematics and chemistry (Office of the Chief Scientist 2012). These and other biological disciplines are critical to the understanding and practice of NRM.

The State of the Environment 2011 said there is a challenge in retaining suitably qualified and trained people to work in regional or in remote areas over the periods of time needed to make a difference to NRM issues. Many committed and capable scientists and technicians had been trained in land-related disciplines in the past 20 years. However, the shift to project-based funding resulted in many of these young and mid-career professionals leaving their chosen field. Rebuilding this capability requires a sustained effort.

The project reports for some Caring for our Country projects lamented the loss of key staff, while other reports noted the very considerable contributions made by experienced and knowledgeable staff. The review of the tramp ant projects emphasised the vital role played by experts in ant identification in ensuring projects were effective (Lach and Barker 2013).

The disconnect between environmental concern and action In reviewing some of the ABS data, there appears to be a ‘disconnect’ between people’s concern for the environment and the number of people who take some kind of environmental action. The results of the ABS Social Trends survey on people’s awareness of environmental issues in 2001 showed that 63 per cent of adults were concerned about the environment but only 8 per cent had registered their concern in any public way. People who had donated time or money to environmental protection decreased from 28 per cent in 1992 to 20 per cent in 2001. Environmental protection activities were classed as making a donation, taking part in a single event or more extensive commitments. The major reason for non-involvement was

‘no time’.

In 2007–08 the ABS Social Trends survey found that 5.4 million people were involved in some sort of environmental activity (for example, signing a petition) and only 10 per cent of these people (540 000) had volunteered their time in some way.

In 2010, the ABS Voluntary Work survey found that a total of 6.1 million people volunteered and the environment was the recipient of 6.5 per cent of these volunteers (about 394 000 people over the age of 18 years). Although these figures are not quite comparable, this is not a good trend if it continues into the future. The number of new volunteers who were active in Caring for our Country is not recorded, although from July 2008 to December 2012 about 82 000 volunteers were involved in 2000 projects. Although there were more volunteers involved in other projects, they are a small percentage of the people who could volunteer, according to the ABS surveys. The assumption was made that, by improving skills and knowledge, volunteers would continue with NRM work, presumably with no expectation of future Caring for our Country funding. This premise would need to be tested to assess its validity in the future.

Caring for our Country’s contributionThe opportunity to increase social and human capital for NRM purposes has been one of the underlying drivers of the first five years of Caring for our Country. Volunteers were encouraged to participate in NRM activities and new volunteers were recruited. Community groups were encouraged to undertake NRM activities in their local area, regional NRM organisations facilitated many workshops and other means of increasing people’s access to knowledge and skills, and non-government organisations were contracted to encourage private land managers to protect parts of their property for biodiversity conservation and fishers were encouraged to work together to gain knowledge and skills in environmental aspects of fishing.

Program challenges for the second phase of Caring for our Country The Australian Government has recently announced funding for the second five-year period for Caring for our Country and its priorities for conservation and NRM (DSEWPaC 2012b). This continuity of funding is important to support future conservation and the NRM achievements to date.

Notwithstanding the learning that has occurred in implementing the first phase of Caring for our Country, there are some issues that it could be useful to explore for the second five years of Caring for our Country. These elements have been chosen as ones that could assist Caring for our Country’s ability to invest more effectively and to take account of the work of the partner agencies and organisations.

In the context of a new phase of the program and the achievements highlighted through this report, the following questions are posited for consideration. The first set of key questions explores a basis for future investment:

Does a focus on nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities mean that Caring for our Country should primarily invest in fragmented landscapes and habitats? Is it ecologically and financially viable to invest in restoring remnant vegetation and habitat unless there are additional gains in improving connectivity and resilience of landscapes for the conservation of biodiversity?

Should Caring for our Country invest, as a priority, in relatively pristine environments like Cape York, where prevention of biodiversity loss is probably more cost-effective than repair or restoration in the future?

