Development and application of core attributes A first approximation national report of

changes in revegetation extent

Richard Thackway

Presentation to Restore, Regenerate, Revegetate: Restoring Ecological Processes, Ecosystems and Landscapes in a Changing World

University of New England, Armidale

7 February 2017

Outline

• Context and definitions• What information is frequently requested by decision makers?• Development and application of national core attributes for national

reporting and monitoring revegetation outcomes• National report completed in 2009

Revegetation

Regeneration

Restoration

Context

• Info about the investment in reveg and resulting changes in extent of reveg is poor

• Current systems and capacity to enable national monitoring and reporting are poor

Increasing emphasis on regenerative landscapes

Incr

easin

g sc

ale

LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT

AMENITY, HABITAT & ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Whole of Paddock

Rehabilitation (WOPR)

Mine site offsets

Break of slope plantings

Windbreaks & shelter belts

Streamside plantings

Biodiversity plantings incl.

corridors

Total Grazing

Pressure in agri-

ecosystems

Public-private

native tree plantations

Public native

forestry

Protected areas

Mine site rehabilitation

Defence training areas

Reveg drivers, incl. restoration and regen

Wetland restoration

What key information is frequently requested by national decision makers?

• What is the baseline extent and change in revegetation at– Local, regional and national levels

• What spatial and temporal info is available for prioritizing the most strategic investments

• What are the outcomes of investments – monitoring and evaluation

Project partners

Partners Part 1 2001-07

Part 2 2007-09

Australian, State and Territory Government agencies

1

Land and Water Australia * 1National Land and Water Resources Audit * 1National NRM coordination committee for vegetation – ESCAVI *

1

Greening Australia 1 1CSIRO 1 1Conservation Volunteers Australia 1National Carbon Accounting System 1Selected regional bodies and land managers 1Australian Bureau of Stats 1

* Ceased to operate in 2008

Development of core attributes for monitoring and reporting revegetation

Project – part 1 (2001-2007): • Review existing attribute frameworks and systems for monitoring and

reporting • Develop a set of standardized core attributes in partnership with key

research agencies and practitioners• Seek national endorsement of the core attributes• Develop and test tools: to collect, compile, translate and synthesize

existing data• Promote the use and adoption the core attributes

National reveg core attributes

(Ver 3)

Site attributes 1. Data record2. Date3. Source4. Location 5. Area6. Existing land cover

Establishment attributes

7. Species being established8. Revegetation Objective9. Revegetation Method10. Funding Source and $ Spent11. Threats to Revegetation12. Use of Patch

Monitoring attributes 13. Monitoring frequency14. Revegetation - % revegetated, %

survival planted/ sown15. Achievement of objective16. Management of site17. Comments

Other attributes – user defined~18.-1000. incl. research

The list (v2) was endorsed in 2006 by Greening Australia,

NLWRA and CSIRO

Brochure

Field manual

Journal papers

Zerger et al. (2009) Atyeo & Thackway (2009)

Online data entry tool

Online data entry tool

Online data entry tool

Application of core attributes for national reporting

Project – part 2: (2007-09)• Continue promoting the use and adoption the core attributes• Populate a national database with existing spatial & temporal datasets • Evaluate the suitability of compile existing datasets for use in national

revegetation reporting • Evaluate the performance of the core attributes – revise as required• Prepare first approximation national report of changes in revegetation

extent

ACT NSW

NT Qld SA Tas Vic aaa

1 Yes

2 No

3 Yes

4 Yes

5 Yes

6 Yes

7 Yes

8 Yes

9 Yes

ACT NSW NT Qld SA Tas Vic AAA

1 Yes

2 No

3 Yes

4 Yes

5 Yes

6 Yes

7 Yes

8 Yes

9 Yes

10 Yes

12 No

Method: compile data across all

scales for national reporting

ACT NSW NT Qld SA Tas Vic WA

1 Yes

2 No

3 Yes

4 Yes

5 Yes

6 Yes

7 Yes

8 Yes

9 Yes

17 Yes

States & Territories

Core reveg

Attributes

Land manager

State-wide & regional bodies

ABS survey and remote sensed

data

National

So where did the data come from? Extent Dataset name Data type Description Intended scale

