Multi-Year Research Plan
Northern Australia Hub
July 2011 – December 2014
National Environmental Research Program
(NERP)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 3
1.0 THE RESEARCH HUB................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 HUB MISSION ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
1.3 HUB STRATEGIC GOALS ............................................................................................................................................ 7
1.4 EXPECTED OUTCOMES .............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.5 EXPECTED OUTPUTS ................................................................................................................................................. 8
1.6 RESEARCH RELEVANCE ............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.7 GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS ................................................................................................................................................. 9
1.8 PARTNER/COLLABORATIVE ORGANISATIONS .......................................................................................................... 11
1.9 LINKS TO OTHER RESEARCH PROGRAMS .................................................................................................................. 13
1.10 COMMUNICATION, KNOWLEDGE BROKERING, SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................. 13
1.11 MEASURING SUCCESS ........................................................................................................................................... 15
2.0 RESEARCH THEMES............................................................................................................................... 15
3.0 RESEARCH PROJECTS .......................................................................................................................... 15
3.1
PROJECT ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................................................... 15
4.0 RESEARCH HUB ADMINISTRATION ..................................................................................................... 18
4.1
4.2
4.3
LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ......................................................................................................................... 18
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 20
RISK MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................................ 21
ATTACHMENT A – NORTHERN AUSTRALIA HUB MULTI-YEAR RESEARCH PLAN – THEME
DESCRIPTIONS (JULY 2011 - DECEMBER 2014) ....................................................................................... 22
ATTACHMENT B – NORTHERN AUSTRALIA HUB MULTI-YEAR RESEARCH PLAN – PROJECT
DESCRIPTIONS (JULY 2011 – DECEMBER 2014) ..................................................................................... 24
Page 2 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Introduction
The National Environmental Research Program (NERP) is an Australian Government program that provides
funding for applied public good research. It builds on the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities
(CERF) program with a specific focus on biodiversity.
The program’s objective 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.
NERP focuses on biodiversity research and delivering information that the Australian Government and other
stakeholders need to better inform environmental management, policy and decision making, both in the
short-term and into the future. This includes understanding how ecosystems function, monitoring their health,
maintaining and building their resilience, using them sustainably and exploring how to better use markets to
protect biodiversity.
The NERP seeks to achieve its objectives by supporting 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 to improve management of the Australian environment
 Is highly innovative and aims to achieve world-class 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 a focus on synthesis and analysis of existing knowledge.
Five large multi-institutional research hubs have been established to examine biodiversity issues in
terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems across Australia. For further details see
www.environment.gov.au/nerp
This Multi Year Research Plan (MYRP)
This research plan has been developed for the Northern Australia Hub. To check you have the most recent
version of this document, please see the NERP website www.environment.gov.au/nerp.
The purpose of the MYRP is to:
 Provide contextual information and a breakdown of research activities in the Hub
 Describe the research that the Hub will be undertaking under the NERP between 2011 and 2014
 Identify research priorities and links to Australian Government Environment Portfolio policies and
programs
 Outline the relationship of the research to the Australian Government Environment Portfolio and
other key end users, and
 Provide a framework for monitoring and evaluating the Hub activities, as part of the NERP.
The primary audience for the MYRP is the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, environment portfolio agencies, particularly the Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) and the Hub with its researchers. Other interested
stakeholders include non-hub researchers, government and non-government organisations and the general
public.
This Research Plan was developed by the partners that comprise the Northern Australia Hub. Specific input
was received from relevant sections of DSEWPaC to ensure projects met Departmental research priorities
and were well coordinated with other Departmental activities and projects. Advice on the research plan was
also sought from regional organisations, indigenous organisations, conservation NGO’s, and State and
Territory jurisdictions across northern Australia.
The Multi-Year Research Plan broadly describes the scope of the Hub’s research work program over the
period 2011 to 2014. It will be accompanied by several Annual Work Plans (AWPs), which will define details
of the scheduled activities on an annual basis.
Page 3 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
1.0 The Research Hub
1.1 Background
Northern Australia’s savanna, freshwater and coastal ecosystems have globally significant biodiversity
values. These ecosystems are relatively intact, highly connected and interdependent. Water provides the
link between these ecosystems and is critical to sustaining aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity and for
maintaining healthy, productive ecosystems. The recent findings of the Northern Taskforce made it clear that
intensive development (e.g. mining, gas, irrigated agriculture) may be important for the economy of the
northern Australia, but could only occur within limited areas.
For much of the region, a “conservation economy” would provide opportunities for future livelihoods through,
for example, stewardship payments and biodiversity markets. Large areas of northern Australia are owned or
managed by Indigenous people, and the increase in Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) is adding
substantially to the National Reserve System. The Indigenous natural and cultural resource management
sector is growing in capacity and it has the potential to provide major social, cultural and economic benefits
that address the Governments current “Closing the Gap” targets. However, the sector remains underresourced and under-valued and is therefore vulnerable to inappropriate policy settings and policy changes.
The Northern Australia Hub will focus on the terrestrial, freshwater and estuarine ecosystems of the northern
savanna landscapes. Much of the research has been framed within an adaptive “catchment to coast”
planning and management framework and will therefore collaborate with the Marine Biodiversity Hub and
research in the GBR/TSI program.
The Hub will address gaps in our understanding of biodiversity patterns; support adaptive planning to
respond to current and emerging threats; develop effective methods for monitoring and reporting on
biodiversity and ecosystem health; determine the benefits derived from community-based natural resource
management and identify opportunities to support Indigenous livelihoods. Outputs will inform policy
development and investment innovations that enhance the capacity of local stakeholders to contribute to
biodiversity conservation across multiple tenures thereby increasing terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem
resilience to current and future pressures.
The Hub brings together Australia’s leading tropical scientists with expertise in the environmental, social,
cultural and economic aspects of biodiversity assessment, spatial prioritization and investment planning,
ecosystem management, and Indigenous values and livelihoods. The research group has a wealth of
expertise in savannah and freshwater ecosystems. This wide-reaching proficiency is essential for supporting
integrated conservation planning and biodiversity management across northern Australia. Leadership is
provided by Professor Michael Douglas from Charles Darwin University in the NT whose details are outlined
below.
Principal researcher:
Position:
Current Institutional affiliation:
Postal address:
Tel (work):
Mobile:
Email:
Prof Michael Douglas
Director
Charles Darwin University
Charles Darwin University, NT 0909
08 89467 261
0408 467 000
michael.douglas@cdu.edu.au
Many of the researchers and the agencies that they represent have been at the forefront of environmental
and biodiversity management in northern Australia, and the NERP provides an opportunity to integrate this
research effort and develop large-scale collaborations to explore, develop and implement innovative and
cost-effective management, monitoring and evidence-based policy.
All lead researchers are highly experienced collaborative scientists and have a long history of successful
collaboration in meeting multi-stakeholder research needs. They are collectively responsible for managing
large and complex research groups and budgets, and in undertaking large multidisciplinary, multi-institutional
research programs, especially in tropical and/or remote Australian regions. Several researchers currently
lead major research programs: Douglas managed the TRaCK program, involving over 80 leading tropical
scientists from 18 institutions. Bunn is Director of the Australian Rivers Institute (ARI) and leads the NCCARF
Water Resources and Freshwater Biodiversity Network. Pressey leads the ‘Conservation Planning for a
Sustainable Future’ theme within the ARC CoE in Coral Reef Studies. Altman led ANU’s Centre of Aboriginal
Page 4 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Economic Policy and Research for over 10 years. The following table lists the key researchers with project
leadership roles within the research hub.
Name
Current Position
Prof. Bob Pressey
Leader Conservation
Planning program
Prof. Romy Greiner Prof of Tropical
Livelihoods
Assoc. Prof. Natalie Associate Prof. of
Stoeckl
Economics
Prof John Altman
ARC Australian
Professorial Fellow
Dr Sue Jackson
Senior Research
Scientist
Mr Joe Morrison
Chief Executive
Officer
Dr Mark Kennard
Senior Research
Fellow in Ecology
Prof Stuart Bunn
Director Australian
Rivers Institute
Assoc. Prof.