To consolidate the biodiversity and ecosystems services improvements of the first five years, should continuity in funding for some landscapes be considered, especially where there are long-term NRM issues to manage?

Where weed and pest animal control will take more than five years to be treated or controlled, what would the risk be of not investing in ongoing management?

The second set of key questions concerns assessing achievements:

Using the framework of five-year outcomes with annual targets, should the assessment of achievements focus more on the outcomes—for example, an improvement in the condition of an environmental asset or an improvement in soil condition—rather than on the input measures that may or may not lead to environmental or production change or improvement?

Should the frameworks provided in relevant independent evaluations of Caring for our Country be incorporated into a system to consistently record how change, particularly for the community skills, knowledge and engagement national priority area, is effected to enable easier aggregation of data and information on achievements against the five-year outcomes and yearly targets?

Should more thought be given to what monitoring is actually required to assess progress in production or environmental outcomes?

In allocating the period of time for a project to be funded, should additional time be included for detailed planning before implementation commences?

Should the monitoring, evaluating and reporting templates be simplified to reflect the essentials for sound project management and to make aggregation of results more straightforward?

Should some thought be given to developing a monitoring strategy now to assist in assessing the 20-year long-term projections (outcomes)?

The third set of key points notes some issues related to the use of technology to work smarter:

Many of the investments made under the first phase of Caring for our Country are expected to result in environmental gains within a few years. As more investments are made by Caring for our Country and by other organisations and agencies, the need to know where investments have been made in priority areas, how they have contributed to environmental or production gains and whether additional investments are required will become important in prioritising NRM effort.

Spatial mapping tools and Geographic Information Systems can aid NRM decision making and are used by several regional NRM organisations—for example, in the North-East Catchment Management Authority’s biodiversity projects. Being able to spatially locate all current and potential future projects by environmental non-government organisations, regional NRM organisations, state and territory agencies and Caring for our Country is essential for effective and efficient delivery of connectivity and resilience outcomes as stated in the 20-year outcome.

At a national scale, the development of tools such as the National Lands Conservation Database, in partnership with the states and territories, allowed the spatial location of one million hectares of private land under conservation that had not been previously mapped.

The development of technology for monitoring in remote areas has been one of the success stories of Caring for our Country. There are many areas in Australia where on-ground monitoring could further benefit from the use of technology or where remote sensing data can be processed for broad indications of landscape change. The Australian Collaborative Rangelands Information System, for example, in cooperation with the Queensland Government, uses remote sensing data and is currently developing methods to separate seasonal (climatic) effects on ground cover from those due to grazing management in Queensland.

The use of social media could be explored to give opportunities for advising, for example, when volunteer opportunities arise. When urban people’s lives are so busy, they may not want to commit weeks in advance but still want to know when NRM activities are planned and happening. Younger generations are very used to social media and it should be used to provide information and knowledge on NRM.

Conclusion

The first five years of the Caring for our Country program have made a significant contribution towards addressing NRM issues and challenges, as outlined in this section, based on investment in the six national priority areas. There will be issues of integration of effort with other Australian Government programs in the future, and consolidating and building on the NRM gains made over the first five years of the program. But the overarching goal of the program is still very relevant to investment in NRM.

The legacy of this phase of Country for our Country is in the achievement of many of the five-year outcomes and in the dedication of so many people to deliver the outcomes, often on tight timelines and under difficult conditions.

Some of the highlights are:

the inscribing of Ningaloo on the World Heritage List

the addition of West Kimberley to the National Heritage List

the continuing and painstaking work to eradicate tramp ants from areas of Australia

the engagement of industry and regional NRM organisations in Reef Rescue

the control of feral camels near 18 biological refugia and across millions of hectares of the rangelands

the efforts to restore the environmental values of priority Ramsar and some non-Ramsar wetlands by addressing key threats

the adoption of land management practices to deliver improved ecosystems services in many areas

the enthusiasm generated in people to contribute their time and resources to NRM activities on their own properties and on public lands

the slow but steady progress on cleaning up estuaries and coastal hotspot areas

the protection afforded to landscapes and habitats for both biodiversity and ecosystem services through reductions in threats.

