multi-year research plan environmental decisions hub€¦ · web viewenvironmental decisions hub...

Multi-Year Research Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL DECISIONS HUBJuly 2011 – June 2015

Final Version – 7 July 2011

National Environmental Research Program(NERP)

NERP Environmental Decisions hub

Multi-Year Research Plan ACCEPTANCE AND RELEASE NOTICEThis Multi-Year Research Plan Version 1 of the Research Hub for Environmental Decisions – the Environmental Decisions hub is authorised for release once all signature have been obtained.

Role Name and Position title Signature Date

Hub Leader Professor Hugh Possingham, Director

DSEWPaC Geoff Richardson, ERIB

2 | P a g e


CONTENTS

1. THE RESEARCH HUB........................................................................................................5

1.0. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................51.1. HUB MISSION...........................................................................................................................61.2. HUB STRATEGIC GOALS..............................................................................................................61.3. EXPECTED OUTCOMES................................................................................................................71.4. EXPECTED OUTPUTS.................................................................................................................. 71.5. RESEARCH RELEVANCE...............................................................................................................71.6. PARTNER/COLLABORATIVE ORGANISATIONS.................................................................................131.7. LINKS TO OTHER RESEARCH PROGRAMS......................................................................................151.8. COMMUNICATION, KNOWLEDGE BROKERING, SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS...........................................151.9. MEASURING SUCCESS..............................................................................................................17

2. RESEARCH THEMES.......................................................................................................18

2.0. THEME 1 - VALUES: UNDERSTANDING MAJOR DRIVERS FOR MAINTAINING BIODIVERSITY.....................182.1. Theme 1 Description:......................................................................................................................182.2. Theme 1 Activities:.........................................................................................................................182.3. Theme 1 Approach and Methods:..................................................................................................18

2.4. THEME 2 – UNDERSTANDING FUNCTION/MONITORING ECOSYSTEM HEALTH.....................................192.5. Theme 2 Description:......................................................................................................................192.6. Theme 2 Activities:.........................................................................................................................192.7. Theme 2 Approach and Methods:..................................................................................................19

2.8. THEME 3 - THREATS: BUILDING RESILIENCE FOR EVOLVING THREATS................................................212.9. Theme 3 Description:......................................................................................................................212.10. Theme 3 Activities:.........................................................................................................................212.11. Theme 3 Approach and Methods:..................................................................................................21

2.12. THEME 4 - SUSTAINABLE USE OF BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEMS...................................................222.13. Theme 4 Description:......................................................................................................................222.14. Theme 4 Activities:.........................................................................................................................222.15. Theme 4 Approach and Methods:..................................................................................................22

2.16. THEME 5 - BIODIVERSITY ECONOMICS AND MARKETS...................................................................232.17. Theme 5 Description:......................................................................................................................232.18. Theme 5 Activities:.........................................................................................................................232.19. Theme 5 Approach and Methods:..................................................................................................23

3. RESEARCH PROJECTS......................................................................................................1

3.0. PROJECT ACTIVITIES...................................................................................................................1

4. RESEARCH HUB ADMINISTRATION..................................................................................1

4.0. LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE...................................................................................................24.1. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS........................................................................................................44.2. RISK MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................................. 5

3 | P a g e


Introduction

In 2010 the Federal Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) developed the National Environmental Research Program (NERP). This program is designed as an ongoing program for environmental public good research.

The key objective of the National Environmental Research Program is to:

Improve our capacity to understand, manage and conserve Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems through the generation of world-class research and its delivery to Australian environmental decision makers and other stakeholders.

The NERP seeks to achieve its objectives by providing funding to support applied research that:

has a strong public-good focus and public-good outcome is end-user focused and addresses the needs of the Australian Government and other

stakeholders in developing evidence-based policy and improving management of the Australian environment

is highly innovative and aims to achieve world-class research and an international standing in the chosen field of research

enhances Australia’s environmental research capacity is collaborative and builds critical mass by drawing on multiple disciplines from multiple

research institutions to address challenging research questions provides results accessible to government, industry and the community, and includes focussing on synthesis and analysis of existing knowledge.

In 2011, the Environmental Decisions hub was formed from $11.7million of NERP funding. This Multi-Year Research Plan is designed to describe how the Environmental Decisions hub will address the objectives of the NERP.

The Environmental Decisions hub’s Multi-Year Research Plan was prepared through consultation between Key Researchers, our Steering Committee, comprising DSEWPaC staff, other Federal and State Government representatives, members of Non-government Organisations, and in close collaboration with other NERP hubs.

In line with DSEWPaC’s objective to provide a program for “environmental public good research”, our primary audience for this Multi-Year Research Plan is the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and its agencies, particularly DSEWPaC, in developing evidence-based policy, improving the management of Australia’s environment. The plans are available on our website at http://NERPdecisions.edu.au.

A variety of other interested stakeholders, include researchers not directly involved in the Environmental Decisions hub but whom we will collaborate with, government and non-government organisations and the general public (seeking information on the Hubs), will all benefit from the Environmental Decisions hub’s work.

4 | P a g e

http://NERPdecisions.edu.au/


Between 2011 and 2014, the Environmental Decisions hub’s Multi-Year Research Plan will be supported by Annual Research Plans, where variation to our research program will be documented. As we make exciting progress and advances in developing methods and tools for improved environmental decision making, these Annual Research Plans will outline how our program will vary to take advantage of our discoveries.

1. THE RESEARCH HUB

1.0. Introduction/Background

The Environmental Decisions hub will be led by Professor Hugh Possingham, a world leader in Environmental Decision Science, based at the University of Queensland. He is a Professor of both Ecology and Mathematics, and an Australian Research Council (ARC) Federation Fellow. Possingham was the director of a hub funded by NERP’s predecessor, the Commonwealth Environmental Research Fund (CERF), between 2005 and 2010. This CERF hub was known as the Applied Environmental Decision Analysis hub (AEDA). His expertise crosses every aspect of this new centre’s research from ecology to economics and mathematics.

As Director of the Environmental Decisions hub, Possingham is ably supported by Dr Brendan Wintle, from the University of Melbourne, as Deputy Director. Wintle was also AEDA’s Deputy Director, and manages a large research group and many productive relationships with end-users.

The Environmental Decisions hub’s other Key Researchers are: The Australian National University:

o Professor David Lindenmayer, Professor, Fenner School of Environment and Societyo Dr Don Driscoll, Research Fellowo Dr Phil Gibbons, Senior Fellow

The University of Western Australian o Professor David Pannell, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Director of

the Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy, ARC Federation Fellowo Professor Richard Hobbs, Professor of Restoration Ecology & ARC Australian Laureate

Fellowo Dr Graeme Doole, Research Fellow

The University of Queensland o Dr Kerrie Wilson, Senior Research Fellow (ARC)o Dr Clive McAlpine, Senior Research Fellowo Dr Yvonne Buckley, Senior Lecturero Dr Eve McDonald-Madden, ARC Postdoctoral Fellowo Dr Richard Fuller, Lecturer (UQ & CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems)o Dr Jonathan Rhodes, Lecturer

The University of Melbourne o Dr Michael A. McCarthy, Associate Professoro Professor Mark Burgman, Director, ACERAo Dr Peter Vesk, Senior Lecturero Dr Michael Bode, ARC Postdoctoral Research Fellow

5 | P a g e


o Dr Kirsten Parris , Research Fellow RMIT University

o Dr Sarah Bekessy, Senior Lecturer CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems

o Dr Tara Martin, Research Scientist

Many of these Key Researchers were also involved in AEDA. AEDA demonstrated extraordinary research productivity through numerous high quality applied biodiversity papers, that were also acclaimed by independent external review. AEDA’s research fundamentally altered Australian Government policy and management in areas such as: environmental stewardship, park management, allocation of environmental funding, selection of conservation reserves (marine and terrestrial) and biodiversity monitoring. Using the experience of AEDA, and instilling the expertise and skills of new researchers, the Environmental Decisions hub will certainly build on and expand AEDA’s excellent work.

Biodiversity underpins the cultural and economic prosperity of Australia. The multidisciplinary NERP Environmental Decisions hub will carry out high quality applied research on all forms of terrestrial biodiversity, in a wide range of environments, necessary to help Australian governments protect and restore Australia’s biodiversity. The research will include new tools, data, models and authoritative syntheses that enable Australian governments to make evidence-based decisions that halt, then reverse, the decline in biodiversity. The Environmental Decisions hub research program is structured around delivering outcomes on each of the five NERP research priorities: values, ecosystems, threats, sustainable use and markets.

1.1. Hub Mission

The hub will improve environmental decision-making. Key biodiversity issues will be better understood and the research will help governments develop practical approaches to securing Australia’s biodiversity.

1.2. Hub Strategic Goals

NERP Program Goals

Goal 1:Contributing to Research Priorities. Contribute to meeting the policy and program research priorities / requirements of the Environment Portfolio.

Goal 2: Promoting Excellence in Research. Promote excellence in research through funding world class, innovative, multi-disciplinary research that supports the conservation and management of Australia’s biodiversity and ecosystems.

Goal 3:Supporting Evidence Based Policies and Decisions. Enable evidence based decision making by increasing the capacity of Environment Portfolio decision makers.

6 | P a g e


Goal 4:Delivering an Effective and Efficient Program. Improve program performance by ensuring the National Environmental Research Program has a strong governance framework supported by effective systems and processes.

The Environmental Decisions Hub will address these goals through a multi-disciplinary, evidenced based approach to environmental decision science.

1.3. Expected Outcomes

The Environmental Decisions hub research program is structured to deliver directly on the five research themes described in the “Draft National Environmental Research Program: Biodiversity policy questions for research”. In Section 2: Research Themes, we summarise our research within each theme. Key outcomes across all themes will contribute directly to the NERP Policy Research Questions. These expected outcomes include:

Increased empirical evidence and knowledge about how differing social, economic and environmental values placed on biodiversity will influence conservation management and monitoring decisions;

new insights into ecosystem and species level management, including adaptive management, and drivers of extinction in multi-use landscapes;

operationalising the concept of resilience to threatening processes. In other words, moving the concept of resilience from linguistic jargon to something that can be measured, monitored and can inform decision-making;

a better understanding of how resource use and other human needs can be balanced with biodiversity conservation;

recommendations for improved decision making processes within environmental programs; improved NRM policy frameworks that incorporate an understanding of landholder behaviour; more valuable environmental outcomes for the available public budget.

1.4. Expected Outputs

the development of spatial prioritisation approaches that account for dynamic threats; methods for assessing the cumulative effects of resource uses on biodiversity; tools and transparent research to facilitate changes in decision making by environmental

managers and policy makers; increased researcher capacity in Australian Environmental Decision making outcomes, by considering feasibility, adoption, lags, risks, etc.; providing advice on where restoration of habitats will deliver resilience for the NRS under

climate change and other threats;

7 | P a g e


1.5. Research Relevance

The Environmental Decisions hub research program is structured to ensure delivery under the five research priority areas identified by DSEWPaC. We propose that each identified project have a named “DSEWPaC Champion” who will be involved in design, implementation and delivery of project outcomes. The DSEWPaC Champions would have the dual responsibility of assisting our hub researchers develop and refine research questions and strategies to maximise likely benefit to the department, and assisting researchers and the Environmental Decisions hub funded Liaison Officers to maximise uptake in the relevant DSEWPaC divisions who can use those research outcomes. Initially the key task will be to ensure all the Priority Research Questions have been addressed but the Environmental Decisions hub will maintain close contact with DSEWPaC through DSEWPaC Champions, the Liaison Officer(s) and the Steering Committee to ensure we can react rapidly to emerging needs.

The five research themes identified Attachment A of this proposal map directly onto the biodiversity policy question areas provided by DSEWPaC and below we detail the research relevance of each theme in terms of biodiversity policy.

Theme 1 - “Values: Understanding major Drivers for Maintaining Biodiversity”, led by McCarthy and Wilson will provide research that directly improves our ability to recognize, characterise and optimize biodiversity conservation. Our research in this theme addresses the Australian Government’s stated principle of incorporating the value of biodiversity into decision-making processes. This suite of projects specifically addresses the PRQs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5. By addressing synergies and antagonisms in biodiversity conservation and carbon sequestration at a national scale, we tackle the emerging problem of how these values can be coherently traded-off in setting conservation and habitat restoration priorities. Furthermore there is a third major dimension to the trade-off, water availability for agriculture, human use and the environment.

We will also examine the degree to which the value of species, as represented by genetic diversity, matter in conservation prioritization. This is particularly important given the lack of detailed information on phylogenetic diversity of species. A key outcome of Theme 1 will be cost-effective biodiversity conservation strategies that equitably integrate values like carbon, biodiversity and water – it is important that NRMs/CMAs and all Australian government develop this capacity and this will be facilitated through The Environmental Decisions hub workshops and co-funded projects.