Associate Prof. of
Samantha
Savanna Ecology
Setterfield
Prof David Parry
Science Leader in the
Northern Territory
Prof Peter Davies
Director Centre of
Excellence in NRM
Dr Peter Bayliss
Deputy Research
Program Leader
Dr John Woinarski Research Scientist
Dr Alaric Fisher
Acting Director,
Biodiversity
Conservation Division
Dr Rod Kennett
Saltwater Country
Management
Mr Brendan Edgar Deputy Director
Partner
Research Theme
JCU
Theme 1 Conservation Planning
CDU
Theme 1 Conservation Planning
JCU
Theme 1 Conservation Planning
ANU
Theme 2 Indigenous NRM and Livelihoods
CSIRO
Theme 2 Indigenous NRM and Livelihoods
NAILSMA
Theme 2 Indigenous NRM and Livelihoods
Griffith
Theme 3 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
Griffith
Theme 3 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
CDU
Theme 3 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
AIMS
Theme 3 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
UWA
Theme 3 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
CSIRO
Theme 3 Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
CDU
NRETAS
Theme 4 Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
Theme 1 Conservation Planning
Theme 4 Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
Theme 5 Biodiversity monitoring and reporting
Theme 5 Biodiversity monitoring and reporting
NAILSMA
CDU
Theme 6 K&A
Theme 7 Management
The table below lists all staff, and positions yet to be filled as a Full Time Equivalent ratios: 1 = full time.
Title
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Rose Jubber
Admin Officer
Alaric Fisher
Alys Stevens
1
0.6
0.65
0.6
1
0.6
0.65
0.6
1
0.8
0.65
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.35
0.35
Total
3.5
2.8
2.3
2.15
Anna Richards
Anthony Chariton
Barbie McKaige
Ben Cook
Bethany Jackson
Bob Pressey
0.17
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.16
0.25
0.1
0.8
0.15
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.02
0.65
0.1
0.1
0.48
0.55
0.32
3.05
0.2
0.7
Brad Pusey
Brad Pusey
Caroline VanTilborg
Catherine Nano
Communications Officer
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.15
1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
3.5
Page 5 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Damian Milne
Dave Liddle
Dave Williams
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.45
0.3
David Parry
David Pearse
Brendan Edgar
Michael Douglas
Doug Ward
Emma Woodward
0.1
0.05
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.2
Erica Garcia
Field Assistant
Field Veterinarian
James Smith
Jane Hughes
John Kanowski
1
0.4
0.45
0.3
0.2
0.15
1.4
1.45
0.9
0.05
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.15
2.9
2
2
0.7
1.5
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
2.5
0.2
0.2
1.4
0.8
1.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.4
John Woinarski
Jon Altman
Jon Brodie
Jonathan Webb
Karen Gibb
Katherine Tuft
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.05
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.15
Keith Ferdinands
Kelly Scheepers
Knowledge Broker
Kris Warren
Kym Brennan
Leigh Hunt
0.05
1
0.1
0.15
1
0.5
0.13
0.5
0.16
0.1
0.15
1
0.1
0.5
0.15
Leo Dutra
Magen Pettit
Marcus Barber
Mark Kennard
Mark Kennard
Michael Douglas
0.2
0.13
0.15
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.09
0.15
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.11
0.15
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.33
0.52
1
0.3
0.8
Natalie Stoeckl
Neil Petit
Nic Gambold
Research Scientist
Peter Bayliss
Peter Davies
0.25
0.6
0.25
2.5
0.4
0.2
0.25
0.6
0.25
2.5
0.4
0.2
0.25
0.6
0.25
2.5
0.4
0.2
0.25
0.6
0.25
1.05
0.4
0.2
1
2.4
1
8.55
1.6
0.8
Peter Kyne
Phil Hickey
Piers Barrow
Pippa Featherston
Postdoctoral researchers
Project Coordinators
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.2
0.3
4.8
1.3
0.5
0.6
4.8
1.3
0.5
0.05
0.2
0.45
4.8
1.3
2
0.1
0.4
1.45
15.7
3.9
Rangers
Rebecca Dobbs
Rebecca Pearse
Research Assistants
0.8
0.2
0.1
4.05
0.8
0.3
0.1
4.25
0.8
0.3
0.1
3.9
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.07
1
0.1
0.25
0.07
0.1
0.1
1.3
1.85
0.8
0.8
0.25
0.4
0.2
1.05
0.25
0.37
4
0.2
1.75
0.44
2.8
0.8
0.3
14.05
Page 6 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
3.6
3
5.1
Research Associates
Research Broker
1.2
1
1.2
1
1.2
1
Research Fellows
Rick Shine
Robert Eager
1.4
1.4
0.1
0.15
0.9
0.16
1.4
0.1
0.15
Romy Greiner
Samantha Setterfield
Sarah Legge
Sean Kerins
Simon Linke
Simon Ward
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.25
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.25
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.25
0.4
0.25
0.4
0.8
1.4
1.15
1.8
0.85
1.9
Sizhong Sun
Stuart Bunn
Sue Jackson
Tim Jardine
Una Ryan
Grand Total
0.25
0.2
0.1
1
0.25
0.25
0.1
1.1
37.19
39.71
0.25
0.25
0.1
1.1
0.1
40.21
0.12
0.2
0.05
0.6
0.1
19.43
0.87
0.9
0.35
3.8
0.2
136.54
0.2
0.46
1.2 Hub Mission
The primary mission of the Northern Australia Hub is: To improve biodiversity conservation in northern
Australia through sound planning, innovative policy and strong partnerships.
This complements the NERP mission which is to: Deliver an efficient public good environmental
research program which addresses the Environment Portfolio’s priorities.
1.3 Hub Strategic Goals
The Northern Australia Hub is working towards meeting the goals of NERP which are:
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 policy decision
making by increasing the capacity of Environment Portfolio decision makers.
Goal 4: Delivering an Effective and Efficient Program - Improve program performance by ensuring the
National Environmental Research Program (NERP) has a strong governance framework supported by
effective systems and processes.
Subsidiary goals of the Northern Australia Hub are:
Goal 5: to work with DSEWPaC and other stakeholders to apply that knowledge most effectively to enhance
management and policy development;
Goal 6: to catalyse transition to new models of environmental management that are more effective and
appropriate to the social, economic and environmental fabric of northern Australia, but that can also apply
more generally across Australia.
Page 7 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
1.4 Expected Outcomes
The key outcomes expected from the Northern Australia Hub are:
1. Opportunities to sustain biodiversity in northern Australia developed, with causes of current declining
trends identified and managed effectively;
2. Adaptive management and planning frameworks for conservation become pivotal in reserves and
lands of other tenure;
3. A network of current and future researchers and research agencies is developed and sustained
beyond the life of this funding cycle;
4. DSEWPaC investments, management and policy are shaped to most effectively provide the best
possible environmental outcomes, with significant collateral social and economic benefits;
5. A significant increase in investment in environmental management from conventional programs,
innovative sources and new stakeholders;
6. Increased capacity and investment in Indigenous biodiversity management and more resilient
Indigenous institutions;
7. All stakeholders and the Australian and international public in general are more aware of the
biodiversity values, challenges and solutions in northern Australia; and
8. The program’s innovations and evidence are adapted elsewhere in Australia.
1.5 Expected Outputs
Major outputs expected from the Northern Australia Hub include:
1. Evidence-based decision support tools to help managers work through the complexities of multiple
objectives and policy tools to reduce the rate of decline of biodiversity in northern Australia;
2. Models available that provide best capture of multiple social values in biodiversity planning;
3. Evidence base and governance models to facilitate the use of carbon markets to deliver significant
environmental benefits;
4. An evaluation of the full range of benefits of Indigenous natural resource management and the
governance requirements for a sustainable Indigenous NRM sector,
5. Whole-of-systems models to guide effective investment and management of key threats to
terrestrial, estuarine and freshwater biodiversity including weeds and climate change;
6. Improved maps and remote sensing tools to monitor and asses the condition of coastal and nearoffshore habitats as surrogates of biodiversity; and to assess the seasonal connectivity between
catchments and coastal receiving waters; and
7. Improved environmental social and economic data that is readily available and publicly accessible;
8. Understanding of the movement patterns of key fauna that use the freshwater-saltwater interface in
estuaries, and improved monitoring and assessment tools for biodiversity in estuaries.
1.6 Research relevance
The Northern Australia Hub will meet the key NERP objective of improving our capacity to understand,
manage and conserve northern Australia’s unique biodiversity and ecosystems through the generation of
world-class research and its delivery to environmental decision makers and other important stakeholders.