Other highlights have been the identification of environmental, social and economic benefits from some projects, particularly

through Working on Country and the Indigenous Protected Areas programs; and the benefits of integrated information and strong partnerships for future NRM activities.

There have been some world-leading NRM efforts in locations such as Macquarie Island to eradicate pest animals; there has been ongoing work to eradicate or contain tramp ants in some very large areas, which contrasts with the level of effort being made in other countries; and there has been innovative and inherently challenging work to save the Tasmanian Devil.

Information to assess some of the program outcomes is not yet available, but the monitoring and modelling systems are in place to deliver it in the near future. Where outcomes were partially achieved or where the information to assess achievement has not been readily available, this reflects the realities of working in a complex and variable environment where it is difficult to assess environmental or production achievements in the short term.

Many of the Caring for our Country projects have created a legacy that is likely to endure. Some examples are:

the development of animal welfare protocols for feral camel control

the establishment of long-term monitoring sites in areas containing threatened ecological communities, catchments and estuaries to assess water quality improvements

five- to 10-year land management agreements with private land managers to protect biodiversity assets on their land

documenting learning from projects and sharing that information via websites or by collaboration with interested agencies

improved public amenity from capital works to manage water quality in some coastal estuaries.

These achievements, and the learning that has been applied throughout the program, have provided a sound basis for the next phase of Caring for our Country. With the Commonwealth focusing on NRM issues of national environmental significance, the interactions with state and regional priorities will require dialogue and commitment to achieve landscape-scale improvements that can address a number of priorities.

The extent to which Caring for our Country has addressed the NRM challenges that were discussed earlier in this chapter varies according to the issue. As previously stated, climate variability is not an explicit goal of this program but there have been additional benefits for land managers in managing for this climate variability through, for example, an emphasis on improving ground cover. Water quality issues have been at the forefront of Caring for our Country investment, with Reef Rescue, wetlands and coastal hotpots prominent recipients of funding and partnership arrangements to address seemingly intractable issues. New incursions of plant or animal pests are a constant worry. Vigilance and prompt coordinated action is required to eradicate or contain pests such as tramp ants that can have a devastating impact on biodiversity. The most difficult issue in some respects that lurks under the radar is the long-term trend in the number of people within the community who could contribute to NRM activities in the future. Without research on what motivates people to actively contribute to NRM activities, and how to motivate the generations who regard themselves as ‘time poor’, the future for engaging people as volunteers may begin to look bleak in 10 years’ time.

NRM issues are indeed complex. To make improvements and sustain them over time is no easy matter. As noted in the 2006 State of the Environment Report: “Environmental issues arise from interactions between human and natural systems, both of which are characterised by considerable complexity and uncertainty. Attempts to achieve desirable outcomes through policy or management interventions in these systems are rarely simple tasks with clear cause-and-effect linkages or single impacts” (Dovers 2006).

Continuity of effort, investment and commitment is required to continue to improve NRM and meet the 20-year goal of Caring for our Country in another 15 years.

References

Allen Consulting Group (2011). Assessment of the economic and employment outcomes of the Working on Country program. Report for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Alluvium (2013). Evaluation of Caring for our Country outcomes at Ramsar sites and non Ramsar High Ecological Value Aquatic Ecosystems Report, p. 22.

Australian Government Land and Coasts (2012). Report on the Review of the Caring for our Country Initiative. Caring for our Country Review Team, Canberra.

Barkly Landcare and Conservation Association Project (unpublished). Control Weeds of National Significance. Project summary.