DSEWPaC requires information on habitat restoration and carbon sequestration priorities, particularly for the Caring for our Country program where the prioritisation of investments is a key research issue. The Restoration at NRM Regional Scale project (Project 1.4) will also address a number of objectives in the National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan 2004-2007, specifically “Objective 2; to increase awareness of climate change impacts and our capacity to respond” and “Objective 7; to factor the impacts of climate change on biodiversity into natural resource management and land use planning”.

Schemes for trading in carbon dioxide emissions reductions and dedicated funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation may present an important opportunity to finance future restoration activities. For restoration agencies and philanthropic bodies, our research will deliver much needed information on the potential to conserve biodiversity and sequester carbon dioxide through habitat restoration through the evaluation of case studies across diverse Australian ecosystems. Each of these organisations will benefit from the methodologies and plans that will emerge from this

8 | P a g e


research (addressing PRQs 1.3 and 1.5) and be facilitated by the collaborative relationships that already exist between Wilson, Possingham, and others within these organisations.

The Phylogenetic Data and Spatial Prioritization Project (Project 1.1) addresses questions about the degree to which different values of species influence conservation priorities and will provide methods to characterise and optimally conserve hotspots of genetic diversity (PRQ 1.1). It will help to assess the adequacy of the current national reserve system, and the adequacy of prioritization schemes that ignore phylogeny. It will also identify priorities for national conservation actions that account for phylogenetic diversity of iconic Australian plants.

These projects will include consultation and input from DSEWPaC staff: Mr Mark Taylor (Parks and Protected Areas Programs, Assistant Secretary), Dr Judy West (Parks & Biodiversity Science, Assistant Secretary), and Prof Charlie Zammit (Biodiversity Conservation, Assistant Secretary). This work will be complemented by a series of other research efforts focussing on efficient and equitable approaches to implementing triage (led by Possingham and addressing PRQ 1.2), and refining cost-sharing arrangements for stewardship and Caring for our Country investments (led by Pannell and addressing PRQs 1.4 and 5.1).

Key recommendations of the Hawke review of the EPBC Act are for improved policy guidance and greater reliance on strategic assessments reforming the Act. The Recovery Planning / Threatened Species Project (Project 1.5) will directly inform the development of new approaches for improved strategic assessments under a reformed EPBC Act. More broadly the project will deliver new decision support tools for determining investments for species-level conservation for national and regional planning in association with DSEWPaC. This project will specifically address PRQs 1.1 and 1.2.

Theme 2 – “Understand function / monitoring of ecosystem health”, led by Lindenmayer and Driscoll will build on existing work in developing concepts and practices in ecosystem management and monitoring. The theme will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages for biodiversity of an ecosystem-based management approach through the acquisition of critical empirical and spatial data. We will also identify practical methods for ecosystem-based management and strategies for measuring their success over time as the environment changes. These developments will assist DSEWPaC and other agencies to evaluate the merits and risks in moving beyond single-species approaches to conservation management to a whole-of-ecosystem approach.

The projects under this theme will deliver practical management advice for protected areas such as Booderee National Park, Christmas Island, and Kakadu National Park, and therefore is of direct relevance to Parks Australia. They will also contribute to the collation of data and the selection of indicators for the State of the Environment Reporting and inform the design of infrastructure and systems for the National Environmental Accounts, important for programs in the Lands and Coasts Division (Biodiversity Conservation, Communication and Reporting). The utility of the projects will extend to optimising data collection and analysis for assessing development proposals under the EPBC Act, crucial to the functions of the Environment Assessment and Compliance Division.

Project 2.2, Predicting Impacts of Ecosystem Management will trial ecosystem modelling and monitoring approaches in the temperate woodlands of New South Wales, Central Highlands of Victoria, Cumberland Plains, Parks Australia’s co-managed reserve at Booderee National Park, Queensland’s Brigalow and Victoria’s Basalt Plains Grasslands and will provide immediate management benefits to those case study ecosystems, providing a template approach for application in other regions. These projects will deliver on PRQs 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. The Ecosystem vs

9 | P a g e


Species Management, and Long-term Monitoring Strategies Projects (Projects 2.1 and 2.4) will also deliver on PRQs 1.6, 3.1, 3.9, 4.1 and 4.3, by providing data and modelling central to bioregional planning and strategic impact assessments at broad scales. This will assist in administering the EPBC Act and revisions proposed under the Hawke Review relating to bioregional planning.

Thus a key outcome of Theme 2 will be strategies for modelling and monitoring ecosystems that will help to satisfy reporting requirements and ensure efficient ecosystem-based management. This is central to the SoE reporting and the National Plan for Environmental Information.

Theme 3 - “Threats: Building Resilience for Evolving Threats”, led by Martin and Burgman will help make the concept of resilience workable in conservation, improve the way threats are detected and managed, and better integrate the key conservation concepts of threat and resilience. The concept of resilience is embedded in national policy documents with references ranging from managing for resilience to climate change, to supporting social-economic systems and policy that promote the management of resilient biodiversity assets.

Research from this theme will underpin decision-making for building resilient biodiversity assets for Australia, contribute to the development of the National Biodiversity Strategy, and support recommendations in the Hawke Review of the EPBC Act. The Federal Biodiversity Conservation Strategy identifies the building of ecosystem resilience to be a priority for the future (Priority for Change 1). It is aimed that this be achieved by ensuring that our natural environments are able to retain their biodiversity values and critical ecological functions in the face of growing pressure, including from climate change.

Operational definitions and measures of resilience in conservation are currently lacking, despite the prevalence of the concept in biodiversity policy and planning documents. In particular planning for a resilient NRS and other national biodiversity assets in the face of climate change and other threats are key aspirations of DSEWPaC and DCC. Projects 3.1, 3.2 and 3.4 in this theme will develop practical, measurable and transparent indicators of resilience to assist these agencies integrate concepts of resilience thinking into on-ground management and practice (addressing PRQ 3.1). The projects will also identify procedures for managing the long-term persistence of threatened species and for controlling invasive species (addressing PRQs 3.6 and 3.9). Furthermore we will devise a practical marriage between decision-science tools and resilience using stochastic modelling methods and control theory.

Improved knowledge of dispersal is needed to understand the role of connectivity in mitigating effects of climate change, mining, urban and agricultural developments. Every simulation model used to predict responses of wildlife in landscapes includes dispersal parameters but these are rarely based on adequate data. Project 3.3 aims to develop new techniques that will enable this debilitating knowledge gap to be filled. The knowledge arising will support better decision-making models (such as those used in Themes 1 and 4). Direct assessment of the connectivity value of landscapes in contrasting condition in Project 3.4 will assist the Landcare and Sustainable Agriculture, and Biodiversity programs of the Land and Coasts Division, will provide information relevant to development and maintenance of an effective national parks system (Parks and Protected Areas Program, Parks and Biodiversity Science within Parks Australia), and will ascertain the important function of landscape components, with relevance for programs within Wildlife and Heritage Division and Environment Assessment and Compliance Division. Project 3.4 will therefore address PRQs 3.1, 3.3, and 3.4.Understanding refugia is critical for understanding mechanisms of post-disturbance recovery, quantifying the level of threat to species and ecosystems from multiple and potentially interacting

10 | P a g e


stressors, including stressors related to climate-change like increase fire severity and fire frequency. Project 3.5 will increase knowledge of the role of refugia in ecosystem resilience, which in-turn can provide critical guidance from a management to policy level, with relevance to programs in Parks Australia, Environment Assessment and other programs in Wildlife and Heritage Division and Environment Assessment and Compliance Division, and for programs in the Australian Government Land and Coasts. Project 3.5 addresses PRQ 3.1 and 3.2.

The development of protocols and systems devoted to detecting early signals of emerging environmental threats will be adapted for use by DSEWPaC. In Project 3.6, Burgman, Wintle, Possingham and Martin will guide technological developments and trial foresighting workshops in collaboration with DSEWPaC staff. The system will deliver timely advice to government on events and issues that will allow advanced policy development and deliver guidance toward the implementation of key recommendations of the Hawke Review of the EPBC Act. This research addresses PRQ 3.9.

Theme 4 – “Sustainable use of Biodiversity and Ecosystems”, led by Hobbs and Bekessy will provide a basis for assessing the cumulative effects of resource uses on biodiversity and to better understand how resource use and other human needs can be balanced with biodiversity conservation. This research theme will draw heavily on the social drivers of resource use and best approaches to address social preferences in conservation planning. This research will contribute to PRQs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 and deliver outcomes relevant to DSEWPaC staff involved in areas such as strategic assessments and stewardship arrangements. It will also address DSEWPaC priority areas in regional planning and Biobanking (Hawke Review). It will link strongly with other research themes and utilize common case studies.

The three Projects under Theme 4 will provide innovative approaches for designing conservation plans in rapidly transforming landscapes, including the ability to prioritize multiple actions undertaken by multiple actors in the presence of severe uncertainty and risk. We will focus on development of methods and applications in peri urban areas and in intensive and extensive ‐agricultural areas – however theoretical and methodological advancements will be useful for decision support in complex conservation planning situations such as rangelands, marine and riverine conservation problems.

Outputs from this theme include evaluation of the social, economic and environmental costs and benefits of an economically valuable invasive species, and a range of fire management options. This approach to appraising competing management options can inform strategic assessments, including strategic fire assessment agreements with State Governments, and will have implications for impact assessments and threatening process nominations. We will develop relationships within the Biodiversity areas of DSEWPaC, including sections within Australian Government Land and Coasts (Policy and People, Biodiversity Conservation, Landcare and Sustainable Australia) and Environment Assessment and Compliance (Environment Assessment, Strategic Approvals and Legislation).

The research will contribute substantially toward the development of bioregional planning approaches that, in turn, will inform the development of strategic impacts assessments under the EPBC Act (Hawke Review) and Regional Sustainability Plans. Case studies in peri-urban Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, south-east Queensland and Jervis Bay will provide tangible outcomes to strategic planning processes being undertaken by DSEWPaC under the National Biodiversity Strategy and NARPs. Guidance on the design and application of offset or Biobanking schemes will also be directly relevant in the application of the EPBC Act.

11 | P a g e


This research will also contribute to the priority goal of ‘building ecosystem resilience’ as identified in The Federal Draft Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (Priority for Change 1). Specifically, we will develop innovative approaches for designing conservation and restoration plans in rapidly transforming landscapes, addressing synergistic challenges of novel species assemblages and climate change overlaid on existing pressures such as fragmentation and hydrologic change.

Theme 5. “Biodiversity Economics and Markets”, led by Pannell and Gibbons, will assist DSEWPaC to progress conservation issues through economic and social research that addresses key research questions of the Department, and through contributing to the integration of economic and social research into the rest of the Hub. Our past research has shown that there is a huge opportunity to improve the environmental outcomes of public investment through better application of economic principles, appropriate harnessing of economic incentives, and good understanding of behavioural change. Theme 5 members have an excellent understanding of policy processes and requirements (e.g. they have high impact international research publications on the subject) so they are able to provide world class cutting-edge research to help DSEWPaC with its policy design, implementation and evaluation.

Project 5.1 provides an up-to-date synthesis of lessons from experience and from a wealth of research on market-based and market-like approaches to biodiversity conservation. It will address PRQs 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.6, which cover various important aspects of how biodiversity markets should be conceived, designed and implemented in the future: determination of environmental benefits in markets, comparison of different market models, operation of markets at different scales, integration of biodiversity markets with other environmental and natural resource markets. The project will help DSEWPaC design successors to the box gum woodland stewardship program and will inform programs in several state agencies, including DSE Victoria and DECCW NSW. Other of the 7 Projects under Theme 5 will provide advice on how to monitor, report on, and improve the performance of environmental stewardship and other incentive schemes, addressing PRQ 5.4.

INFFER is a Eureka-Award-winning tool for environmental policy and planning being widely applied for project development and prioritisation around Australia. Projects in this Theme therefore have high potential to contribute to a number of the PRQs, including: 1 (prioritising ecosystems and functions), 1.3 (choice of policy tools, using the Public: Private Benefits Framework that is embedded), 2.2 (incorporating complex science into management – INFFER provides a framework for integrating complex science with socio-economic information for management prioritisation), 3.7 (evaluation of alternative management approaches for Marine Protected Areas), 3.9 (prioritising threats), and 4.2 (strategic assessment of intensively used areas).