The Northern Australia Hub research program is structured around five integrated themes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning and Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation
Indigenous Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods
Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting
The combined Research Themes and Science Communication Plan are structured to address all of the
NERP research questions and the specific knowledge needs for northern Australia. The table below
indicates the research questions from the National Environmental Research Program Biodiversity policy
questions for research National level addressed by each of the Northern Australian Biodiversity Research
Themes.
Page 8 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Northern
Australia Hub
Theme
1 Values:
understanding
the major
drivers for
maintaining
1. Planning and
Sustainable
Financing for
Biodiversity
Conservation
2. Indigenous
NRM and
Livelihoods
3 Aquatic
Biodiversity
Conservation
4 Terrestrial
Biodiversity
Conservation
5. Biodiversity
Monitoring
and
Reporting
1.3, 1.4, 1.6
NERP Research Questions
2 Ecosystems:
3 Threats:
4 Sustainable
understanding
maintaining/
use of
ecosystem
building
biodiversity
function/
resilience for
and
monitoring
future
ecosystems
ecosystem health
changing
threats
2.2
3.2,3.3, 3.4,
4.2, 4.1
3.9
1.3,1.4, 1.6
5 Biodiversity
markets
5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
5.4, 5.5, 5.6
5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
5.4, 5.5, 5.6
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.1, 2.2, 2.3,
3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
3.7, 3.8, 3.9
3.1, 3.2, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.6,
3.7, 3.8, 3.9
3.1,
4.1,4.2,4.3, 4.4
4.1,4.2,4.3, 4.4
Resource management in northern Australia needs to be considered at the appropriate “catchment to coast”
scale and biodiversity patterns and processes, as well as threats to their persistence, need to be better
understood across these ecosystems to identify and prioritise protection of high value assets (Theme 1).
Managers need to understand how to maintain ecosystem resilience in the face of existing and emerging
threats (e.g. weeds, sea level rise, feral animals) and how best to prioritise managing these with limited
resources (Themes 3 and 4).
Integrated and adaptive approaches to conservation planning methods are required that: 1. are informed by
broad perspectives across whole catchments or other large regions; 2. address multiple objectives (e.g.
protecting threatened species, carbon sequestration, connectivity, Indigenous culture, and downstream
water quality); 3. guide managers in deciding on alternative policy and management tools for particular
places and times; and 4. encourage participatory, interactive use by experts, local communities and other
stakeholders (Theme 1). A major gap in conservation planning to date has been the lack of attention to
social and economic dimensions, despite the fact that planning is ultimately a social process and has
important economic outcomes for individual enterprises and whole regions. Integrated planning will therefore
be supported and informed by innovative approaches to social acceptability and feasibility of policy and
management tools and their relative cost-effectiveness of these tools (Theme 1).
Information is needed to support Indigenous biodiversity management and innovative approaches are
needed to evaluate the full range of benefits from these management activities (Theme 2). All of the above
creates the urgent need for robust and cost-effective ways to monitor biodiversity and ecosystem health and
to assess the effectiveness of ecosystem management (Theme 5). A catchment to coast integrated
framework is required to deliver this knowledge into natural resource management policy development and
decision making processes (Theme 1).
1.7 Geographic Focus
The Hub will operate across Northern Australia, in the Drainage Divisions of the Gulf of Carpentaria and
Timor as shown in the Figure below.
Page 9 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Figure 1: Geographic location of NERP Northern Australia Hub
The following table identifies more specific locations where research will be undertaken. Note that not all of
these locations are final and some changes may occur in the first year of the operation of the Hub.
Project
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.1
4.2
5.1
Name
Catchment to
coast
planning
Socioeconomic
tools
Minimising
costs of
biodiversity
Carbon
markets
Indigenous
NRM and
livelihoods
Indigenous
biodiversity
management
River to
landscape
connections
Managing
threats to
floodplains
Biodiversity
patterns and
resilience
Patterns and
processes in
estuarine
environments
Decline of
native
mammal
fauna
Feral cat
management
on
Indigenous
land
Monitoring by
Indigenous
land and sea
Kakadu
Daly
Fitzroy
Mitchell
Gilbert
Arnhem
NT Gulf
Archer
NT
Parks
Pastoral
Page 10 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
managers
5.2
5.3
5.4
Integrated
monitoring
and
assessment
Monitoring
condition of
coastal
habitats
Monitoring
biodiversity
in estuaries
1.8 Partner/collaborative organisations
The partner institutions have expertise in tropical rainforest, savannah, freshwater and coastal research
relating to biodiversity and ecosystem function and the social, cultural and economic aspects of
environmental management in northern Australia. The NABH consists of the following Research Partner
Institutions.
 Australian National University (Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research);
 The Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC), a non-profit conservation organisation that manages 8 large
properties in northern Australia between the Kimberley and Cape York Peninsula;
 Charles Darwin University (School of Environmental Research); Charles Darwin University will host the
NAB Hub and maintain its leading role in coordinating the research program.
 James Cook University (ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and the Cairns Institute);
 CSIRO (Divisions of Ecosystem Sciences, Land and Water, Marine and Atmospheric Research and two
Flagships : Water for a Healthy Country and Wealth from Oceans),;
 Griffith University (Faculty of Environment, Planning & Architecture, Australian Rivers Institute);
 University of Sydney; (School of Zoology)
 University of Western Australia (Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management);
 Murdoch University (School of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences)
 Northern Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Managers Alliance (NAILSMA);
 Northern Territory Department of Natural Resources Environment the Arts and Sport;
 R.M. Williams Agricultural Holdings; a major agricultural landholder in northern Australia;
 Warrdeken Land Management Limited, which manages the large Warrdeken IPA in western Arnhem
Land; and
 Djelk Rangers, who as part of the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation manage the 6700km 2 Djelk IPA in
western and central Arnhem Land.
Research institutions will share staff, world class facilities and resources to implement the program. This
would include, for example, Griffith University’s Molecular Ecology and Stable Isotope laboratories. These
institutions will provide considerable in-kind personnel, facilities and equipment. The table below shows the
level of partner cash and in-kind contributions to the research hub.
Page 11 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Table: NERP funding and partner contributions summary
Hub Activity (ex. GST)
Research
NERP
2011-12
-
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
$542,758 $3,101,737 $3,133,244 $1,398,746
$8,176,485
Co-contributions
- $3,279,214 $4,111,704 $4,036,950 $2,046,226 $13,474,094
Total
- $3,821,972 $7,213,441 $7,170,194 $3,444,972 $21,650,579
Knowledge Brokering
and
2010-11
Total
program
budget
NERP
-
$578,000
$583,000
$564,000
$574,215
$2,299,215
Co-contributions
-
$285,625
$295,625
$305,625
$316,875
$1,203,750
Total
NER
P
-
$863,625
$878,625
$869,625
$891,090
$3,502,965
-
$351,500
$359,100
$364,000
$349,700
$1,424,300
Co-contributions
-
$294,250
$308,421
$322,852
$242,727
$1,168,250
Total
-
$645,750
$667,521
$686,852
$592,427
$2,592,550
Communication
Administration
Total Funding (ex GST)
NERP $2,800,000 $1,472,258 $4,043,837 $4,061,244 $2,322,661 $14,700,000
Co-contributions
- $3,859,089 $4,715,750 $4,665,427 $2,605,828 $15,846,094
Total $2,800,000 $5,331,347 $8,759,587 $8,726,671 $4,928,489 $30,546,094
End users: We recognise that the primary end user for products from this Hub will be DSEWPaC, and
regular interactions with DSEWPaC will be used to ensure that outputs are most appropriately constructed
and delivered to maximise their utility to DSEWPaC. In almost all cases these outputs will also be highly
relevant to other stakeholder groups, and care will be taken through the communication and knowledgebrokering components of the Hub to maximise the utility and fit of these outputs to the particular needs of the
very different stakeholder groups in northern Australia. The Hub will have as a guiding principle a
commitment to transforming research to deliver and apply outputs that will provide environmental and other
benefits
Indigenous partners: The Hub will work with multiple Indigenous organisations at a number of scales (pannorth Australia, regional and local) reflecting the diversity in roles and functions amongst Indigenous
organisations. Indigenous partners will be involved in contributing to research direction, brokering,
undertaking and applying research. The Northern Australia Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance
(NAILSMA) will play an important role in this Hub in brokering research access, ensuring effective
Indigenous participation and policy relevance of research activity and findings.