Barson M. (2013a). Land management practice trends in Australia’s beef cattle/sheep industries. Caring for our Country

Sustainable Practices fact sheet 32. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Barson M. (2013b). Land management practice trends in northern and remote Australia’s agricultural industries. Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 36. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Barson M., Mewett J. and Paplinska J. (2012a). Trends in on farm biodiversity management in Australia’s agricultural industries. Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 5. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Barson M., Mewett J. and Paplinska J. (2012b). Land management practice trends in Australia’s broadacre cropping industries. Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 3. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Barson M., Mewett J. and Paplinska J. (2012c). Land management practice trends in Australia’s dairy industry. Caring for our Country Sustainable Practices fact sheet 1. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Beeton R.J.S. (2006). Society’s Forms of Capital: A Framework for Renewing our Thinking. Paper presented at the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra: www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/emerging/capital/index.html. Accessed 29 January 2013.

Binney J., Whiteoak K. and Tunny, G. (2010). Review of the Environmental Stewardship Program. Prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Marsden Jacob Associates, Melbourne.

Bui, E.N., Hancock, G.J., Chappell, A., and Gregory, L.J. (2010). Evaluation of tolerable erosion rates and time to critical topsoil loss in Australia. CSIRO, Canberra.

Centralian Land Management Association n.d., Ecosystem Management Understanding EMU™ Empowering pastoralists to manage for sustainable and productive landscapes. www.clma.com.au. Accessed 7 May 2013.

Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Greening Australia Project (unpublished). Woodlands Recovery Project. Project summary.

Cork S., Eadie L., Mele P., Price R. and Yule D. (2012). The relationships between land management practices and soil condition and the quality of ecosystem services delivered from agricultural land in Australia. Kiri-ganai Research, Australia.

Cunningham, R.B., Lindenmayer, D.B., Michael, D., Crane, M., Barton, P.S., Gibbons, P., Okada, S., Ikin, K. and Stein, J.A.R. The law of diminishing returns: woodland birds respond to native vegetation cover at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Diversity and Distributions (in review).

DAFF (2012). Ground Cover Monitoring for Australia: www.daff.gov.au/natural-resources/soils/monitoring/ground-cover-monitoring-for-australia

Darby, A. (2012) ‘Island’s great rabbit cull lays pest to rest’, The Age, December 28. at www.theage.com.au/national/islands-great-rabbit-cull-lays-pest-to-rest-20121227-2bxwf.html. Accessed 7 May 2013

Dovers S. (2006). ‘The dilemma of conflicting environmental outcomes’. Paper presented at the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee, Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra: www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/emerging/conflict-outcomes/index.html.

DSEWPaC (2012a). Caring for our Country CSKE outcomes evaluation; and review of key community and NRM level achievements. Information Review Summary Report, October. Canberra.

DSEWPaC (2012b). One Land—Many Stories: Prospectus of Investment 2013–2014. Canberra.

DSEWPaC (2013a). National Water Quality Management Strategy: www.environment.gov.au/water/policy-programs/nwqms/index.html . Accessed 28 January 2013.

DSEWPaC (2013b). The Australian Collaborative Rangelands Information System (ACRIS): Reporting Change in the Rangelands: www.environment.gov.au/land/publications/acris/acris-reporting-change.html. Accessed 22 April 2013.

DSEWPaC (2013c). Threatened species and ecological communities:

www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/index.html. Accessed 28 January 2013.

DSEWPaC and DAFF (2012). Community Action Grants Outcomes. Canberra, p. 5.

Ecker S., Thompson L., Kancans R., Stenekes N. and Mallawaarachchi T. (2012). Drivers of practice change in land management in Australian agriculture. ABARES report prepared for Sustainable Resource Management Division, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, December.

Eco Logical Australia (2012, unpublished). Standard Field Guide for Assessing Vegetation Change: A guide for Caring for our Country – Version 1. Prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Edwards G.P., Zeng B., Saalfeld W.K., Vaarzon-Morel P. and McGregor M. (eds) (2008). Managing the impacts of feral camels in Australia: a new way of doing business. DKCRC Report 47. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs: www.desertknowledgecrc.com.au/publications. Accessed 28 January 2013.