In the Projects involving adapting and enhancing INFFER, we will work closely with DSEWPaC and DAFF to assist with the planned review of the Caring for our Country Business Plan, as well as providing advice on the design and implementation of subsequent national programs. This will help to cement existing strong ties to a large number of regional NRM bodies and several state agencies who are using, or considering using, INFFER. As INFFER has a strong focus on assessing cost-effectiveness of investment, it has a strong role to play in future Regional Planning processes conducted by DSEWPaC and States, and a potential role in identifying “Ecosystems of National Significance”.

Concerns about equity often influence the political acceptability of policies. Project 5.3 contributes to PRQs 1.3 (the fairest and most cost-effective mix of policy tools), 1.4 (cost sharing), 4.2 (improved approaches to strategic environmental assessment), and 5.1 (community benefits). We

12 | P a g e


envisage the results being used to influence the choice and design of policy mechanisms across a range of DSEWPaC programs, including future usage of Biobanking.

Projects 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 address PRQ 5.4, relating to the establishment of a system of innovation, evaluation and improvement within environmental programs. Researchers in The Environmental Decisions hub have considerable expertise in this area, and will work closely with DSEWPaC to ensure that the project is delivered in a way that provides a rigorous and practical approach for future programs. Close collaboration with Theme 1 leaders will deliver advances on PRQ 5.6, providing a basis for integrating carbon and biodiversity markets to maximize joint benefits.

Australia’s Research Capacity

The Environmental Decisions hub will ensure that every PhD student and every postdoctoral researcher has a supervisor in at least two nodes. Furthermore, every PhD student and postdoctoral researcher will have an end-user supervisor. Thirdly, because of the critical mass created by funding, the Environmental Decisions hub, we will be able to bring together PhD students and postdocs with end-users for advanced level training workshops in key tools and skills like INFFER, Marxan, Bayesian statistics, Bayesian decision-making and spatial optimisation.

Finally, through problem-based training and workshops, the Environmental Decisions hub will facilitate a new cohort of management-savvy researchers that have the will, and the skill, to solve real problems. Workshops are end-user focussed and this means that the research students and junior researchers will come in direct contact with Australian Government managers and policy makers and other end users. Such an experience is invaluable - it will lead to novel career opportunities and a substantive legacy that bridges the research-policy nexus.

1.6. Partner/Collaborative OrganisationsKey Partner Organisations:The University of Melbourne, RMIT University, The Australian National University, The University of Western Australia

All key partner organisations listed above will provide both cash and in-kind contributions to the Environmental Decisions hub. All key researchers are located in one of these organisations, as will be post doctoral staff and post graduate students funded through the Environmental Decisions hub.

Table 1. NERP funding and partner contributions

Hub Activity (excl GST)

2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Total program budget

Research Projects NERP 1,210,000 2,420,000 2,420,000 2,420,000 1,210,000 9,680,000

co-contribution 584,576 1,169,151 1,169,151 1,169,151 584,576 4,676,605

TOTAL1,794,57

63,589,151 3,589,151 3,589,15

11,794,576 14,356,605

Knowledge BrokeringNERP 165,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 165,000 1,320,000

and Communicationco-contribution 108,369 216,738 216,738 216,738 108,369 866,950

TOTAL 273,369 546,738 546,738 546,738 273,369 2,186,950

AdministrationNERP - - - - - -

co-contribution 105,605 211,210 211,210 211,210 105,605 844,838

13 | P a g e


TOTAL 105,605 211,210 211,210 211,210 105,605 844,838Total Funding (excl GST)

NERP 1,375,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 1,375,000 11,000,000

co-contribution 798,549 1,597,098 1,597,098 1,597,098 798,549 6,388,393

TOTAL2,173,54

94,347,098 4,347,098 4,347,09

82,173,549 17,388,393

Other collaboratorsInterest in the Environmental Decisions hub’s proposed work has been shown by a number of other organisations. Several of these have already collaborated with individual the Environmental Decisions hub researchers, and are keen to expand on existing relationships. The exact amount of financial support available will be negotiated once final Funding Agreements are executed. Some of the end-users that have already made a strong commitment to co-funding research projects in the past (on average over $2 million per annum) and in the future include:

Parks Victoria – research on the integration of species-level and ecosystem level conservation planning, adaptive management of threatened species recovery (Malleefowl case study), and reporting on the effectiveness of conservation investments (State of the Parks).

Department of Sustainability and Environment, (DSE) Vic – Adaptive management of native vegetation condition (ARI), evaluating the effectiveness of vegetation restoration strategies, prioritisation of feral vertebrate control, reconciling competing objectives: biodiversity, fire risk, water supply, and carbon.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), NSW – research on recovery planning and prioritisation, impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the development of climate adaptation strategies; including evaluation of connectivity conservation projects.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) WA – Adaptive management of Malleefowl recovery, evaluation of indicators and priorities for feral vertebrate control.

Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) QLD – applied research at the interface of biodiversity and carbon markets

Greening Australia – Greening Australia have strong links with researchers in the Environmental Decisions hub, particularly through Gondwana-link and Habitat 141. This relationship will be extended and strengthened. GA is a key end-user of our research on restoration, spatial prioritisation, carbon and biodiversity markets.

The Nature Conservancy (Australia and International) – The Nature Conservancy supports much of our applied research in conservation planning, prioritisation and monitoring. As they are the world’s largest scientific green NGO, this relationship provides global impact and important co-funding.

The Department of Conservation (NZ) – plan to work with us, DSEWPaC and several Australian states on resource allocation and recovery planning issues in the area of threatened species and ecosystems.

14 | P a g e


The Wilderness Society (TWS) – We have worked closely with TWS on setting spatial conservation priorities and regional planning. Their support is substantial and mainly in-kind.

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA) and the North East CMA – A collaborative relationship already exists with researchers in this proposal. GBCMA and the North East CMA are keen to further this with the Environmental Decisions hub.

Other CMA and NRM bodies - particularly with respect to project prioritisation and multiple environmental benefit research through Professor Pannell’s INFFER. The Murray, Murrumbidgee, Namoi, Lachlan, and other CMAs are strong in-kind supporters of researchers in the Environmental Decisions hub and would be more than likely to expand these important collaborative links should this proposal be successful.

We will continue to work with other end-users, like Birds Australia and Australian Wildlife Conservancy and co-funding to support PhD students is likely.

Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne - in-kind contribution including data on plant distribution and phylogeny, and time of personnel.

The Potter Foundation – is interested in co-funding our prioritisation work on restoration, themes 1 and 4, in a partnership with the Wentworth group.

TERN and ACEAS – we are closely involved with TERN and in particular one of its hubs – ACEAS (Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis). There is high likelihood ACEAS will be able to co-fund some Environmental Decisions hub workshops and TERN is the ideal host and curator for some of the large data sets that are brought together while carrying out our research. We anticipate a close relationship, especially since the TERN National hub is in the same building as the Environmental Decisions hub’s proposed Director.

1.7. Links To Other Research Programs

Further to the collaborations discussed in 1.8. above, the Environmental Decisions hub has already negotiated the following links to other research programs:

Co-funding (50/50) for Post-Doctoral Research Fellows has already been negotiated with:

the Tropical Ecosystems hub for a project under consideration on Rainforest regrowth and restoration;

the CSIRO for a project entitled “Cost-effective planning for global biodiversity and carbon stocks”

the Australian Antarctic Division. Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria)

The Environmental Decisions hub is has also discussed running symposia and a major conference in conjunction with all other NERP hubs. These will be co-funded across the hubs.

15 | P a g e


We will also co-fund more students and Post-Doctoral research fellows with other NERP hubs over the life of NERP.

1.8. Communication, Knowledge Brokering, Synthesis And Analysis

Hub communications will be developed in full as part of the NERP Communications Strategy and Hub Communications Plan. Key elements of the Environmental Decisions Hub includes:

1. DSEWPaC Liaison Officer(s): We intend to employ one, or more, high level Liaison Officer(s) with a specific background in working with Federal and State Government departments, and hub research staff. The Liaison Officer(s) will be in charge of eliciting emerging problems from managers and policy makers, and then building the appropriate relationships with Environmental Decisions hub staff through targeted meetings, workshops and joint project management. The officer(s) will be fully aware of the Environmental Decisions hub capabilities through frequent visits to & contact with each of the hubs, participation in strategic research workshops and regular liaison with appropriate DSEWPaC staff.

The Liaison officer(s) will also work with the Environmental Decisions hub staff to deliver short training courses and workshops to Australian Government staff on specific techniques and tools like spatial planning, monitoring, decision science, decision-making software and prioritisation. Some of these courses already exist, others will be new, like one on “decision science for environmental managers” that will be developed in consultation with DSEWPAC staff.

2. Workshops and Symposia: Both the Liaison Officer(s) and all the Environmental Decision hub research staff will develop and deliver minimum of 5 workshops or symposia across the hub per year. A workshop coordinator will be employed to ensure that workshops are smooth, efficient, integrated with strategic users, well-planned and complete. Workshops will be “fit to purpose”. In year one, workshops will be very much about defining problems already raised in the “Biodiversity Policy Questions for Review” and “Hawke Review”, while later workshops will be about delivering responding to emerging DSEWPaC priorities and communicating new discoveries and tools. Many workshops will be about synthesis and analysis of existing data. Here we will actively seek partnerships with other synthesis and analysis centres, like ACEAS (Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis) with which we already have close links, and the other NERP hubs, with which we have discussed holding two multi-hub symposia in 2012 and 2013, and a large-scale, multi-hub conference in 2014.

3. DSEWPaC Champions: Each major project will have a DSEWPaC Champion to refine research questions and facilitate outcome uptake (see Section 5). DSEWPaC Champions will have a close one-to-one relationship with the Environmental Decisions hub staff and DSEWPaC staff. They will be responsible for keeping projects relevant and assisting with the dissemination and incorporation of findings into government decision-making. Appropriate DSEWPaC Champions will be identified and engaged through consultation with NERP staff.

4. PhD and Post-Doctoral direct DSEWPaC involvement: Every new PhD student and postdoc needs to get on top of their research topic. For PhD students in particular this involves writing a literature review that will eventually form part of their thesis. In the Environmental Decisions hub every PhD student and postdoc will be involved in a project with a DSEWPaC champion (Part 3 above). In consultations with their supervisors and the DSEWPaC champions, new students and researchers will do a synthesis and/or background briefing on a specific research topic of direct relevance to Australian Government policy and management – for example, what

16 | P a g e


is a “significant impact” on a threatened species or ecosystem with respect to the EPBC Act. These will be summarised in Decision Point but also published in house (and where possible in appropriate peer reviewed journals). In this way new researchers will become aware of Australian Government policy research needs.

5. Science Communication and Technology: Effective, up-to-date communication about the Environmental Decisions hub’s work is necessary for DSEWPaC and our other stakeholders, but also within the entire Hub, which consists of five nodes spread across four states and territories. We will use the appropriate technology to communicate with all these people, including web pages, email lists, video conferencing facilities, software Knowledge Base products, and automated publications software. Research into, and adoption of, emerging technology will continue throughout the NERP program.

6. Decision Point: Finally, we will adopt the highest quality communication device in the CERF Scheme – AEDA’s “Decision Point”. Decision Point has a following of over 2000 readers and that following is growing rapidly. We will capitalise on its success, give it a fresh look, while maintaining the loyal readers. Decision Point is the primary interpretative vehicle between our primary research output, research papers, and the means by which end users and other research associates can voice their opinions and highlight their achievements to the hub and its associates. We will encourage DSEWPaC staff and other hub researchers to contribute commentary and articles to Decision Point hence increasing its breadth and relevance. A synopsis of analysis and synthesis reports from new researchers and workshops will be published in Decision Point.

1.9. Measuring Success

To be developed in line with the forthcoming NERP Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy and Plan.

17 | P a g e

http://www.aeda.edu.au/news


2. RESEARCH THEMES

Description including methods, outputs, outcomes, relevance and key policy drivers

2.0. THEME 1 - Values: Understanding major drivers for maintaining biodiversity (Theme leaders: McCarthy - UM, Wilson - UQ)

2.1. Theme 1 Description:Understanding the motivations for, and drivers of, biodiversity conservation is central to specifying policy and management objectives, identifying acceptable trade-offs, and developing sound environmental policy and investment priorities.Major research challenges and opportunities exist in this domain. For example, broadening the focus of investments in conservation and restoration, from safeguarding biodiversity to protecting ecosystem services such as carbon stores, offers significant opportunities to deliver on biodiversity conservation goals. However, managing vegetation for multiple benefits (e.g. water, biodiversity and carbon) is a challenge in regions where the management required to deliver these benefits is in conflict. The scientific knowledge and appropriate techniques for prioritizing conservation and restoration, while accounting for ecological, social and economic factors, are currently insufficient, especially when emerging values such as carbon sequestration are poorly understood. New Environmental Decisions hub projects in this theme will examine how different values of ecosystems, species, and potentially antagonistic or synergistic environmental, social and economic benefits interact to influence conservation outcomes and how these should be addressed in conservation planning.