The Hub will build on the formal research collaboration agreements and firm relationships with key
Indigenous organisations developed within the framework of TRaCK’s Indigenous Engagement Strategy,
including the Northern Land Council, Kimberley Land Council, Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation,
Anindilyakwa and Tiwi Land Councils and the Daly River Aboriginal Reference Group. Researcher
commitment to the Indigenous Engagement Strategy will ensure high standards of ethical research
conducted in collaboration with Indigenous partners across all relevant activities. Indigenous partners will be
appropriately represented in program governance structures.
Many team members also have well established and long-standing research partnerships with numerous
local Indigenous land management groups and Aboriginal corporations across the region, including for
example, Kowanyama (Cape York), Djelk and Warrdeken IPAs (Arnhem Land; with whom NRETAS has a
formal MoU relating to biodiversity research), Wunggurr Rangers (Kimberley),. The strength of these
relationships will be influential in the selection of case study sites and the articulation of research needs.
Theme budgets will provide for appropriate remuneration of Indigenous expertise and sufficient funds are
available in the K&A budget and specialised expertise in NAILSMA, to ensure communication effort is
targeted to the needs of Indigenous partners. Opportunity will be provided in coming months for Indigenous
organisations to suggest supplementary methods of engagement with the research organisations and other
stakeholders.
Regional NRM organisations: We will explore opportunities to work with regional organisations as endusers of research outputs, including the Territory Natural Resource Management Group, Northern Gulf
Resource Management Group, Southern Gulf Catchments Ltd, NT Natural Resource Management Board,
WA Rangelands NRM Group, Cape York Sustainable Futures, the newly formed Cape York Peninsula NRM
group, and local catchment organisations, such as the Daly River Management Advisory Committee.
Non-government organisations: The Hub has strong research links with conservation NGOs. The
Australian Wildlife Conservancy is a core research partner in this venture and will be conducting research on
Page 12 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
its properties as an integral part of several projects. Other conservation NGOs, (e.g. TNC, WWF, Pew Trust,
NT Environment Centre etc) have been supportive of this proposal and are likely to be involved in assisting
with communicating research findings through their networks.
1.9 Links to other research programs
Through its partner agencies, and in some cases with shared researchers across Hubs, this Hub already has
well established linkages with other Hubs such as the NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub, NERP Tropical
Ecosystems Hub and the NERP Environmental Decisions Hub. These Hubs have some similar approaches
to cross-cutting issues such as the integration of biological, physical, social and economic data, conservation
planning, and development of economic instruments to support biodiversity management. We have two joint
projects and post-doctoral fellows with other Hubs.
We have collaborative projects using shared staff in these areas to increase our expert knowledge base and
to provide greater consistency in management and policy advice. As an example, Professor Bob Pressey
has a key position in both this and the Tropical Ecosystems Hub and will use the data and know-how
generated in the different hubs to lead integrated conservation planning and management. We anticipate
regular communication through periodic attendance at planning meetings of other Hubs. Within the
constraints set in its formal establishment and budgets, this Hub will welcome additional partners and
participants, and seek to grow its membership, reach and diversity as it develops. Formal integration of new
partners will be overseen by the Hub steering committee, in consultation with DSEWPaC.
1.10 Communication, knowledge brokering, synthesis and analysis
The Hub will develop a Science Communication Plan to maximise the impact of all NERP research effort by
encouraging research relevance, quality and adoption. The Plan is directed towards providing the knowledge
required by DSEWPaC, other relevant Government agencies, and Indigenous and non-Indigenous land
managers to inform policy and management activities. Additional audiences include regional NRM groups
and conservation NGOs.
The Plan will build a relevant and accessible evidence-base for policymakers and other end-users, building
upon previous work and linking to current and related research and information. It will also facilitate effective
internal communication within the Hub to enhance collaboration and integration across disciplines, themes
and case study sites.
Developing the Science Communication Plan
Development of the Plan will be done in close consultation with the key sections of DSEWPaC with whom
we have worked extensively, including; Parks, Heritage, NRS, IPA, WOC, Water and Coasts and AWD, as
well as the NERP team. A variety of mechanisms will be developed to ensure a high level of engagement
with DSEWPaC in the research.
The Knowledge Broker will work with DSEWPaC and members of the Hub Advisory Committees to develop
the plan, build awareness and “ownership” of the research. The forums will include agencies in the north that
are required for effective policy delivery, including State and Territory governments, Indigenous groups (Land
Councils, NAILSMA partners and other participating local organisations) and other end-users.
Implementation of the Science Communication Plan will be the responsibility of all members of the Hub.
Engagement with stakeholders
The success of this hub will be based on a participatory approach that involves the end-users of the research
in developing the project portfolio and involves them in the projects themselves.
 Stakeholder engagement will ensure relevance and usefulness of the research and of communication
products and processes.
 Processes for working with Australian Government and Indigenous landholders and representative
organisations will be fundamental. The Hub already has substantial goodwill developed through existing
relationships and networks.
 Appropriate mechanisms of ongoing engagement with DSEWPaC policymakers will be determined
through consultation in the development of the Science Communication Plan.
Communication, including Website
Communication will build awareness and deliver research findings. The program will use established
networks of end-users and existing communication tools. The hub will be supported in some broader
Page 13 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
outreach and communications networking through commitments from partners (e.g. AWC, Pew) to use their
capabilities and communication outlets.
The Hub will:
 Undertake activities designed specifically for the needs of policymakers such as tailored briefings,
lunchtime seminars, succinct outcomes documents, and responses to requests. Key researchers will
provide targeted workshops to DSEWPaC staff at strategic points of the research projects, and at annual
conferences.
 Include electronic and print media, a range of ‘plain English’ publications, within-Hub communication to
foster further collaboration, face-to-face communication with end-users.
 Continue to work with NAILSMA to develop innovative communication products targeting Indigenous
communities.
 Have its own website for access to knowledge generated through the CERF and NERP programs – as
well as a portal from the existing TRaCK website (http://www.track.gov.au/) which is built around a
content management system that ‘tags’ all information geographically and by project.
 Scope opportunities to work with other Hubs doing research in northern Australia to explore collaborative
communication opportunities.
Synthesis
Processes for managing research (such as projects) may have little resemblance to the needs of the end
user. Consequently, producing information on a project by project basis may be of little use to stakeholders.
Tailoring outputs to the relevant scale of application is more likely to result in increased uptake.
The Hub will:
 Synthesise knowledge into forms suitable for uptake particularly by divisions of DSEWPaC.
 Develop products tailored to user needs (a key role of the Knowledge Brokers) including workshops, a
range of written outputs (guidelines, briefing papers, etc), and responses to specific requests.
 Require that final year work plans for all research projects stipulate contributing to integration and
synthesis.
Legacy and Data Management
This Hub proposal will seek to maintain an explicit legacy beyond the life of the NERP funding by
implementing the following actions:
 The website will be a key mechanism for long-term access to outputs. All metadata including contacts for
data custodians will also be available through the website. Relevant library lodgement requirements and
acknowledgment of Indigenous IP for publications will continue.
 Skilled Indigenous staff is an important legacy.
 An improved evidence-base for policymakers will be a significant legacy, as will be the networks
established between researchers and policymakers.
 A metadata capture process will be developed at the start of the program. Data custodianship will be
dictated by partner IP and licensing arrangements.
 The program will consolidate existing biodiversity data and new environmental data to report directly to
national environmental information networks (including TERN and NEIP) and contribute to national
environmental policy.
Mentoring and Training
While the program will be directed by Australia’s leading tropical scientists, the team is fully committed to,
and has a strong record in mentoring early career researchers and supervising postgraduate students. Early
career researchers experienced in tropical biodiversity and ecosystem management research are therefore
an integral part of the research team. Many have played active roles in previous CERF Hubs and have
demonstrated their ability to contribute to collaborative, multidisciplinary research programs.
The Hub will enable training and employment of additional research staff based in the region; provide
opportunities to fund research staff already based in the region, thereby ensuring continuity in the research
community; foster collaborative links among researchers outside the region in fields where current expertise
and skills warrant strengthening, thereby allowing local researchers to acquire experience and develop skills
in emerging areas; facilitate greater collaboration among researchers already based in the region; and
increase Indigenous engagement and employment in research activities.