Eyre Peninsula NRM (2011). Caring for our Country project: A collaborative approach to improving land protection outcomes for erosion prone soils on Eyre Peninsula: www.nrm.gov.au/projects/regional-base-level/sa/eyre-peninsula/index.html. Accessed 9 January 2013.

Fitzroy Basin Association (2009). Caring for our Country project: Central Queensland Beef—Sustainable Grazing Businesses (unpublished).

GhostNets Australia (2011). Annual Report: www.northerngulf.com.au/projects/Ghost_nets.html. Accessed 15 March 2013.

Grealish, G., Clifford, D., Wilson, P., and Ringrose-Voase, A. (2001). National soil condition monitoring for soil pH and soil carbon: objectives, design, protocols, governance and reporting. CSIRO Land and Water Science, Canberra ACT. Available at www. nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog/mql:2566

Hegglun R. Personal communication, March 2013.

Ingwersen D. and Tzaros C. (2011). Woodland Birds. Wingspan, Winter 2011. Birdlife Australia: www.birdlife.org.au/documents/WL-woodland_birdsWS.pdf. Accessed 7 January 2013.

Inovact Consulting Pty Ltd (2011). community skills, knowledge and engagement in Regional NRM: Drivers of Performance and Developing Australian Government Investment Strategy. Canberra.

Lach L. and Barker G.M. (2013). Assessing the Effectiveness of Tramp Ant Projects to Reduce Impacts on Biodiversity. University of Western Australia.

Larson S. and Williams L.J. ( 2009). Alice Springs, Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre 251–298, quoted in T.G. Measham and L. Brake (eds). Monitoring the success of stakeholder engagement: Literature review. People, communities and economies of the Lake Eyre Basin DKCRC Research report 45.

Lindenmayer D.B Personal communication, 2013.

Lindenmayer D.B. and Cunningham R.B. (2011). Longitudinal patterns in bird reporting rates in a threatened ecosystem: Is change regionally consistent? Biological Conservation 144: 430–440.

Lindenmayer D.B., Bennett A.F. and Hobbs, R.J. (eds) (2010). Temperate Woodland Conservation and Management. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Lindenmayer D.B., Knight E.J., Crane M.J., Montague-Drake R., Michael D.R. and MacGregor C.I. (2009). What makes an effective restoration planting for woodland birds? Biological Conservation 143: 289–301.

Lindenmayer D.B., Wood J., Montague-Drake R., Michael D., Crane M., Okada S., MacGregor C. and Gibbons P. (2012). Is biodiversity management effective? Cross-sectional relationships between management, bird response and vegetation attributes in an Australian agri-environment scheme. Biological Conservation 152: 62–73.

Lindenmayer D.B., Zammit C., Attwood S.A., Burns E., Shepherd C.L., Kay G. and Wood J. (2012). A novel and cost-effective monitoring approach for outcomes in an Australian biodiversity conservation incentive program. PLoS One 7: e50872.

Michael D.R., Cunningham R. and Lindenmayer D.B. (2008). A forgotten habitat? Insular granite inselbergs conserve reptile

diversity in fragmented landscape in south-eastern Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1742–1752.

Montague-Drake R., Lindenmayer D.B. and Cunningham R.B. (2009). Habitat determinants of site occupancy for woodland bird species of conservation concern. Biological Conservation 142: 2896–2903.

NAILSMA Project: www.nrm.gov.au/projects/other-projects/special/fire-management/index.html. Accessed 7 January 2013.

Natural Resource Management Boards of SA (2010). Achievements Report 2009–10. Government of South Australia.

Natural Resources Commission (2010). Progress towards healthy resilient landscapes implementing the standard, targets and catchment action plans: www.nrc.nsw.gov.au/content/documents/2010%20Progress%20report.pdf. Accessed 27 January 2013.