2.2. Theme 1 Activities:See Attachment A which provides detailed information about each theme in the Hub over the life of the program. It describes expected outcomes, outputs (including services and products), performance indicators, timelines and links to end user requirements.

2.3. Theme 1 Approach and Methods:This theme includes seven projects with a wide diversity of objectives. Consequently a range of approaches and methods will be applied in this theme including field research, decision theory, spatial optimisation, risk assessment, simulation modelling, collaborative syntheses, systematic reviews, expert elicitation, cost-effective analysis and phylogenetic analysis.

18 | P a g e


2.4. THEME 2 – Understanding function/monitoring ecosystem health (Theme leaders: Lindenmayer - ANU, Driscoll - ANU) 2.5. Theme 2 Description:Multiple factors interact to mediate the persistence of species, and therefore individual species management is likely to be less efficient than a whole of ecosystem approach. Taking an ecosystem ‐ ‐view of biodiversity management has substantial appeal, including increasing individual species’ probabilities of persistence and management efficiency. However, ecosystem management has not been tried and tested and this is an important area of future research. The Environmental Decisions hub team has a strong track record in ecosystem-level research (Lindenmayer, Hobbs), landscape-level modelling and scenario evaluation (Bekessy, Possingham, Wintle), ecosystem monitoring and monitoring of program performance via involvement in the Box-Gum Woodland Stewardship Program (Lindenmayer, Gibbons, Driscoll), developing MERI guidance (Wintle) and Caring for Country project evaluation (Pannell, Wintle). While substantial theoretical and technical impediments to successful implementation of ecosystem-based management approaches exist, there are exciting opportunities to develop modelling strategies to predict the benefits and potential impacts of ecosystem-based management and to develop and test monitoring strategies. Projects under this theme will address key questions associated with the relationships between ecosystem-based management and vegetation condition, and species responses, with a focus on the development of datasets and models that will enable cost-effective monitoring and adaptive management. The research under this theme will focus on ecosystem modelling and monitoring case studies at locations around Australia building on existing collaborative relationships: Box Gum Woodlands (Lindenmayer, ‐Gibbons, Driscoll), Central Highlands (Lindenmayer, Driscoll, Wintle), Cumberland Plain and Central Victorian woodlands (Vesk, Wintle, Keith), Basalt Plains grasslands of Victoria (Bekessy, Parris, McCarthy, Wintle), Booderee National Park in Jervis Bay Territory (Lindenmayer, Driscoll, Gibbons), Brigalow forests in Queensland (McAlpine, Rhodes), the wheat belt of Western Australia (Hobbs, Wilson), and Otway National Park (Wintle, McCarthy). Extensive geographic replication will facilitate learning under this theme.


2.7. Theme 2 Approach and Methods:Project 1 development of long-term monitoring strategies to monitor the effectiveness of interventions for

managing intact biotic assemblages as well as their effectiveness for conserving populations of threatened species (Eastern Bristlebird, Ground Parrot, Eastern Chestnut Mouse, Diamond Python)

Undertake fauna and vegetation surveys in a series of major study areas in eastern Australia. Collate new data and long-term data. Develop new ways of looking at time series data in a monitoring context. Link changes in vegetation to changes in fauna.

19 | P a g e


Project 2 Identify strengths and limitations of current ecosystem management and species-based

management approaches Take new and ongoing data sets on species and ecoysstems in a range of landscapes and contexts

and use statistical methods to compare the relative merits of species and ecosystems approaches in terms of conservation success.

Using web of science data base, gather information from published literature, collate and synthesise

Project 3 Development of new models of key ecosystem processes (e.g. fire, pollination, natural

regeneration) and constituent species to predict the impacts of ecosystem-based management. Undertake fauna and vegetation surveys in a series of major study areas in eastern Australia

where a range of nationally important management interventions are under way, including fire, forest harvesting, land clearing and invasive species manipulations. Collate new data with long-term data, exploratory data analysis using a range of statistical and visual methods, followed by formal statistical analyses.

Using existing data (1998-2011), examine correlates of extinction over that time period, including species' traits and environmental constraints to answer questions such as which species are most at risk of extinction in multi-use landscapes and under what circumstances?

Project 4 The quantification of the value of genetic data on dispersal for making management decisions for

managing threatened species populations. Collect new data sets on mammals and reptiles from several large field projects. Extract DNA and

develop microsatellite markers for a range of species. Exploratory and full analysis using a wide range of publically available software.

20 | P a g e


2.8. THEME 3 - Threats: building resilience for evolving threats (Theme leaders: Martin - CSIRO, Burgman - UM)

2.9. Theme 3 Description:The objective of maximizing landscape resilience is articulated in key biodiversity policy documents7, 21, 22 without indicating exactly how it will be measured or used to prioritize actions and investments. The relevance of ecosystem resilience to conservation management and climate adaptation is yet to be fully demonstrated. Conversely, the concepts of threat, threatening processes, and ecosystem stressors are well articulated. However, we do not have well-defined protocols for incorporating threat into conservation investment decisions, or robust means of identifying and acting on emerging threats. Environmental Decisions hub researchers currently provide key research on resilience and threat issues, including: the role and relative importance of landscape connectivity in maintaining species persistence19, 23-27 (Martin, Lindenmayer, Rhodes, McAlpine), approaches to managing and restoring landscape resilience15, 26, 28 (Hobbs, Lindenmayer), and prioritizing conservation management and investment in the face of multiple threats29, including climate change21,30-32 (Martin, Wintle, Bekessy, Wilson, Rhodes). We are now providing critical new science to identify unforeseen threats and opportunities30, 31. This theme aims to make the concept of resilience to threat operational using a combination of field research, decision theory, population and climate impact modelling, collaborative syntheses, systematic reviews, expert elicitation, foresighting and integration of dynamic threat data, biodiversity data and socio-economic data into planning processes. Outcomes arising from this theme include advice on where restoration of habitats will deliver resilience for the NRS under climate change and other threats, evaluation of important social, economic and biodiversity trade-offs, empirical evidence for the role of ecological buffering, new tools for more rapidly and effectively measuring dispersal and connectivity, and spatial prioritisation approaches that account for dynamic threats.


2.11. Theme 3 Approach and Methods:A wide range of approaches and methods will be applied in this theme including field research, decision theory, network theory, spatial optimisation, population and climate impact modelling, collaborative syntheses, systematic reviews, expert elicitation, cost-effective analysis, foresighting and integration of dynamic threat data, biodiversity data and socio-economic data into planning processes.

21 | P a g e


2.12. THEME 4 - Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems (Theme leaders: Hobbs - UWA, Bekessy - RMIT)

2.13. Theme 4 Description:Managing the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems demands an integrated approach that reconciles ecological, social and economic dimensions. Research that tackles these three elements simultaneously is challenging due to disparate disciplinary thinking and dialects. The Environmental Decisions hub researchers Hobbs, Bekessy, Pannell, Gibbons and Driscoll drive strong research agendas that simultaneously address social, economic and biological drivers of change, and indicators of utility33, particularly in peri urban and semi rural environments. This area generates new ‐ ‐challenges, including the need to develop strategic approaches to impact assessment and bioregional planning that are environmentally and socially robust, and the need to ensure that government funded incentive schemes achieve maximum benefit.

2.14. Theme 4 Activities:Flagship projects are described in some detail in section 1.3. Each project will include working groups, case study analysis and collaboration with DSEWPC and other agencies as described below.

2.15. Theme 4 Approach and Methods:Projects within this theme include:

Social, Economic and Biodiversity Trade-offs. We will use a mixture of expert elicitation, multi-criteria decision analysis and stochastic dynamic programming to analyse and resolve competing social, economic and biodiversity conservation demands. We aim to resolve conflicting objectives in the cattle-production/biodiversity trade-off associated with buffel-grass introduction, and the wildfire/biodiversity/health/carbon trade-offs linked to fire management. Hub Members: Driscoll, Martin, Wilson, Walsh, Fuller, Bode, Possingham, Wintle, McCarthy, Lindenmayer, Vesk, Pannell, Doole, Hobbs, Bekessy. Research Partners: DSE Victoria, DEH SA, DECCW NSW, CSIRO. Addresses: PRQs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and links with Themes 1 and 3 (PRQs 3.1, 3.2, 3.9).

Understanding and planning for urbanization impacts on biodiversity. Case studies in peri-urban Melbourne, Cumberland Plains, Perth, Jervis Bay and South-east Queensland will generate sophisticated approaches to developing regional conservation plans in highly complex, human-dominated environments. We aim to develop a better understanding of human/ecological interactions at the urban rural interface, particularly in relation to housing development and fire risk. ‐Project outcomes will include innovative approaches for designing conservation and restoration plans in rapidly transforming peri-urban landscapes, including the ability to prioritize multiple actions undertaken by multiple actors in the presence of severe uncertainty and the dynamic feedbacks imposed by social and policy systems. This is highly relevant to Bioregional Planning under the revised EPBC Act (Hawke Review). Other outcomes include approaches for urban design aiming at integration of green and built infrastructure and coherent trade-off approaches for fire risk management in peri-urban landscapes with high biodiversity values. Hub members: Bekessy, Hobbs, Rhodes, Fuller, Wintle Parris , McCarthy, Lindenmayer, McAlpine, Driscoll. Research partners: the DSEWPC Strategic Assessments Unit (Carolyn Cameron), DSE Victoria and local government agencies, DEC in WA and DERM and local governments in QLD. Addresses: PRQs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 and links with Themes 1 and 3.

22 | P a g e


Biobanking and offset schemes. We will model the implementation of offset schemes to develop an understanding of measurable biodiversity benefits in comparison with other interventions and scope for improving outcomes. Case studies will include Melbourne’s urban fringe and the Cumberland Plains. Project outcomes include guidance on design and application of offset or biobanking schemes for rapidly developing urban, semi-rural and industrial areas. Hub members: Hobbs, Bekessy, Wintle, McCarthy, Wilson, Lindenmayer, Possingham, Gibbons. Research partners: DSEWPC, DSE Victoria, DEC in WA, DERM in Qld. Addresses: PRQs 4.2 and 4.3 and links with Theme 5.

2.16. THEME 5 - Biodiversity economics and markets (Theme leaders: Pannell - UWA, Gibbons - ANU)

2.17. Theme 5 Description:Technical science alone is not sufficient to make sound environmental decisions. It needs to be integrated with appropriate economic and social information. This theme brings strong economic and social research skills into the Environmental Decisions hub. The theme emphasises inter-disciplinary research to increase the relevance of the Hub’s research for policy and management. Issues researched will include the use of specific policy mechanisms (such as market-based instruments and offsets), monitoring strategies, improving evidence-based policy, accounting for equity in project assessment, and integration of carbon and biodiversity policies.


2.19. Theme 5 Approach and Methods: Review of literature and reports. Surveys, interview, focus groups. Synthesis of existing research into new tools and frameworks. Development of new mathematical models and frameworks that encompass economic and social

considerations. Interdisciplinary collaboration between economists/social scientists and scientists of the Hub and

elsewhere.

23 | P a g e

Administrative Support Team

Steering Committee (SC)

Management ExecutiveDirector: Possingham, Deputy Director: Wintle Node-Directors: Possingham, Wintle, Lindenmayer, Pannell, Wilson, McCarthyChief Operations Officer (COO): van Niekerk

Nodes:Brisbane: UQ/CSIROMelbourne: UM/RMIT Canberra: ANUPerth: UWA

Research Themes:Values – Leaders: UM & UQEcosystems – Leaders: ANU

Threats – Leaders: CSIRO & UMSustainable use – Leaders: UWA & RMIT

Markets – Leaders: UWA & ANU


3. RESEARCH PROJECTS

3.0. Project Activities

See Attachment B. This provides detailed information about each project in a Theme over the life of the Project. This information provides key information about each Project including expected outcomes, outputs, links to research questions, polices and programs, indicative budget and timelines.