The Hub will also increase the capacity of the researchers to undertake collaborative and integrated
research. The program will significantly build Australia’s research capacity in the tropics by providing
opportunities for employment at the postdoctoral level. It will provide training at a range of levels including
Page 14 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
high quality postgraduate research supervision. Collaboration between registered training providers and
researchers will also facilitate vocational education and increased training of Indigenous students.
The Hub will result in considerable additional research capacity in Northern Australia through the expected
employment of 17 Post Doctoral Fellows; 5 Research Associates; and 2 PhD positions. This will support the
development of a new cohort of early career scientists with expertise across northern Australia.
1.11 Measuring success
Monitoring and evaluation
 A standard monitoring and reporting system will be established to better track the on-ground outcomes
of investments with targeted indicators identified to assess progress.
 NERP guidelines will be applied to focus areas such as governance, research uptake and capacity
building.
 Monitoring and evaluation will improve activities throughout the life of the program, including responding
to stakeholders’ feedback about effectiveness of engagement and communication.
2.0 Research Themes
The Northern Australia Hub research program is structured around five integrated themes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Planning and Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation
Indigenous Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods
Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting
Attachment A provides detailed information about each of these themes. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of the hub budget by theme.
3.0 Research Projects
3.1
Project Activities
Attachment A provides more 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.
Project 1.1
Catchment to coastal planning (Pressey)
This project will develop, for the first time, an integrated approach to catchment to coast planning that
considers multiple management requirements and multiple management tools within a practical framework
that can be easily understood and readily adopted by stakeholders. This will be based on linked models of
expanding threats, values for multiple requirements (e.g. EPBC listed species, marine water quality),
catchment runoff and water quality, multi-criteria weighting of requirements, and the cost, feasibility and
effectiveness of alternative policy tools. The feasibility of the approach has been tested through consultation
with end users (specifically Terrain NRM which will be one of the study regions) and with modelling experts.
The range of management requirements considered will vary between two or three study regions and will be
shaped by collaboration with end users.
Project 1.2
Socio-economic tools to support biodiversity planning (Greiner)
This project explores the factors that would facilitate grazier participation in systematic on-farm conservation
programmes, and indicators towards effective and efficient design and implementation of such programs.
This project will review and expand the toolkit for on-farm biodiversity conservation with specific focus on
northern Australia, generating new insights into the social dimensions and economic costs of conservation.
Participatory action research approaches will be used to collect and analyse empirical data on the social
determinants (including motivational, attitudinal, risk management and other factors) of leasehold and
Page 15 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
freehold landholders, including the growing number of Indigenous landholders, for providing on-farm (offreserve) conservation; and preferences for, and likely effectiveness of, potential institutions, governance
arrangements and market-based policy instruments to facilitate off-reserve conservation.
Project 1.3
Minimising the costs of biodiversity (Stoeckl)
This project will investigate the costs of achieving a variety of biodiversity objectives. It will collect data on
the costs of undertaking a range of activities (such as fencing, burning, monitoring or checking for the
presences of weeds or pests) that seek to promote or protect biodiversity (such as the control of weed or
feral animals, the protection of riparian zones). It will also collect data on the costs of activities undertaken
by a range of other market-based ventures (such as those associated with grazing or tourism) that are
frequently carried out by private landholders in Northern Australia. The project will thus help identify costeffective methods of achieving singular biodiversity objectives and will also identify opportunities for reducing
the overall cost of achieving multiple biodiversity outcomes by capitalising on economies of scope and/or
scale.
Project 1.4
Carbon markets and biodiversity conservation on pastoral land (Fisher)
This project will test the potential for significant economic and environmental outcomes from management of
carbon on pastoral lands. The research will develop case studies at three locations spanning a broad
environmental range in the Northern Territory, and investigate key questions relating to the baseline
assessment of carbon resources; methods for monitoring and validating change arising from management
intervention; opportunities for biodiversity co-benefit from carbon management; and economic &
environmental cost-benefit analyses of a range of management scenarios. In conjunction with other projects
in this theme (1.2) this will considerably strengthen the evidence base for policy development and
management decisions relating to carbon management, particularly as a mechanism for securing
conservation outcomes.
Project 2.1
Indigenous NRM and livelihoods (Jackson, Altman, Gambold)
This project will: (i) Assist Indigenous landholders to develop adaptive management frameworks to meet
local natural and cultural resource targets consistent with SEWPaC’s Working on Country and Indigenous
Protected Area objectives, M&E and reporting systems; (ii) Apply innovative approaches to the evaluation of
social, cultural, environmental and economic benefits from Indigenous management; and (iii) Assess
governance requirements for a sustainable Indigenous NRM sector and investigate and promote
opportunities to overcome its current investment deficit.
Project 2.2
Indigenous biodiversity management (Morrison)
The project will assist Indigenous landholders in meeting targets consistent with government incentives, such
as WoC and IPA frameworks, and in meeting local natural and cultural resource targets. It will undertake
participatory action research to investigate culturally appropriate land practises that support biodiversity
outputs; examine existing or new options that establish frameworks for managing country that also promotes
economic potential; build capacity of Indigenous landholders to map land use interests and issues, identify
priorities and develop culturally appropriate planning and implementation processes for land management;
assess infrastructure needs to support implementation (skills, services, natural and cultural resources,
governance structures); and identify opportunities to examine co-benefits through biodiversity and social
benchmarking.
Project 3.1
River to landscape connections and biodiversity (Bunn)
This project will determine the degree to which river and floodplain ecosystems are critical for sustaining
terrestrial biodiversity and vice versa. It will identify the characteristics (hydrology, connectivity, productivity)
of river and floodplain ‘hotspots” of productivity, and quantify the importance of ecosystem subsidies using
targeted studies of the diets of terrestrial and aquatic consumers and isotopic and other tracers. TRaCK’s
remote sensing archive coupled with digital elevation models and hydrologic modelling tools will be used to
map and characterise floodplain hydrology. Relationships will then be developed between measurements of
aquatic production and biodiversity and mapped characteristics of floodplain hydrology. These relationships
will be used to predict the spatial and temporal dynamics of 'hotspot' areas of production that sustain
populations of consumers. This will help to identify ecological assets on floodplains that are under threat
from weeds and climate change (see Project 3.2).
In collaboration with the NERP Marine Biodiversity Hub, this project will also undertake research on
freshwater sawfish and river sharks to look at river-costal linkages. It will use information on the ecology and
genetics of the sawfish to estimate population sizes of these threatened species.
Project 3.2
Managing threats to floodplain biodiversity and cultural values (Bayliss,
Setterfield)
Page 16 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
A participatory modelling approach will be used to undertake an integrated environmental, social, cultural
and economic risk assessment of sea level rise and the expansion of invasive grasses on biodiversity and
related ecosystem services of coastal floodplains. It will also consider the adaptive capacity of regional
communities to respond. Indigenous knowledge of past and current environmental change in the Kakadu
region will be used to assess the consequences of climate change and invasive grasses on floodplain
habitats and iconic/culturally important species, and predictive habitat models for key susceptible species
(e.g. magpie goose, barramundi) will be developed to estimate threshold impact levels of salinity and to
identify potential refuge sites. A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) framework will then be developed
to explore adaptation options under a range of future climate scenarios, and will draw also on the substantial
biophysical knowledge base that exists for the region.
Project 3.3
Biodiversity patterns, conservation planning and resilience of freshwater
fauna (Kennard)
This project will use innovative methods and new data to quantify key environmental determinants of
freshwater and estuarine biodiversity patterns in northern Australia, define appropriate conservation targets
to promote the long-term resilience of freshwater biodiversity and quantify the socioeconomic costs and
conservation benefits to freshwater biodiversity of alternative management actions within a systematic
conservation planning framework (in conjunction with Project 1.1 – Catchment to coastal planning).
Project 3.4
Predicting patterns and processes of biodiversity in estuarine and coastal
environments: assessing climate change impacts (Parry, Williams)
The northern Australian rivers, estuaries and coastal zone are dynamic due to combinations of the tidal
climate and wet season flows. Biodiversity and sediment transport in the marine and fresh water
environment are intrinsically linked. Bed sediments influence habitat development and suspended sediments
affect the water column light climate and primary production. Models and remote sensing tools will be
developed that link biodiversity with environmental processes in order to map present conditions and analyse
changes over time. These tools will be used to make predictions for a range of coastal change scenarios,
land use and climate change. The study will focus on the Alligator Rivers Region and the Lower Mary River
as these areas culturally, ecologically and economically important in the Northern Territory.