Natural Resources SA Arid Lands (2012). On Track. Delivering natural resource management in the SA Arid Lands 2011–12. Caring for our Country and Government of South Australia.

NorthEast Catchment Management Authority Project (unpublished). Sustainable Farming Practices—soil carbon. Project summary.

Northern Agricultural Council Project (2011). NACC Rabbit Suppression Project. Progress report for December 2010 to June 2011.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority Project (unpublished). Engaging NSW Communities in Coastline Conservation. Project summary.

Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (2013). Caring for our Coast. New South Wales Government: www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/projects/caring-for-our-coast.html. Accessed 9 March 2013.

NRM South Project (2012). ‘Living Soils. There’s a lot happening in our backyard—natural resource management across Australia 2012’. Paper presented at the 4th Natural Resource Management Knowledge Conference, April, p. 34.

Office of the Chief Scientist (2012). Health of Australian Science. Australian Government, Canberra.

Ogden R. and Jones G. (2013). An evaluation of strategies used in the Caring for our Country program to improve water quality management in coastal hotspots. Draft Report. E-Water, Canberra, p. 8.

Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania (2012a). Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area: www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=391. Accessed 29 January 2013.

Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania (2012b). Podcasts and iPhone/iPad Apps: www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=7715. Accessed 29 January 2013.

Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (2012). ‘Protection of internationally important wetlands. There’s a lot happening in our backyard – natural resource management across Australia 2012’. Paper presented at the 4th Natural Resource Management Knowledge Conference, April, p. 36.

Pringle H. (2009). Ecosystem Management and Understanding (EMU) pilot in northern South Australia: www. saalnrm.sa.gov.au/Portals/8/Publications_Resources/Project_Reports/SAAL- EMU_Pilot_In_Northern_SA_September_2009-102009.pdf. Accessed February 2013.

Reef and Rainforest Research Centre (2006). Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program (MMP): www.rrrc.org.au/mmp. Accessed 21 April 2013.

RM Consulting Group (2013a) Caring for our Country: Evaluation of the Increasing Native Habitat and Vegetation Outcome Evaluation Report. Prepared for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

RM Consulting Group (2013b). Caring for our Country: Evaluation of community skills, knowledge and engagement Outcomes: Review of Key Community and Natural Resource Management Level Achievements. Report prepared for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Sarre S.D., MacDonald A.J., Barclay C., Saunders G.R. and Ramsey D.S.L. (2012). Foxes are now widespread in Tasmania : DNA detection defines the distribution of this rare but invasive carnivore. Journal of Applied Ecology Early View. Article first published online 4 December 2012 www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12011/pdf. Accessed 17 March 2013.

South Australian Government (unpublished). Project—Landscape—scale aerial fox control for the nationally threatened Andu Wallaby. Case study.

South Coast NRM Inc. (unpublished). Phytophthora Dieback Project, Western Australia. Project summary.

Tasmanian Landcare (unpublished). Tasmanian State-wide Devolved Grants Project. Project summary.

Territory Natural Resources Management (unpublished). A coordinated response to on-ground control of Mimosa Pigra in the Daly and Moyle catchments. Progress report.

Urbis (2012). Assessment of the social outcomes of Working on Country. Report for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities: www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/workingoncountry/publications/woc-social.html.

Walton J., Pringle H. and Stanton C. (2012). ‘Ecosystem Management Understanding (EMU)™ Building landscape literacy to rehydrate the rangelands of South Australia’. Paper presented at the Australian Rangeland Society 17th Biennial Conference Kununurra, Western Australia, 23–27 September, p. 57.

Wangamaty Lower Daly Land Management Group Inc Project (unpublished). Protect and manage biodiversity in the lower Daly within and adjacent to a High Conservation Value Aquatic Site. Project summary.

Warddeken Land Management Limited (2012). Indigenous Knowledge Performance Story Report. Prepared for the Indigenous Protected Area Section, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Wheatbelt Natural Resource Management (unpublished). Healthy Bushland. Project summary.