4. RESEARCH HUB ADMINISTRATION

1 | P a g e


4.0. Leadership and Governance

The Hub and Theme LeadersThe Environmental Decisions hub’s Director, Professor Hugh Possingham, is a world leader in the application of science that informs biodiversity management and policy decisions. He has an outstanding track record in every one of the proposed research themes and methods, and will be actively involved across all Environmental Decisions hub research programs. His overall approach to research leadership is to provide staff and students the support and flexibility to pursue innovative ideas, while keeping people focussed on the problems with the greatest opportunity for impact. Dr Brendan Wintle, the Environmental Decisions hub’s Deputy Director is an early career researcher with a growing international research reputation, excellent government agency links, and substantial research leadership experience through his four year role as deputy director and Melbourne node leader of a CERF hub - AEDA. Possingham and Wintle are a tried and tested research leadership and management team with complementary research and management skills, a strong governance record, and proven capacity to link with government agencies and other end-users. Their leadership of AEDA (www.aeda.edu.au) - a former CERF hub - led to an abundance of research papers on biodiversity conservation in the world’s best journals (Nature, Science, PNAS, TREE) that was acclaimed by independent external review. This applied research has already changed biodiversity policy and management in Australia and around the world – including the rezoning of many countries marine areas and reformation of conservation allocation methods. Governance and ManagementThe Environmental Decisions hub brings together a new, larger and more focussed team of terrestrial biodiversity researchers that will deliver science and information through primary data collection, modelling, analysis and synthesis, to the Australian government and other end users in Australia. Environmental Decisions hub project selection will be overseen by a Steering Committee with day-to-day management dealt with by a Management Executive administered by Dr Alvin van Niekerk, as Chief Operations Officer (COO). van Niekerk brings many years of both research and research administration skills to the Environmental Decisions hub. He has worked in South Africa and Australia, most recently as COO to the ARC Centre of Excellence for Integrated Legume Research, and will bring a wealth of careful but innovative hub management skills to the Environmental Decisions hub.The Environmental Decisions hub's management and administrative structure aims to maximise collaborative synergies and the impact of its work on helping to deliver positive outcomes for Australia’s biodiversity. The Environmental Decisions hub will be directed by a Management Executive that meets monthly, consisting of the Director (Possingham), Deputy Director (Wintle), a node leader in each hub (Wilson - Brisbane; Lindenmayer - Canberra; McCarthy - Melbourne; and Pannell - Perth) and a Chief Operations Officer (COO – van Niekerk). The COO will manage all the administrative, financial, HR, IT and reporting requirements of the Environmental Decisions hub. This will leave the remainder of the Management Executive to focus on driving the research agenda and collaborative synergies.

2 | P a g e

http://www.aeda.edu.au/docs/Complete%20AEDA%20review%2011-05-10.pdf

http://www.aeda.edu.au/


Each of the five research themes (Section 2) will be led by two people, mostly from different nodes. They will be responsible for developing the research plan in each program in consultation with the SC, Management Executive, Australian Government and other users. The Management Executive, Theme Leaders and all researchers will receive support from an administrative team, located at The University of Queensland, and at The University of Melbourne.The Steering Committee (SC)Operation:The centre Steering Committee (SC) will meet annually, face-to-face, and otherwise as required. The first meeting each year will be to review the annual work plan, and the second meeting each year will be to review progress on the annual work plan during the year. The Hub Director will provide the Multi-year Research Plan, Annual Work Plans, Milestone Progress Reports, Monitoring and Evaluations Plans, and Communications Plans to Steering Committee members to assist in the carrying out of their functions. Decisions will be made by consensus. Advice does not need to be unanimous. The Hub Director, Deputy Director and research hub Chief Operating Officer (COO) will attend the meetings – the Chair can request they leave at any time.MembershipThe SC has eight members : an independent chair with a national reputation in research management, Dr Kimberley Dripps, Deputy Secretary, Environment Protection and Heritage

Conservation, DSEWPaC Dr Charlie Zammit, Assistant Secretary, Biodiversity Conservation Branch, Land and

Coast Division, DSEWPaC Dr Judy West, Executive Director, Australian National Botanic Gardens, Assistant

Secretary, Parks and Biodiversity Science, DSEWPaC Mr Geoff Richardson,– NERP Program, DSEWPaC Dr Simon Ferrier, CSIRO Dr Chris Dickman – University of Sydney Prof. Ted Lefroy – University of Tasmania / NERP Landscape and Policy hub DirectorFunctionsThe Steering Committee will oversee the strategic direction and progress of the research, including:

o Provide advice and guidance on research direction, communication, liaison with stakeholders, objectives and integration.

o Review and endorse a Multi-Year Research Plan (MYRP) (2011-2014) for consideration by the DSEWPaC;

o Review and endorse Annual Work Plans (AWPs) ensuring that they meet partner expectations, for consideration by the DSEWPaC;

o Review hub progress against the MYRP and AWPs in order to inform changes to these plans and development of future AWPs;

3 | P a g e


o Provide advice to the Environmental Research Advisory Panel (ERAP), the DSEWPaC and associated environment portfolio agencies on the merits of the Plans in accordance with the National Environmental Research Program Guidelines;

o Provide general advice on other hub activities, including training, mentoring and communication;

o Monitor and evaluate knowledge production and adoption strategies for the Hub; ando Encourage alignment and coordination of the Hub with other initiatives including other

NERP hubs, government, community, industry and the broader scientific community.

Scientific collaboration and user relevance will be actively facilitated by a number of annual workshops (coordinated across nodes by program leaders, some cutting across more than one program and some with other NERP hubs) that will address the problems identified in the five themes. Every workshop will include DSEWPaC staff and other strategic users. In the past our working groups have been highly successful because we minimise formal presentations and move rapidly to defining problems, developing work plans for research staff and students - even drafting complete papers and developing new models. We think of our users not as “end”-users but strategic users because they are integrated into every aspect of the research program and governance arrangements. In particular user participation at workshops is central to the success of Environmental Decisions hub.

4.1. Reporting Requirements

Reporting requirements of the Environmental Decisions hub to DSEWPaC NERP are outlined in clause A.2.3 under Table 1 Milestones, and Clause E. Reporting. However, a summary is: A Multi-Year Research Plan covering July 2011 – December 2014 Three Annual Work Plans: a) July 2011 – December 2012; b) January 2013 – December

2014; c) January 2014 – December 2014. These should reflect the Multi-Year Research Plan and will be reviewed, in conjunction with the Steering Committee each year.

Progress Report each year, on due on 1 April and one due on 1 October. The April Progress Report will be prepared in conjunction with the Annual Work Plan and will review the work done in the previous period. The October Progress Report will review the research work done since the Annual Work Plan/April Progress Report.

Each of these plans will be formed in conjunction with the DSEWPaC NERP Science Communications Plan, and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan when they are finalised by the Department (not available at the date of this Multi-Year Research Plan, July 2011)

Financial information will be provided with each Progress Report and with a Final Report. This will be co-ordinated by the Administering Organisation (The University of Queensland) with account statements from each of the financial Collaborative Organisations.

A Final Report will be produced at the end of the NERP program, due for submission on 1 April 2015. This will be similar to previous April Progress Reports, but for will report on research activity for the entire research period (July 2011 – December 2014.

4.2. Risk Management

4 | P a g e


Two major categories of risk can be attributed to this Hub – (i) failure on behalf of the participants to deliver promised outputs, and (ii) failure of the outputs to deliver desired outcomes. Failure to deliver outcomes can arise because of the loss of key personnel, inability to recruit appropriate staff and a lack of capacity to implement the program. Failure of outputs to deliver desired outcomes may arise due to poor communication between researchers and end-user or failure of researchers to develop methods and tools that adequately address the requirements of end-users. These risks are partly mitigated by the composition of the research team as it stands, being comprised of world leaders in the field, high-achieving early career researchers and researchers who are generally focussed on solving applied conservation and management problems. Similar risks will be minimised through selection of appropriately qualified and experienced researchers throughout the life of the Hub. The table below provides a brief summary of the track-record and achievements of the named Node leaders in order to highlight their capacity to perform the proposed research agenda and ensure uptake by end-users.

Researcher Publications(since 2005)

Research Funding ($) Key achievements/collaboration

Prof. Possingham 118 >5,000,000 Multiple Eureka Prize winner. Frequent advice to all levels of government, non-government organisations and the broader community on environmental problems, particularly around biodiversity. Elected to The Australian Academy of Science and a member of the Academy’s Council

Prof. Lindenmayer 218 >5,000,000 Policy, technical advice to DEH, several CMAs, Rural Fire Service, DPI (VIC), Parks Victoria, DSE, Vic Forests, Forests NSW, DEC NSW, DNR (NSW), Eureka Prize for Environmental Research (with HPP)

Dr Wintle 41 >5,000,000 Policy, technical advice to DSEWPaC (MERI), Vic DSE, Forests and DEC NSW, Hunter Councils, FSC and Aust. Forestry Std. AFFA Young Scientist, ARC Fellow

Prof. Pannell 50 >5,000,000 Eureka Prize winner, experienced research leader and manager, having in the past held senior leadership positions in three CRCs and having established and been Director of a UWA research centre. Provides relevant advice to managers and policy makers

Dr Wilson 69 >2,500,000 Policy, technical advice to DSEWPaC, DEH SA, and DEC WA, The Nature Conservancy, Greening Australia, Bush Heritage Australia and The Wilderness Society. AAS Awardee, EU Research Fellow, and ARC Research Fellow.

Dr McCarthy 54 >5,000,000 Policy and technical advice to DSEWPaC, Vic DSE, Parks Victoria, NGOs, wind energy companies. ARC Fellow, AAS Fenner Medal.

5 | P a g e


Further risk categories and mitigation strategies are identified below.

Risk 1:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskService delivery Inadequate funding The risk that the hub is jeopardised by a failure to

adequately fund it to the level requiredThe Environmental Decisions hub will be predominantly reliant upon NERP funding to proceed. If the hub is not adequately funded, its success will be jeopardised. Hub proponents will ensure that all requirements of the DSEWPaC NERP Funding Agreement are met, ensuring continued funding from 2011 till 2014. All expenses for the hub have been carefully budgeted and this will be stringently monitored to ensure funds are spent appropriately and cost-effectively.

Risk 2:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskService delivery Project outcomes

not deliveredRisk that the project will not be delivered as specified, agreed and funded

An experienced Director will lead and manage the project, and the research team identified has appropriate experience and skills to manage this risk. The Node leaders will closely monitor progress in each Node. An review each year of the Annual Work Plan, in and Multi-Year Research Plan, by both the Management Executive and an independent Steering Committee will provide careful appraisal of the hub’s progress to ensure it is meeting agreed objectives and milestones. Progress reports provided twice-yearly to the funding agency, stakeholders and partners as required, provide further checks on the hub’s progress.

Risk 3:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskService delivery Project outcomes

not adoptedRisk that the project outcomes will not be relevant to or adopted by Intermediate/End Users

The participation of key end users and managers will be sought throughout the Project, through participation in the Steering Committee, as project collaborators, and workshop/symposia participants, and through the DSEWPaC Champions initiative (see clause 1.9). Relevant stakeholders will be included in the Steering Committee to ensure the broadest range of experience, views and skills possible is available, to make the outcomes relevant and practical. Specific initiatives including working groups and targeted courses, seminars and training materials will be provided to maximise adoption of project findings.

Risk 4:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskLiability Inaccurate public

informationRisk that preliminary findings are publicised but prove to be inaccurate

Each Node will submit results for peer review prior to publication to ensure there is confidence in their accuracy. Results will not be publicised unless the Node Leader has confidence in the accuracy of the findings.

6 | P a g e


Risk 5:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskPersonnel Workplace injury Risk that injury to staff or others is attributed to project

equipmentIn operating field equipment team members will be required to have relevant training follow relevant OH&S policy guidelines, and use equipment in accordance with specified operating procedures. Field staff will endeavour to advise any third persons who may come into contact with field equipment of its presence and the relevant aspects of the safe operating procedures for the equipment.

Risk 6a:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskPersonnel Loss of project staff

results in delays or failure to achieve project outcomes

Risk that staff in key roles temporarily or permanently leave the project (through resignation, promotion, redeployment, extended leave etc)

Node Leaders will ensure there is good communication within and between project team members so there is adequate notice of impending permanent or extended departures, enabling replacement staff to be appointed. Team members will ensure that at least one other person is familiar with their work at a day-to-day level, so that no team knowledge is lost with the departure of key staff. A Chief Operations Officer (COO) will oversee non-research staff, ensuring any extended absence or departure has minimal effect on the administering and science communication within the hub.

Risk 6b:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskPersonnel Failure to recruit

appropriate staffRisk that we cannot fund adequately trained research fellows and assistants to carry out projects

The Environmental Decisions hub researchers are world leaders in their field and well connected into networks of other applied biodiversity scientists at a global scale. When we advertise for research fellow positions we have a network of world class research groups to target. We have a history of attracting the best people as evidenced by our track records.

Risk 7:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskCompliance Project outputs and

outcomes are inconsistent with relevant legislation and policy

Risk that the findings of the project contradict relevant legislation and policy

Node Leaders will be responsible for ensuring that all staff are familiar with relevant biodiversity, water and catchment management legislation and policy.