Project 4.1
Research and management to reverse decline of native mammal fauna
(Woinarski)
This project will undertake diagnostic research to identify/corroborate the primary factor(s) driving the decline
of small-medium sized native mammals across northern Australia; and to detail effective and cost-efficient
management responses to this decline. Its main focus is on the response of native mammals to control of
feral cats (particularly through exclosure fencing). To a smaller extent, research will also consider disease,
fire and toads. This project will relate through identification of priorities for biodiversity conservation
management to projects on adaptive management of parks and threatened species, of adaptive
management on IPAs, on monitoring, on biodiversity and Indigenous livelihoods, and on catchment to coast
planning.
Project 4.2
Feral cat management on Indigenous land (Fisher)
This project will assess management options and measure outcomes from a trial control program designed
to reduce impacts of feral cats on terrestrial biodiversity in high conservation value areas, undertaken
collaboratively with Indigenous Ranger groups and traditional owners in the western Arnhem Land area...
Lessons from this case study will help inform the on-ground implementation of management priorities
developed in 4.1, and the project has strong links to activities under Themes 2 and 5.
Project 5.1
Partnerships and tools to support biodiversity monitoring by Indigenous land
and sea managers (Kennett)
This project will develop tools and research partnerships that support community- based and scientificallyrobust biodiversity monitoring regimes for Indigenous land and sea managers and that promote the
development of Indigenous livelihoods based on caring for country.
Theme 5.2 will undertake participatory action research to create a suite of new biodiversity monitoring tools
and methods by:
 Identifying and adapting existing science-based monitoring regimes to suit Indigenous land and sea
management;
 Identifying and exploring the application of new technologies such as genetic sampling and
automated remote audio and movement sensing, to Indigenous land and sea management;
 Establishing best practice models of research partnerships that facilitate cross-cultural
understandings of biodiversity management;
Page 17 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan


Creating audiovisual and other training tools that support the uptake of new monitoring methods by
Indigenous ranger groups across North Australia;
Trialling methods to calculate costs per effort of biodiversity monitoring regimes; and Assisting
Indigenous land and sea managers to develop research and monitoring frameworks that build on
existing land and sea management plans and incorporate new tools and learnings in biodiversity
conservation
Project 5.2
Integrated monitoring and assessment to support adaptive management and
planning (Fisher, Davies)
This project will design and test integrated monitoring and reporting frameworks for a range of conservation
and land management contexts, including NGO reserves (AWC properties), government parks, Indigenous
Protected Areas and other areas managed by WoC rangers. There will be a focus on integrative reporting
and effective information flow that can inform adaptive management and will include a significant focus on
enhancing Indigenous engagement in monitoring through refinement of appropriate approaches and tools
(including Cyber Tracker).
The project will include terrestrial (led by Fisher) and aquatic (led by Davies) components appropriate to the
specific values and threats and will therefore have strong links with projects in all other Themes. For
example, one case study will develop an integrated monitoring and reporting framework for the Alligator
Rivers Region in partnership with Kakadu and other stakeholders and adjoining Indigenous communities in
order to assess and report on the condition of biodiversity and related cultural assets. The framework will use
a participatory approach from the start, directly support development of adaptive management frameworks
(see Themes 1 and 2) and consider key threats to terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity (Themes 3 and 4).
Project 5.3
Remote sensing methods to map and monitor the condition of coastal
habitats and other surrogates of biodiversity (Schroeder)
There is a paucity of biological data across the remote and inaccessible northern Australian coastline that
currently constrains bioregional planning processes, development approvals and, ultimately, the
conservation of biodiversity. High resolution remote sensing data provides a cost-effective monitoring and
assessment tool in data-sparse regions. The aims of this project are to: (i) map the extent and condition of
coastal habitats (e.g. sand dunes, rocky headlands, saltpans/marshes), including terrestrial and aquatic
weeds, at multiple spatial scales using multispectral satellite imagery; (ii) assess seasonal connectivity
between catchments and coastal receiving waters by mapping freshwater plumes; and (iii) assess the utility
of light-attenuation and water quality mapping as drivers for, and surrogates of, biodiversity.
Project 5.4
Use of ecogenomic approaches to monitor and assess biodiversity in
estuaries of the Alligator Rivers Region, encompassing Kakadu National Park
(Chariton, Gibb)
Ecological data used to assess the health of estuarine and coastal sedimentary systems are traditionally
derived from sampling macrobenthic organisms (e.g. polychaetes & bivalves), yet have severe limitations.
They are costly to collect, labour intensive, require regionally-specific taxonomic expertise and a large
number of sample replicates, and it is impractical to include juvenile and cryptic taxa. Importantly,
macrobenthic samples usually comprise only a small fraction of the total diversity (often < 40 taxa), which are
then used to make assumptions about total ecosystem health.
This project aims to use the combined expertise of AIMS/CDU and CSIRO in ecogenomics to develop an
ecological monitoring and assessment program for the Alligator Rivers Region (encompassing Kakadu
National Park), which can be used as a pristine baseline to compare more developed catchments and
coastal areas across northern Australia. The project will use high-throughput sequence to examine the
structural and functional ecological components of these systems, from their freshwater interfaces to their
coastal fringes.
4.0 Research Hub Administration
4.1
Leadership and Governance
Leadership: Biodiversity decline and effective conservation management in northern Australia is an
enormous and complex issue that must be addressed by a diverse array of land managers and agencies
across multiple tenures. The approach to collaboration and engagement by the Hub is underlain by the
philosophy that researchers have an obligation to work closely together, and with a clear understanding of
end-user requirements, in order to produce clear and practical advice on the best solutions to this issue.
Page 18 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Concomitant with this is an understanding that all research outputs must be publicly available, and must be
communicated promptly to end-users in the formats most appropriate to their needs.
Our philosophy in administration of the Hub is to select the very best researchers to address this challenge
and our team consists of researchers who have relevant skills and expertise in northern Australia, a serious
commitment to working in collaboration on large-scale projects and a proven track record of delivery. The
research program has been devised to achieve integration of disciplines and most of our researchers have
worked together previously in multi-disciplinary teams such as TRaCK and the Tropical Savannas CRC, and
the positive lessons in research collaboration and stakeholder engagement from those experiences will be
brought to the structure of this Hub.
Governance: The governance structure and administration proposed for the Hub will foster effective
collaboration between research partners; maximise synergies between projects and across themes;
encourage fruitful collaboration with researchers outside the hub; ensure effective engagement with a
diverse array of end-users and stakeholders; and also minimise administrative costs. Governance and
administration is based largely on the proven model developed for the successful TRaCK CERF Hub. A
diagram showing the governance structure and relationships is outlined below.
Program management: A Hub Steering Committee (HSC) will provide overall governance independent of
the day to day management of projects. The roles and responsibilities of the Committee are outlined within a
clear terms of reference, for which a draft has been prepared. The committee will be responsible for
ensuring that the Hub research plan addresses stated NERP priorities and stakeholder requirements and
monitoring progress against milestones.
The Terms of Reference of the Steering Committee are to:
 ensure alignment of the Hub’s research to the policy needs and interests of the Department and
other portfolio agencies;
 connect the Hub’s research questions, activities and outputs to relevant research activity and
policy initiatives outside the Department;
 review and endorse the development and implementation of the Research Plan, including annual
consideration of the Research Plan as required and evaluating progress;
 review and endorse the development and implementation of the Annual Workplan, including
evaluating progress;
Page 19 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan



provide advice on new proposals and projects, and the use of future funds;
review project performance; and
consider and make recommendations for emerging priorities.
Research management: The Hub will be managed by a Director (Prof. Michael Douglas) and Deputy
Director who will both be responsible for day-to-day operations, oversee administrative arrangements with all
Hub partners and ensure accountability in terms of development, progress, completion, evaluation and
communication of the research plan. Research will be overseen by a Research Executive Committee (REC)
comprising the Director (Chair), Deputy Director, Project Leaders and the Hub Knowledge Broker. Major
roles of the REC will be to oversee the development and annual review of the research plan; maximise
synergies and collaboration between themes and projects; monitor research quality and supervise project
evaluation; ensure that project outputs are promptly and effectively communicated; and guide stakeholder
engagement at project and integrative levels. It is expected that members of the research committee will
each bring extensive existing networks within the broader research and stakeholder community and use
these to facilitate collaboration with other researchers and other relevant agencies and organisations. The
roles and responsibilities of the members of the REC will be separately defined to ensure that project
delivery is sufficiently resourced and fully accountable.