for useSuitability

rating1

National

NCAS forest extent 1989-2006 raster woody vegetation change NRM partly

ABS agricultural census 01/06

table survey – approx. 150 000

respondents

tree, shrub sown and fencing area

available for SA, SLA and

NRM regions

partly

ABS ARMS 07-08 table survey – approx

33, 000 respondents

regional native vegetation protection & planting NRM marginally

State/Regional

Qld enQuire table native vegetation activities NRM marginally

SA DWLBC report 07 table (survey) revegetation activities NRM marginally

Local

ACT Landkeepers polygon vegetation, land care activities local highly

NSW LMP (one NRM of data provided) polygon vegetation activities local highly

NSW PVP point intended vegetation offset local marginally

Vic CAMS polygon vegetation, land care activities local highly

WA Regional Investment

Footprints 03-08 (partially complete)

point NRM funded activities local marginally

CSIRO data from VegTrack polygon vegetation activities local highly

1 suitability for translating and compiling into a national dataset

National revegetation status report1: What did we find?

• Revegetation, rehabilitation and restoration are interchangeable terms amongst data suppliers

• Poor connection between reveg extent and condition & reveg investment• Not all land managers and regional bodies are interested to collect and/or

submit or share reveg data • State level and regional body datasets are incomplete and inconsistently

collected • Spatially comprehensive and consistently national data include: NCAS2 &

ABS3 activity but these do not contain all core attributes• NCAS and ABS datasets generally reflect a positive trend in revegetation

– NB: NCAS only detects woody vegetation change and not recent plantings

1 2009 Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, ABARE-BRS, Canberra2 NCAS (National Carbon Accounting System)3 ABS Agricultural Commodities survey

Suitability of revegetation and restoration activity datasets for national reporting1

Point and polygon datasets compiled using the revegetation core attributes

ABS – ha fenced to exclude grazing1

ABS – ha planted or

sown1

ACT 66 59NSW 138 393 43 952NT 255 705 27Qld 331 216 9 743SA 33 977 8 197Tas 6 545 1 013Vic 31 331 20 232WA 465 367 18 488Total 1 262 600 101 711

1 total area of seed sown, seedlings planted and protected from grazing by fencing from ABS Agricultural Commodities survey 2005-06 (7125.0)

Snapshots of area (ha) revegetated by various activities from ABS

Border Rivers Gwyder - Cummulative area of reveg since 1980 associated with annual

crops and highly modified pastures

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

NCAS Epochs

Hec

tare

s

Series1

NCAS (National Carbon Accounting System)

Lessons

• Compiling a national dataset will require support and agreement of multiple partners – full participation cannot be assumed:

– Researchers, land managers and practitioners– Regional bodies and state agencies– National agencies involved in reporting using remote sensing datasets– National agencies involved in farm scale surveys

• Even with a common core attribute framework, there are numerous analytical issues regarding fitness of the data for:

– Data integration and synthesis– Consistent reporting at regional, state and national levels

Caution - remote sensing change is relative to a baseline - it is only part of the answer – NEED REFERENCE STATE

Zero/constant baseline (e.g. environmental planting = reveg)

Resp

onse

va

riabl

e/s

Time

Start

Time

Varying baseline (e.g. environmental watering)

Resp

onse

va

riabl

e/s

Single intervention & climatic variability

BaselineResponse to activity/ intervention

NCAS 1980

Caution: Differentiating LMP from natural disturbance events and regeneration

Photos by Garry Dowling and Richard Thackway

2006 20132009

Low intensity grazing - cell grazing sheep

Severe dust storm Low intensity grazing - cell grazing sheep

LMP: land management practices

1925

Occupation

Relaxation

Anthropogenic change

Net benefit

time

1900 2025 1950

Reference

chan

ge in

veg

etati

on in

dica

tors

& /o

r ind

ices

*

1850 1875 1975 2000

Need a model of ecosystem change (causes & effects)

Baseline

*Indicators & /or indices of: ecosystem function, structure and composition

Conclusions

• National core attributes were successfully developed and applied• Core attributes help researchers and practitioners talk the same

language and share datasets across multiple scales & jurisdictions• The core attributes have not been systematically or

comprehensively adopted at local, regional, state & national levels • Consistent and ongoing national reporting of revegetation

outcomes requires committed national leadership and investment