Risk 8:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskCompliance Staff operating Risk that staff are not operating in accordance with the

7 | P a g e


Risk Category Specific Risk Description of Riskillegally law when undertaking research activities

Node Leaders will ensure that all staff working on the project have relevant permits, authorities and Ethics Committee approval to operate under relevant legislation such as the EPBC Act 1999, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and regulations, and the National Parks Act 1975 and regulations.

Risk 9:Risk Category Specific Risk Description of RiskAsset management Damage and loss to

assetsRisk that are damaged by sun, wind, rain, hail, lightning, flood etc

Staff using field equipment will ensure every precaution is taken against possibility of equipment damage from the elements, through proper weatherproofing, secure installation, removal and storage during high-risk periods etc. Node leaders will ensure that all staff have relevant training in plant and equipment likely to be used for the project and are familiar with asset management and accountability policy and procedures. Staff will ensure that plant and equipment for which they are responsible is subject to appropriate supervised use and secure storage and transportation. All relevant assets will be subject to asset management policy and procedures. Staff will follow relevant OH&S policy and procedures for the transportation and use of plant and equipment. Staff will investigate relevant policy before borrowing or lending equipment, and take precautions to prevent damage or loss. Written agreements will be prepared where plant and equipment is provided to others (eg. partners, contractors etc.) for use in conjunction with the project. In the event of damage/loss reimburse or replace equipment as necessary.

8 | P a g e


Environmental Decisions Hub

Attachment A

Multi-year Research Plan Theme Descriptions (2011-2014)

9 | P a g e


Theme 1Values: Understanding major drivers for maintaining biodiversity. Theme Leaders: Assoc Prof. Michael McCarthy (UM) and Dr Kerrie Wilson (UQ)Key Expected OutcomesThis theme will help increase knowledge about how differing social, economic and environmental values placed on biodiversity will influence conservation management and monitoring decisions.Key Expected OutputsTools to examine how differing biodiversity values influence management outcomes, and examples of the application of these tools.Key RisksObtaining data for case studies. Outputs of PhD projects is uncertain.Links and dependencies to other hubs and projects None identified

10 | P a g e


Theme 2Understanding Function/monitoring ecosystem health. Theme Leaders: Prof. David Lindenmayer and Dr Don Driscoll (ANU)Key Expected OutcomesNew insights into ecosystem and species level management, including adaptive management, and drivers of extinction in multi-use landscapesKey Expected OutputsDatasets, models and syntheses that will enable cost-effective monitoring and adaptive management based on case studies at locations around AustraliaKey RisksGeneral risks identified in original application. Potentially important constraints include dependence of some research on external funding which is yet to be secured, availability of students for research dependent on PhD or honours students (student-project match).Links and dependencies to other hubs and projects None identified

1 | P a g e


Theme 3Threats: building resilience for evolving threats. Theme Leaders: Dr Tara Martin (CSIRO) and Prof Mark Burgman (UM)Key Expected Outcomes1. Operationalise the concept of resilience to threatening processes. In other words, move the concept of resilience from linguistic jargon to something that can be measured, monitored and inform decision-making.

2. Provide advice on where restoration of habitats will deliver resilience for the NRS under climate change and other threats.

3. Evaluate importance of social, economic and biodiversity trade-offs.

4 Provide empirical evidence for the role of ecological buffering and new tools for more rapidly and effectively measuring dispersal and connectivity.

5. Develop spatial prioritisation approaches that account for dynamic threats.Key Expected OutputsOperational definitions of the concept of resilience. Projections and guidance to decision-makers on how, when and where to implement different threat management approaches to maximise resilience in the face of global change.Key RisksEmpiracle data for some case studies may not be available and therefor may have to rely on data elicited from experts. Availablity and interest of students will also influence the selection of case studies. Links and dependencies to other hubs and projectsLinks to Themes 1, 2, and 4.

1 | P a g e


Theme 4Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems. Theme leaders: Prof Richard Hobbs (UWA) and Dr Sarah Bekessy (RMIT).Key Expected OutcomesThis theme will provide a basis for assessing the cumulative effects of resource uses on biodiversity and to better understand how resource use and other human needs can be balanced with biodiversity conservation. This research theme will draw heavily on the social drivers of resource use and best approaches to address social preferences in conservation planning.

This research will contribute to PRQs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 and deliver outcomes relevant to DSEWPAC Staff involved in areas such as strategic assessments and stewardship arrangements. It will also address DEWHA priority areas in regional planning and Biobanking (Hawke Review) and will link strongly with other research themes and utilize common case studies. Key Expected OutputsFlagship projects under Theme 4 will provide innovative approaches for designing conservation plans in rapidly transforming landscapes, including the ability to prioritize multiple actions undertaken by multiple actors in the presence of severe uncertainty and risk.

We will focus on development of methods and applications in peri urban areas and in ‐intensive and extensive agricultural areas – however theoretical and methodological advancements will be useful for decision support in complex conservation planning situations such as rangelands, marine and riverine conservation problems. Key RisksObtaining data for case studies, outputs from PhD projects uncertainLinks and dependencies to other hubs and projectsLinks to Themes 1, 3 and 5.

1 | P a g e


Theme 5Biodiversity economics and markets. Theme Leaders: Professor David Pannell (UWA) and Dr Phillip Gibbons (ANU)Key Expected Outcomes1. Change in decision making by environmental managers and policy makers. 2. Inclusion of more rigorous decision making processes within environmental programs.3. Appropriate consideration of landholder behaviour change when designing and implementing policy.4. Greater allocation of funding to projects that are more likely to deliver high-value outcomes, by considering feasibility, adoption, lags, risks, etc. 5. More valuable environmental outcomes for the available public budget. Key Expected Outputs

A range of outputs as documented in Attachment B.Key Risks1. Difficulty in making suitable appointments. 2. Failure of environmental managers and policy makers to heed the results of the research. Links and dependencies to other hubs and projectsThis theme will draw in information from all the other themes in the Hub.

1 | P a g e


Environmental Decisions Hub

Attachment B

Multi-year Research Plan Project Descriptions (2011-2014)

2 | P a g e


Theme 1Project Number1.1ProjectPhylogenetic data and spatial prioritization. Leader: Mike McCarthy

Problem StatementThis project will determine the extent to which consideration of phylogenetic diversity influences spatial prioritization of conservation actions such as establishing conservation reserves or management agreements with land holders.Key Expected OutcomesThis project will better inform the extent to which information on phylogenetic diversity, or other ways of differentially valuing species, might influence conservation prioritization. It will use case studies of iconic Australian plant taxa including acacias and eucalypts.Key Expected OutputsThe case studies will provide maps of conservation priorities for different taxonomic groups of plants. These priorities will account for management costs and the phylogenetic diversity of different species.Key Risks AssessmentRecruit appropriately qualified postdoctoral researcherResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions (PRQs) 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 and links to Themes 3 and 5 (PRQ 5.6)Policies and Programs* EPBC Strategic Assessments;*Natural and Indigenous Heritage;* Parks & biodiverstiy Science PolicyKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and ProgramsNone identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Carolyn Cameron, Margaret Considine - Environment Assesment & Compliance Division Paul Murphy, Tania Laity - Wildlife & Heritage DivisionBelinda Brown, Tim Bond - Parks Australia Division.Antarctic Science Strategic Plan, AAD.Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsStart: 1 July 2011 (18 months)

Project Number1.2ProjectMinimum survey effory requirements. Leader: Brendan WintleProblem StatementHow much survey effort is required to detect rare species, or determine that a species is extinct? Answers to these questions are important for deciding when to give up on species

3


that are thought to be extinct. They are also important to help guide the survey effort required in surveys conducted for impact assessments.Key Expected OutcomesThis project will help to formulate guidelines that specify minimum survey effort for environmental impact assessments. It will also illustrate how to structure decisions about when to assume that a species has become extinct (or when a weed species has been eradicated) and management for it should cease.Key Expected OutputsCase studies developed to illustrate the general principles will also contribute to the management of case study species. For example, cases studies on survey effort for impact assessments could be incorporated into threatened species guidelines. Key Risks AssessmentAccess to available data, recruitimentResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 and links to Themes 3 and 5 (PRQ 5.6)Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – Large Feral Herbivore Management* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Damian McRae-Marine DivisionMartin Wardrop, Peter Creaser - Australian Government Land & Coast Division.Kate Sandford Read-Head / Jeff Tranter - ERIN Species Mapping:Martin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom - Australian Antarctic Division Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks with 1.5 (EPBC) and 2.4 (Long-term monitoring)

Project Number1.3ProjectThe effect of multi-species interactions on invasive species eradication. Leader: Hugh PossinghamProblem StatementHow best to manage interacting species in eradication programs is unclear, with potentially undesirable outcomes occurring due to release of some invasive species from predation by eradicated species.Key Expected OutcomesThis project will explore complexity of species interactions that affect biodiversity during eradication programs. The long term out come will be better models of eradication effect, leading to more effective and successful eradication programsKey Expected OutputsCase studies, such as Christmas Island and MacQuarie Island, will benefit from this research.Key Risks AssessmentRecruit appropriately qualified postdoctoral researcher

4 | P a g e


Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 and links to Themes 3 and 5 (PRQ 5.6)Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – Large Feral Herbivore Management;* Oceanic island terrestrial biodiversity ;* Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser- Australian Government Land & Coast Division Damian McRae- Marine DivisionJudy West, Belinda Brown - Parks AustraliaDana Bergstrom, Ben Raymond - Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programslinks with 2.1 (multi and single species management) and 2.2 (predicting impacts of ecosystem management)

Project Number1.4ProjectRestoration at NRM Regional scale. Leader: Hugh Possingham

Problem StatementProject to deliver multi-objective (water, biodiversity and carbon) plans for restoration at the scale of NRM regions and whole of Australia. Includes priorities for stewardshipKey Expected OutcomesProject to deliver multi-objective (water, biodiversity and carbon) plans for restoration at the scale of NRM regions and whole of Australia. Includes priorities for stewardship. Key Expected Outputs None identifiedKey Risks AssessmentRecruit appropriately qualified postdoctoral researcherResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 and links to Themes 3 and 5 (PRQ 5.6)Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country (Northern & Remote Australia theme);* Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Austr project ; National Reserve SystemKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Mark Falingan, Peter Creaser, Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division

5


Tim Bond - Parks AustraliaLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLefroy Hub

Project Number1.5ProjectRecovery Planning / Threatened Species / EPBC Act. Leader: Hugh PossinghamProblem StatementThreatened species Prioritisation with State Government stakeholders, amphibian prioritisation, evaluation of multi-species / landscape plans compared to recovery plansKey Expected OutcomesThreatened species Prioritisation with State Government stakeholders, amphibian priotisation, Evaluation of multi-species / landscape plans compared to recovery plans. Recovery planning in Australia proceeds very slowly, with recovery plans developed for only a small sub-set of species. Focusing on principles of decision theory, this project will review Australia's recovery planning process, and suggest ways that it could be better directed and made more effective and efficient.Key Expected OutputsThis project is designed to improve Australia's recovery planning process, by suggesting how recovery plans could be developed faster and more efficiently directed at the managing threats to species.Key Risks Assessmentrecruit appropriately qualified postdoctoral researcherResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 and links to Themes 3 and 5 (PRQ 5.6)Policies and Programs* Marine research to inform marine conservation management and marine protected area planning in the Indian Ocean Territories (IOT)Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and ProgramsNone identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Judy West - Parks AustraliaPeter Latch - Heritage & Wildlife DivisionMartin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to 1.2 (min survey effort).

Project Number1.6ProjectConservation priorities for Antarctica and its oceansLeader: Hugh PossinghamProblem Statement

6 | P a g e


The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) nees to develop conservation priorities for the land and seaKey Expected OutcomesConservation priorities for Antarctica and its oceansKey Expected OutputsConservation priorities for Antarctica and its oceansKey Risks AssessmentPolitics of antarctic science - however Professor Possingham and others have already attended a workshop in Sth Africa to engender international interest in conservation planning in the regionResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 and links to Themes 3 and 5 (PRQ 5.6)Policies and Programs* Specific policies and associated research priorities as identified in the Australian Antarctic science strategic plan 2011-12 to 2020-21* Antarctic Science Strategic Plan, Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast DivisionTim Bond - Parks Aust DivisionJohn Gunn, Martin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom - Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programs None identified

Project Number1.7ProjectEvaluating and Prioritising Koala Conservaiton MeasuresLeader: Dr Jonathan RhodesStatus: continuing project initiated under CERF transition fundingBudget: $745,576Problem StatementThe Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is a species of substantial community, conservation and scientific interest, is taxonomically distinct, endemic and a conservaiton icon. There is an urgent need to identify and evaluate effective and cost-efficient measjures to achieve conservation and recovery of koalas in intensively managed landscapes, particularly at the urban interface, but also where roads, farms, fire and climate change compound threats.Key Expected OutcomesAn evaluation of the effectiveness of measures taken to date to protect koalas, particularly from habitat loss, dog predation and vehcile strike, with a focus on coastal NSW; andThe development of general approaches and principles for prioritising koala conservation measures, formatted to easily used by planners and policy makers;Key Expected OutputsRobust tools for prioritising koala conservation measures and recommendations about the effectiveness of alternative conservation measures.