Theme and Project management: Projects will have a nominated project leader who will be responsible for
developing individual project plans and reporting project progress and outcomes. Research Advisory
Committees (RAC) will be developed at the theme, project or regional level as appropriate. Their
composition will be informed by the Science Communications Plan but will typically include relevant
agencies, land management groups, Indigenous organisations, and other researchers from outside the Hub.
Advisory groups will meet during the development of project plans and during the project lifetime, with
primary responsibility being the scoping of research to make it most relevant and applicable to management
and policy, and to help ensure uptake and implementation of research outputs.
End user and stakeholder engagement arrangements: The research program has structured
engagement arrangements to ensure effective end user and stakeholder input into project design, delivery
and research implementation, strengthening our unique partnership approach. Representation will be sought
from end-user and stakeholder organisations (particularly DSEWPaC) on the PSC and RAC’s. Opportunities
will be sought for Indigenous partners to undertake research activities. Structured processes for review and
monitoring of the end user partnerships will be established.
Effective administrative framework: The proposal builds on a proven effective administrative framework
that includes contract and project management, financial reporting and auditing, and risk management
processes. The lead agent for contract and business administration will be Charles Darwin University (CDU).
CDU has already demonstrated their excellent administrative competence in the management of the TRaCK
program, with dedicated office space, IT support, secretarial services and financial administration. A
business manager will manage contracting. Each consortium member will have an identified contract officer
to liaise directly with the contract manager. The administrative cost will be approximately 10% of the total
budget. The program is committed to maintaining this low level of overhead costs to maximise funds
delivered to research activity and adoption.
4.2
Reporting requirements
The Hub Head Agreement provides for four types of reports to be provided to DSEWPaC including:




Progress Reports
Financial Reports
A final Report
Ad hoc Reports if requested by the Department
Progress Reports
Progress reports will be provided bi-annually on the following dates:
Report Due
Reporting period
1 April
1 July – 31 December
1 October
1 January – 30 June
Page 20 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Progress reports will include information on performance against milestones and work undertaken by the
Hub assessed against the relevant Annual Workplan.
Financial reports
The Hub will provide a financial report with each progress report and the final report. The Department will
also be provided with an annual audited financial statement by 1 October of each Calendar Year, and within
60 Business Days after the completion of the Activity.
Final Report
A final Report will be provided to the Department by the 15 April 2015, as a stand-alone document that can
be used for public information dissemination purposes.
Ad-hoc Reports
Throughout the Activity Period, the Department may also require the Hub to provide ad hoc Reports
concerning any significant developments concerning the Activity, or any significant delays or difficulties
encountered in performing the Activity in accordance with the Research Agreement.
4.3
Risk Management
The following table provides a summary of identified risks to the successful delivery of the Hub projects, and
proposed management strategies to ameliorate those risks should they eventuate.
Possible risks
Loss of key staff
Proposed management strategy
Low risk because of the large consortium and capacity to draw on additional
staff expertise from partner organisations. Most of the key researchers have
already demonstrated a long-term commitment to northern Australia. All
partners have the capability to attract high quality applicants if key positions
need to be filled, and some (e.g. CSIRO) have some capacity to move staff to
fill positions.
Non performance of
Careful selection of team members who have a history of successful
collaborators
collaboration and delivery suggest that this risk is low. CDU has an excellent
reputation for contract and milestone management, which will also reduce the
risk of non-delivery.
Delays in PhD student There is always a risk of this occurring, primarily due to reasons other than
project completion
scientific problems or supervision. If student thesis submission is delayed, we
will still be able to report on outcomes of the work.
IP issues restricting
All scientific intellectual property to be used in this project is owned by the
access to key data sets research partners. All data and information collected during hub research
or reducing
projects will be publicly available, and IP issues will be explicitly addressed in
collaboration between
funding agreements with partners. NAILSMA will assist us in negotiating
partners
additional IP agreements regarding Indigenous Knowledge.
Floods/ drought
Technical failure of
equipment
Risks to personnel
during field work,
especially in remote
locations
Access to field sites
Extreme weather conditions may delay the timing of particular tasks but
typically also offer opportunities for serendipitous research.
We have a vast resource of field equipment among the partners and
redundancy will be built into the number of field units used. All field equipment
is thoroughly tested and serviced.
There are significant OHS issues relating to field research in this region and
this may restrict some field activities. Coordinated field campaigns provide
one means to minimise risk. All partners have detailed OHS plans and
procedures covering field operations and these will be strictly applied.
We have already established good working relationships with indigenous,
conservation and pastoral land managers (e.g. through the NRM groups).
Access to Indigenous lands will be facilitated through our partnership with
NAILSMA and where appropriate direct consultation with Traditional Owners.
Key researchers have well-established relationships with landowners in the
proposed study areas and a number of partners are owners and/or managers
of land where study sites are located.
Page 21 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Cultural issues
Lack of State/Territory
support
Insufficient cash
resources
Research program /
outputs fails to match
NERP / DSEWPaC
priorities / expectations
It is envisaged that cultural obligations, funerals and other activities of
Traditional Owners in trial sites may contribute to delays in undertaking and
achieving objectives. It is important that these issues be taken into
consideration in developing particular projects, trials and other activities.
We have high levels of support from relevant agencies.
There is a risk that we will not be able to meet all stakeholder expectations if
we fail to adequately resource the program. There is also a high risk that
some research partners will not remain actively engaged if the cash return is
too low.
The relevance of the proposed program to NERP / DSEWPaC priorities has
been explicitly outlined in this application. A DSEWPaC representative will sit
on the steering committee that oversees and approves the Research Plan,
and DSEWPaC staff will be included on project/theme advisory groups as
appropriate.
Poor integration of
The research program has been designed with an underlying philosophy of
research activity across
developing strong linkages and synergies between themes/projects. The
themes and projects
governance and structure of NLN are designed to encourage and facilitate
collaboration and this will be promoted through the oversight of the
management and research committees. One focus of the hub’s
Communication Plan will be internal communication and integration.
Low levels of adoption
and limited uptake of
research outputs by
land managers and
other end-users
Failure to publish
research results in a
timely manner
Failings in
administrative
arrangements and
financial probity
Our experience in other major R&D programs suggests that there is a strong
demand for scientific information to underpin biodiversity management. This is
especially true in northern Australia. Close attention will be given to
developing the Science Communication Plan and building on previous
consultations with stakeholders. The hub has a philosophy of applied research
within an adaptive management framework, and many of the key researchers
are embedded within management agencies / organisations. The risk will be
minimised by effective consultation and engagement with stakeholders via
project/theme advisory groups and the knowledge broker, during the
development of project plans and as projects progress.
Sub-contracts will include final payments that are contingent on the
completion of projects and the publication of research outputs. Mentoring and
writing workshops will be utilised to facilitate the publication of outputs in
scientific journals.
The host (CDU) is a large regional University and appropriate administrative,
financial and risk management procedures are rigorously enforced. Accounts
will be audited annually.
Page 22 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
National Environmental Research Program
(NERP)
Northern Australia Hub
Attachment A
Theme Descriptions
July 2011 – December 2014
Page 23 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme 1 - Planning and sustainable financing for biodiversity
conservation
This theme will develop integrated approaches to catchment to coast planning and adaptive management
that consider multiple management objectives and the fairest and most effective mix of policy and
management tools to conserve biodiversity considering social acceptability and feasibility. The projects
within this theme are interrelated.
For example, the socio-economic research, while contributing widely to conservation activities throughout
Australia, will connect directly to catchment to coast planning by helping to estimate the spatially-explicit
costs of different conservation actions and by testing the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of market-based
instruments under different circumstances. Both this work and the new methods for catchment to coast
planning will identify priority conservation reserves for adaptive management and the potential to improve the
management of reserves by changing the management of surrounding production lands.
Theme 2 - Indigenous NRM and livelihoods
This theme will support Indigenous biodiversity management and improve understanding of the full-range of
private and public benefits derived from Indigenous community-based natural resource management,
including customary management practices (e.g. local knowledge) and customary use of biological
resources. We will develop methods for measuring economic, social and cultural benefits for prioritising
landscape investment for demonstrating environmental benefits/outcomes. We will identify incentives, new
sources of funding, information and support required to improve current community-based practice to build
more resilient Indigenous management institutions.