7


Key Risks AssessmentFew real risks - project already underway from past CERF fundingResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 and links to Themes 3 and 5 (PRQ 5.6)Policies and Programs Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs End Users (name, title, section)DECCW; DSEWPaC - Deb Callister, Acting Head of Wildlife Branch & Dr Ivan Lawler;Local Governments;koala care groups;CMAsCarolyn Cameron, Margaret Considine - Environment Assesment & Compliance Div.Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programs

Theme 2Project Number2.1ProjectEcosystem vs species management. Leader: David LindenmayerStatus: New Project. Problem StatementIdentify strengths and limitations of current ecosystem management and species-based management approaches. Key Expected Outcomes- Provide new knowledge about the context of application of adaptive management- Enhanced knowledge of species versus ecosystem approaches Key Expected Outputs1. Review of Adaptive Management2. review of applications of Adaptive Monitoring3. Workshops on the strengths and limitations of current ecosystem management and species-based managementKey Risks Assessment- workshop scheduling difficult- low interest in collaborationResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and links with Themes 1 (PRQ 1.6), 3 (PRQ 3.1, 3.9) and 4 (PRQ 4.1, 4.3). Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – Large Feral Herbivore Management;* Design practical and cost effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting of marine ecosystem healthKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)

8 | P a g e


Peter Creaser, Martin Wardop - Australian Land & Coast Div: Nicole Middleton, Damian McRae, - Marine Div.Tim Bond - Parks Australia Division.Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to 1.3 (multi-species interactions and eradication) and 1.5 (EPBC recovery planning)

Project Number2.2ProjectPredicting impacts of ecosystem management. Leaders: David Lindenmayer & Don DriscollStatus: New and continuing Project. Problem StatementDevelopment of new models of key ecosystem processes (e.g. fire, pollination, natural regeneration) and constituent species to predict the impacts of ecosystem-based management. Key Expected Outcomes- Conservation value of different kinds of vegetation regeneration- Improved understanding how landscape-level manipulation can influence extinction risk in a broad range of biota - Forecasts of the likely response to key management actions through time and space, and the implications of altering management actions as a result of monitoring to inform active adaptive management.Key Expected Outputs- Detailed data analyses of restoration datasets and writing of scientific articles- Scientific articles and reports examining rates of extinction in fragmented landscapes under contrasting matrix quality- Scientific articles and reports on the effectiveness of restoration interventions in agricultural landscapes and the effectiveness of invasive plant species control effortsKey Risks Assessment- overwhelming effects of phenomenon beyond manager's control (eg. Lax clearing laws, ongoing climate change) could render any recommendations for action relatively ineffective.Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and links with Themes 1 (PRQ 1.6), 3 (PRQ 3.1, 3.9) and 4 (PRQ 4.1, 4.3). Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – Large Feral Herbivore Management;* Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Australia project ;* Development of predictive models Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser, Martin Wardop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Damian McRae- Marine DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to 1.3 (multi-species interactions and eradication) and 1.5 (EPBC recovery planning)

9


Project Number2.3ProjectValue of genetic dataLeader: David LindenmayerStatus: New ProjectProblem StatementThe quantification of the value of genetic data on dispersal for making management decisions for managing threatened species populations.Key Expected OutcomesImproved understanding of the value of genetic data in quantifying species recovert following major disturbance eventsKey Expected OutputsScientific articles and reports on the value of genetic data for informing post-disturbance recovery conservation and management strategiesKey Risks Assessment- Delays in laboratory in getting genetic systems to work- Analyses become complex requiring development of new skills in analysis but taking longer than expected.Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and links with Themes 1 (PRQ 1.6), 3 (PRQ 3.1, 3.9) and 4 (PRQ 4.1, 4.3). Policies and Programs* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Kate Sandford Read-Head / Jeff Tranter- ERIN Species Mapping:Martin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom - Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to 1.1 (phylogenetics in conservation prioritization)

Project Number2.4ProjectLong-term monitoring strategiesLeader:David LindenmayerStatus: Continuing Project. Problem StatementDevelopment of long-term monitoring strategies to monitor the effectiveness of interventions for managing intact biotic assemblages as well as their effectiveness for conserving populations of threatened species (Eastern Bristlebird, Ground Parrot, Eastern Chestnut Mouse, Diamond Python)Key Expected OutcomesImproved understanding of the ways to best design and implement long-term monitoring programs as well as insights into new ways to analyze monitoring datasets with a particular focus on the NRS

10 | P a g e


Key Expected OutputsReports and strategic advice for each case study location describing lessons learnt and ecosystem-based management approaches that can be trialled and implemented by location managers. Key Risks AssessmentStatistical challenges will be large, and time for analysis is difficult to specify, with possible delays.Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 and links with Themes 1 (PRQ 1.6), 3 (PRQ 3.1, 3.9) and 4 (PRQ 4.1, 4.3). Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – Large Feral Herbivore Management;* Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser, Belinda Brown, Martin Wardrop. - Australian Government Land & Coast Division. Damian McRae- Marine DivisionTim Bond - Parks Australia DivisionKate Sandford Read-Head / Jeff Tranter - ERIN Species MappingMartin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom - Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to 1.2

Theme 3Project Number3.1ProjectOperational definitions and measures of resilience in conservation. Leader: HobbsProblem StatementEffective management that anticipates change requires effective measures of resliiance. This project will address the fundamental questions of how to define, measure and predict reiliance in ecosystems.Key Expected OutcomesThe Environmental Decisions hub will convene a working group to examine how resilience concepts can be applied in conservation policy and planning, and how resilience can be measured and used.Key Expected OutputsRobust and operationally effective measures of ecosystem resiliance that can be used to define, measure and predict, providing a basis for improved planning Key Risks AssessmentEffective resiliance measures cannot be identified, or are not operationally feasible. Very low risk to project implementationResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)

11


Addresses: Priority Research Questions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1 & 4.2Policies and Programs* Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy;* Concept of resilience;* Development of predictive models* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs End Users (name, title, section)Belinda Brown, Martin Wardrop. - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Martin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom - Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinkst to 3.2

Project Number3.2ProjectBuilding Resilient Biodiversity Assets. Leader:Tara MartinProblem StatementWe will identify “rules of thumb” for managing the long-term persistence of threatened species and for controlling invasive species and disease using a decision theoretic approach. Key Expected OutcomesUsing a combination of network theory, Bayesian belief networks and optimisation techniques we will identify cost-effective strategies which are resilient to climate change and other threats and account for the difficulty in detecting species. Key Expected OutputsFocal projects include the national mapping of Buffel grass (Pennisetum ciliare) under climate change, invasive species management of Gambusia in threatened mound springs of western Queensland, and examination of the resilience of tropical and sub-tropical forests to recovery through natural or managed successional pathways.Key Risks AssessmentData for some of the case studies will rely on expert knowledge as empiracle data may be lacking.Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1 & 4.2Policies and Programs* concept of resilience* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Belinda Brown, Martin Wardrop. - Australian Government Land & Coast Division. Martin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom- Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programslinks to 3.1

12 | P a g e


Project Number3.3ProjectThe role of large scale connectivity projects in conserving biodiversity under multiple threats including habitat loss and climate change. Is connectivity conservation the most effective tool? Joint Leaders: Brendan Wintle & Hugh PossinghamProblem StatementWe will develop assessment methodolgies to evaluate connectivity conservation proposals in the context of the range of other strategies that can be implemented to achieve conservation outcomes at a bioregional and national level. A key challenge is in reconcilling assessment methods across multiple performance criteria that may not be commensurable. Key Expected OutcomesImproved national-level approaches to evaluating potental investments in large-scale conservation. Key Expected OutputsPublished review of strategies for large scale conservation investment, with a focus on cost efficiency. Key Risks AssessmentTransparent economic assessmet of costs and benefits may not be tractable at the scale of most connectivity conservation investments. Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1 & 4.2Policies and Programs* Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Australia project ;* Concept of resilience;* Aquatic Ecosystems Policy;* Evaluate the collective effectiveness of existing and proposed management strategies at the landscape-scale to achieve multi-program/sectoral/jurisdictional outcomes for biodiversity & ecosystems* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Robert Gale, Peter Creaser, Martin Wardrop. - Australian Government Land & Coast Division

Paul Marsh - Water GroupNicole Middleton - Marine DivisionMartin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom -Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to 3.1 and 3.2

Project Number3.4

13


ProjectEvaluating the role of fine scale habitate habitat connectivity in resilient populations.Leader:Don Driscoll

Problem StatementDispersal is poorly understood but is crucial to ecosystem resilience. We aim to discover how dispersal influences resilience to the threats of fire, habitat loss and fragmentation. Key Expected OutcomesIn cross-disciplinary collaboration we will develop new technologies to enable, for the first time, large amounts of high quality dispersal data to be collected in a cost-effective manner. Key Expected OutputsReports describing new methods for collecting dispersal data. Case studies that illustrate the value of these data for improving environmental decision making.Key Risks AssessmentDispersal data are challenging to collect and synthesis in quantities necessary for high powered inference. Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1 & 4.2Policies and Programs* Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Australia project ;* Concept of resilience;* Aquatic Ecosystems Policy;* Evaluate the collective effectiveness of existing and proposed management strategies at the landscape-scale to achieve multi-program/sectoral/jurisdictional outcomes for biodiversity & ecosystemsKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser, Martin Wardrop. - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Paul Marsh - Water GroupLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to 3.1 and 3.2 and 3.3

Project Number3.5ProjectThe role and management of refugial habitats. Leader: David LindenmayerProblem StatementRefugia may play a critical role in ecosystem resilience to disturbance and climate change. .Key Expected OutcomesWe will develop protocols for identifying ecological refugia in forest using demographic and genetic datasets, with the Victorian post-fire forest ecosystems as a case studyKey Expected OutputsReports describing new methods for identifying important refugial habitats in forest ecosystems.Key Risks Assessment

14 | P a g e


Very low risk project - data and key concepts are already available. Only synthesis remainsto be done. Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1 & 4.2Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – Large Feral Herbivore Management;* Concept of resilience* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser, Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Damian McRae- Marine DivisionPaul Marsh - Water GroupMartin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom- Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programslinks to 3.4

Project Number3.6ProjectHorizon scanning. Leader:Mark BurgmanProblem StatementPlanning for resilient biodiversity assets requires advance warning of significant new and emerging threats and management options (foresighting).Key Expected OutcomesAn Environmental Decisions hub foresighting initiative will build on and support recommendations from the Hawke Review of the EPBC Act that calls for the establishment of a horizon scanning unit within DEWHAKey Expected OutputsThis project will develop protocols and systems adapted to use by government agencies, devoted to detecting early signals of emerging environmental threats. The system will employ a composite of web-scanning software, professional networks, and foresighting workshops. The system will deliver timely advice to government on events and issues that will allow policy to develop in anticipation of these events. Key Risks AssessmentSoftware compatibility and information security issuesResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1 & 4.2Policies and Programs* Concept of resilience;* Understand how to effectively and efficiently monitor, evaluate and report on the performance of the management of the Commonwealth marine reserve estate to achieve objectives* Antarctic Science Strategic PlanKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs

15


None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division.Nicole Middleton - Marine DivisionMartin Riddle & Dana Bergstrom - Australian Antarctic DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsN/A

Project Number3.7ProjectNational Reserve System efficiency analysis, including reserve acquisition versus improved management of existing reserves. Joint Leaders: Hugh Possingham & FullerProblem StatementConsider and review the NRS’s system for prioritising proposals for acqusition. Work with Tim Bond on their evaluation of proposals from states. Scoping out options for evaluating the biodiversity benefits of protected areas (build on work by Martin and Watson). Both public and private protected areas play an important role in the national reserve system, and funding is required for both acquisition and ongoing management. This project will develop decision support tools that explore the costs, benefits and risks of public/private protected areas acquisition and ongoing management.Key Expected OutcomesImproved system of NRS prioritsation, and evalation of cost-effectivness of NRS to enhance future investments. Key Expected OutputsPublished review of strategies for NRS investment, with a focus on threat management effectivenessKey Risks AssessmentEngagement with NRS team and the states. So far so good. Finding a qualified postdoc.Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1 & 4.2Policies and Programs* National Reserve System;* Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy;* Concept of Resilience* Development of predictive models;* Understand how to effectively and efficiently monitor, evaluate and report on the performance of the management of the Commonwealth marine reserve estate to achieve objectives;* Evaluate the collective effectiveness of existing and proposed management strategies at the landscape-scale to achieve multi-program/sectoral/jurisdictional outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystemsKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)

16 | P a g e


Tim Bond - Parks Australia.Belinda Brown, Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Nicole Middleton - Marine Division

Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsNA

Theme 4Project Number4.1ProjectTrade-offs among social, economic and environmental valuesJoint Leaders: Richard Hobbs, Terry Walshe & Don DriscollStatus: New ProjectProblem StatementDebates about environmental management often reflect differing values held by different people. This project will develop and illustrate methods to assess trade-offs among social, economic and environmental values, using a range of case studies such as fire management, urban and agricultrural development, and strategic impact assessments under EPBC.Key Expected OutcomesThis project will develop quantitative methods to assess trade-offs between divergent values and desired outcomes. We will use a mixture of expert elicitation, multi-criteria decision analysis and stochastic dynamic programming to analyse and resolve competing social, economic and biodiversity conservation demands. We aim to resolve conflicting objectives in the cattle-production/biodiversity trade-off associated with buffel-grass introduction, and the wildfire / biodiversity / health /carbon trade-offs linked to fire managementKey Expected Outputs- Methods developed will assist communication of the consequences of alternative management decisions. - Case studies will provide information on the extent to which multiple outcomes can be achieved simultaneously and the extent of compromise required.

Direct advice to SIA, state agencies. Key Risks AssessmentRecruitmentResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – (Northern and Remote Australia theme);* Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Australia project;* Understand the socio-economic benefits and costs of marine conservation managementKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)

17


Mark Flanigan, Peter Creaser, Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast DivisionNicole Middleton - Marine DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks with Themes 1 and 3

Project Number4.2ProjectUnderstanding and planning for urbanization impacts on biodiversityLeader: Sarah BekessyStatus: Continuing modified ProjectProblem StatementCase studies in peri-urban Melbourne, Cumberland Plains, Perth, Jervis Bay and South-east Queensland will generate sophisticated approaches to developing regional conservation plans in highly complex, human-dominated environments. We aim to develop a better understanding of human/ecological interactions at the urban rural interface, particularly in ‐relation to housing development and fire risk.Key Expected OutcomesProject outcomes will include innovative approaches for designing conservation and restoration plans in rapidly transforming peri-urban landscapes, including the ability to prioritize multiple actions undertaken by multiple actors in the presence of severe uncertainty and the dynamic feedbacks imposed by social and policy systemsKey Expected OutputsPublications, PhD completions, Decision Point articles, seminars. Timing of workshops will need to be sensitive to politicial and social situation in consultation with department.Key Risks AssessmentObtaining case study data, Output from PhD projects uncertain in terms of timeliness. Work with strategic assessments branch to identify issues in the medium-long term (faslh points for 3-5 years away)Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3Policies and Programs* EPBC Strategic AssessmentsKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Carolyn Cameron, Margaret Considine - Environment Assesment & Compliance Division. Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks with Themes 1 and 3

Project Number4.3

18 | P a g e


ProjectBiobanking and offset schemes. Leader:Richard HobbsStatus: Continuing modified ProjectProblem StatementWe will model the implementation of offset schemes to develop an understanding of measurable biodiversity benefits in comparison with other interventions and scope for improving outcomes. Key Expected OutcomesProject outcomes include guidance on design and application of offset or biobanking schemes for rapidly developing urban, semi-rural and industrial areas. Key Expected OutputsPublications, PhD completions, Decision Point articles, seminarsKey Risks AssessmentObtaining case study data, Output from PhD projects uncertainResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3Policies and Programs* EPBC Strategic Assessments;* REDDKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Carolyn Cameron, Margaret Considine - Environment Assesment & Compliance Division Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks with Theme 5

Project Number4.4ProjectRegional Sustainability PlansLeader: Brendan WintleProblem StatementRegional sustainability plans have been proposed as a process for underpinning Strategic Impact Assessments under the EPBC Act. We will contribute to the development of modelling strategies for evaluating regional sustainability plans with a focus on the biodiversity implications of actions and scenarios proposed during the plan development.Key Expected OutcomesThis project will contribute directly to the development of regional sustainability plans being piloted by the Approvals and Wildlife Division.Key Expected OutputsA journal publication outlining technical developments within the first 24months of the project. A decision point article.Key Risks AssessmentInability to find appropriately skilled postdoctoral researcher. Technical challenges of scale and problem/thematic dimension.

19


Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3Policies and ProgramsEPBC Act (Approvals and Wildlife Division).Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Carolyn Cameron, Margaret Considine - Environment Assesment & Compliance DivisionLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programs Project Number4.5ProjectScope the role of systematic reviews in providing conservation management advice to the CommonwealthLeaders: Hugh Possingham & FullerProblem StatementInternationally sytematic reviews have been advocated as the best way forward to tackle complicated environmental managemenmt problems with lots of disparate data (following medical research). We will assess the utility of this approach.Key Expected OutcomesDetermining whether systematic reviews should be done and understanding the risks associated with the systematic review processKey Expected OutputsJournal article within 1 yearKey Risks AssessmentnoneResearch Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3Policies and Programs* Biodivesity & Conservation* Caring for our Country* National Reserve System* Recovery PlanningKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Tim Bond - Parks AustraliaCharlie Zammit - Biodiversity Conservation BranchLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programs None identified

Theme 5Project Number5.1Project

20 | P a g e


Market-based instruments for biodiversity. Leader: Graeme DooleStatus: New project (included in proposal)Problem StatementWhat are the lessons for biodiversity policy from Australia's experience with market instruments? Where, when and how should they be used?Key Expected OutcomesPolicy programs able to make better decisions about whether, when and how to use MBIs to protect or enhance biodiversity.Agency staff with better understanding of the strengths, limitations and requirements for effective use of MBIs.Key Expected OutputsWritten report outlining a range of experiences with MBIs, and drawing out lessons. Key Risks AssessmentDifficulty getting access to information about past MBI program (very low risk, given our networks)Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – (Northern and Remote Australia theme)Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser, Mark Flanigan, Martin Wardrop- Australian Government Land & Coast Division Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsResults will be provided to other themes to enhance their understanding of MBIs.

Project Number5.2ProjectMonitoring for adaptive management Projects.Leader:Brendan WintleProblem StatementHow should monitoring programs be designed to best support learning in adaptive management?Key Expected OutcomesBetter designed monitoring programs that allow managers and policy makers to learn most effectively from current investments, to enhance future investments. Key Expected OutputsApplications of the monitoring framework to various case studies: e.g., Christmas Island, ecological thinning, stewardship program.State-of-the-art monitoring program embedded in INFFER.Key Risks AssessmentMaking a suitable appointment (medium risk)Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6

21


Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – Large Feral Herbivore Management;* Development of predictive models;* REDD;* Design practical and cost effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting of marine ecosystem healthKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser, Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Nicole Middleton, Damian McRae- Marine DivisionTim Bond - Parks Australia DivisionKate Sandford Read-Head / Jeff Tranter - ERIN Species MappingLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsProjects in other themes provide opportunities to put the monitoring system into practice.

Project Number5.3ProjectBalancing efficiency and equity in environmental project assessment.Leader:David PannellProblem StatementEquity is usually not considered in assessment of environmental projects, but is often raised by community members as an important consideration. How can equity be appropriately considered in a systematic way in project assessment? Key Expected OutcomesSelection of environmental projects that are more politically acceptable as they factor in a range of equity considerations.Key Expected OutputsA method to weigh up equity considerations systematically when assessing environmental projects.Examples of its application to real projects. Key Risks AssessmentMaking a suitable appointment (medium risk)Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6Policies and Programs* Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Australia project (social benchmarking)Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Peter Creaser - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsWill work with the INFFER project to test the equity assessment approach on real projects, in consultation with managers.

Project Number

22 | P a g e


5.4ProjectImproving evidence-based policy. Leader:David PannellProblem StatementMany processes for prioritisation of environmental projects draw on insufficient evidence. Key evidence is missed or low in quality. Drawing on the experience from practical use of rigorous processes such as INFFER, how can sound, practical improvements be made to decision making in key programs?Key Expected OutcomesImproved prioritisation of projects within SEWPaC programs. Key Expected OutputsReport on lessons from application of INFFER in various contexts. Report on how INFFER could be used and/or adapted for use in particular areas of SEWPaC.INFFER training program delivered to interested SEWPaC staff. Ideas on how to institutionalise improved prioritisation.Understanding of factors limiting evidence-based policy approaches.Key Risks AssessmentMaking a suitable appointment (medium risk)Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6Policies and Programs* Specific policies and associated research priorities as identified in the Australian Antarctic science strategic plan 2011-12 to 2020-21Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)John Gunn - Australian Antarctic DivisionKate Sandford Read-Head / Jeff Tranter - ERIN Species MappingLinks and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinked to the training specialist in NERP-ED, and to other projects in this theme. Will draw in various projects from other themes.

Project Number5.5ProjectLessons for policy from Australia’s experience with biodiversity offsets for conservation. Leader:Phillip GibbonsStatus: New ProjectProblem StatementThe aim of this research is to evaluate the effectiveness of biodiversity offsets for conserving biodiversity. The specific research questions are: (1) What are the net changes in biodiversity outcomes under biodiversity offsets programs relative to business-as-usual? We will compare the change in biodiversity outcomes before and after the introduction of biodiversity offset policies in different parts of Australia. (2) Do biodiversity offsets change the behaviour of developers ? We will test the hypothesis that, by imposing a shadow price

23


on biodiversity, offsets create an incentive for developers to avoid and mitigate a greater proportion of their impact.Key Expected OutcomesKey outcomes: (1) Improved biodiversity offset policy at Commonwealth and State levels. (2) Reduced rate of biodiversity loss associated with development.Key Expected OutputsKey Expected Outputs: (1) Peer reviewed international journal articles on the efficacy of biodiversity offsets, their effect in changing behaviour of developers and the key elements of offset policy. (2) Briefings to Commonwealth and State policy-makers on research findings.

(3) Articles in widely accessible publications (e.g. Decision Point). (4) Contributions to documentation disseminated international Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program.Key Risks AssessmentMaking a suitable appointment (medium risk)Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Reserach Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6Policies and Programs* REDDKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsThis project links to all other themes in this hub. Theme 1, 2 & 3 will focus on the biological requirements and management practices that will deliver restoration and protection of different biodiversity assets. Theme 4 includes a focus on impact assessment, including biodiversity offsets in urban environments.

Project Number5.6ProjectIntegration of the carbon biodiversity market trade-ons. Leader: WintleProblem StatementWhat is the relative importance of regulation and market in stimulating biodiverse carbon sequestration?Key Expected OutcomesGuidelines on designing offsets markets to maximise the joint benefits for biodiversity and carbon sequestration.Key Expected OutputsKey Expected Outputs: (1) Peer reviewed international journal articles on the efficacy of biodiversity offsets, their effect in changing behaviour of developers and the key elements of offset policy. (2) Briefings to Commonwealth and State policy-makers on research findings. (3) Articles in widely accessible publications (e.g. Decision Point). (4) Contributions to documentation disseminated international Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program.

24 | P a g e


Key Risks AssessmentMaking a suitable appointment (medium risk)Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6Policies and Programs* REDDKey Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Martin Wardrop - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programsLinks to ecology field studies (Hobbs) in Theme 1.Project Number5.7ProjectBalancing target and untargeted approaches to biodiversity protection. Leader: PannellProblem StatementSome in the community like government to support conservation actions in a relatively untargeted way, encouraging maximum participation. Considering principles of risk diversification and project effectiveness, how should resources be allocated to this approach and to investment in specific environmental assets. Key Expected OutcomesResources allocated between targeted and untargeted approaches in a way that properly consideres long-term biodiversity outcomes.Enhanced ability to justify program allocations.Key Expected OutputsInsights into how to allocate the budget in programs such as Caring for our Country.Written report on the analysis.Key Risks Assessment Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)Addresses: Priority Research Questions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 & 5.6Policies and Programs* Caring for our Country – (Northern and Remote Australia theme)Key Events and Dates to Influence Policies and Programs None identifiedEnd Users (name, title, section)Mark Falingan, Peter Creaser - Australian Government Land & Coast Division Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and programs

25

multi-year research plan environmental decisions hub€¦ · web viewenvironmental decisions hub...

Documents