This will be achieved through collaboration with researchers working on Indigenous NRM projects to build a
common framework for evaluating benefits. The Theme involves socio-economic research based on
environmental management activities and is strongly linked to all other Themes. Indigenous landscape
management provides considerable national benefit and also offers the potential for allied social, cultural and
health benefits, although these are yet to be rigorously measured. Increased investment in biodiversity
conservation on the Indigenous estate presents development opportunities, however these may not be fully
realised without demonstrating returns on investment (across multiple dimensions).
Theme 3 - Aquatic biodiversity conservation
This theme will conduct strategic research to address the relatively poor state of understanding of freshwater
biodiversity in northern Australia by building on past research to analyse freshwater biodiversity patterns,
identify critical ecosystem processes linking freshwater and terrestrial biodiversity and develop effective
management responses to critical threats to freshwater biodiversity particularly weed invasion and climate
change.
Theme 4 - Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
This theme focuses directly on research to develop effective landscape-scale management to reverse
biodiversity decline and prevent further declines. There are many conservation challenges in northern
Australia, and this Theme will focus strategically on four priority issues where insufficient knowledge is
currently the major impediment to effective biodiversity management.
Theme 5 - Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting
This theme focuses on Biodiversity Monitoring which is an essential step within the adaptive management
and planning process as it enables the assessment of efficacy of investments in land management and
biodiversity conservation, and guides future decisions. This theme will address the particular challenges in
monitoring and reporting conservation outcomes across broad landscapes in northern Australia where land
managers have diverse values and management objectives.
Page 24 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
National Environmental Research Program
(NERP)
Northern Australia Hub
Attachment B
Project Descriptions
July 2011 – December 2014
Page 25 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Table of Contents
Theme 1: Planning and Sustainable Financing for Biodiversity Conservation
1.1
Catchment to coast planning
1.2
1.3
1.4
Socio-economic tools to support biodiversity planning
Minimising the costs of biodiversity
Carbon markets and biodiversity conservation on pastoral land
Theme 2: Indigenous Natural Resource Management and Livelihoods
2.1
2.2
Biodiversity values and Indigenous livelihoods
Indigenous biodiversity management
Theme 3: Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
River to landscape connections and biodiversity
Managing threats to floodplain biodiversity and cultural values
Biodiversity patterns, conservation planning and resilience of freshwater fauna
Predicting patterns and processes of biodiversity in estuarine and coastal environments:
assessing climate change impacts
Theme 4: Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
4.1
4.2
Research and management to reverse decline of native mammal fauna
Feral cat management on Indigenous land
Theme 5: Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Partnerships and tools to support biodiversity monitoring by Indigenous land and sea managers
Integrated monitoring and assessment to support adaptive management and planning
Remote sensing methods to map and monitor the condition of coastal habitats and other
surrogates of biodiversity
Understanding the role of salinity on Kakadu’s floodplain sedimentary biota
Page 26 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 1
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Conservation Planning
1.1
Catchment to Coast Conservation Planning
Professor Bob Pressey
James Cook University
Professor Bob Pressey, Ass Prof Jon Brodie, two postdoctoral
researchers (to be appointed)
Project Completion Date:
July 2011
December 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$556,800
$441,480
Project Summary/ Description
In broad terms, the problem of integrated conservation planning within coastal catchments can be stated
simply: decision-makers with limited funds for investment in natural resource management must balance the
local (within-catchment) benefits arising from their actions with the downstream benefits for freshwater and
marine systems. In some cases, large benefits for local objectives (e.g. retaining terrestrial biodiversity) and
downstream objectives (e.g. reducing soil loss) will be obtainable in the same places but, very frequently,
different benefits will not be spatially congruent and difficult choices will be necessary. This is true whether
managers are working with an incremental, return-on-investment model or identifying regional configurations
of conservation areas that are implemented incrementally.
The reality of decision making in coastal catchments is much less simple. The difficulty of resolving this
problem can be illustrated by listing the main kinds of technical information that managers need to guide
decisions. For terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments, they need spatially explicit data on:
biodiversity (both depictions of pattern and models of process); ecosystem services (related to soil, water,
salinity, acidity and carbon); models of likely expansion or contraction of extractive activities in the absence
of management intervention; and the cost, feasibility and relative effectiveness of alternative management
actions, including models of downstream effects. They also need to refine qualitative goals into a complex
set of quantitative objectives, understand the socio-economic implications of management actions, and
develop strategies for managing uncertainty and adaptation to new information. There is presently no
framework available anywhere in the world for integrating all of this information to support investment
decisions by managers. The absence of a comprehensive framework for resolving investment choices
means that: 1. managers are making decisions without all the available information; and 2. limited resources
are being allocated inefficiently.
This project will develop, for the first time, an integrated approach to catchment to coast planning that
considers multiple management requirements and multiple management tools within a practical framework
that can be easily understood and readily adopted by stakeholders. This will be based on linked models of
expanding threats, values for multiple requirements (e.g. EPBC listed species, marine water quality),
catchment runoff and water quality, multi-criteria weighting of requirements, and the cost, feasibility and
effectiveness of alternative policy tools. The feasibility of the approach has been tested through consultation
with end users and with modelling experts. A diversity of objectives and management requirements will be
addressed by working in three study regions, in close collaboration with end users.
2.
Geographic Location
1. Gilbert River catchment, Cape York, Queensland; draining into the Gulf of Carpentaria
2. Daly River catchment, Northern Territory; draining into the Timor Sea
3. Fitzroy River catchment, Kimberley, Western Australia; draining into King Sound, then the Timor Sea
3.
Problem Statement
The problem statement is illustrated below and explained in numbered points corresponding to the entries in
the figure.
Page 27 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
1. Managers of catchments (State and Territory governments, NRM bodies, local governments,
traditional owners) have to deal with multiple objectives, corresponding to different sets of
stakeholders and different funding sources.
2. Values (or priorities) of areas within catchments for protection, restoration and best-practice land
uses emerge from data and objectives. Inevitably, there will be imperfect, and sometimes poor,
congruence between spatial patterns of values emerging from different objectives.
3. Managers have limited resources to achieve their objectives, so action toward protection and
restoration is incremental.
4. While incremental management action is proceeding, the values that actions seek to preserve are
being eroded.
5. The previous realities of catchment management make for difficult tradeoffs: managers must choose
between actions in areas that have very different characteristics and contribute very differently to
each of their objectives. Because of the background loss of values, decisions about what to protect
this year are also decisions about what will remain at risk.
6. An analytical framework to guide managers through the decisions outlined above must address
multiple, plausible scenarios of conservation and development in catchments, and decisions must be
robust to uncertainty about future conditions.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
The broad elements of the approach correspond to the numbered problem statements in the previous
section:
Page 28 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
1. Multiple objectives. The application of systematic conservation planning to this problem will begin by
turning qualitative goals (from end users) into quantitative objectives. These will include, but not be
restricted to: protection and restoration of endangered species and vegetation types, maintenance of
connectivity for climate change adaptation, livelihoods of local communities, and river-mouth water
quality.
2. Spatially uncorrelated values. The project will develop consistent data layers for each objective,
using conservation planning software to measure and map the values of areas within catchments.
Values can be expressed, for example, as the relative contribution of areas to each objective or the
irreplaceability of areas for achieving objectives. Spatial correlations between maps of values will
indicate how acute tradeoffs will be between pairs of objectives.
3. Incremental investments. The project will draw on cutting-edge tools, based on the research by the
project leader and others, to identify schedules of investments in specific areas across catchments.
4. Ongoing attrition of values. Spatially explicit models of land use change, linked to spatially explicit
models of river-mouth water quality, will be intersected with maps of conservation features of interest
in each catchment to estimate declines in those features in the absence of management
intervention.
5. Difficult tradeoffs. The project will explicitly formulate (intuitively and mathematically) the problem
that managers face. Broadly, this is to maximize a conservation outcome, defined by specific
objectives for diverse natural features (e.g. native plant and animal species, vegetation
assemblages, water quality), in the face of spatially heterogeneous and dynamic threats, within a
budget constraint, by applying a suite of actions that cost different amounts, and that contribute
differently to objectives, under considerable uncertainty and the prospects of climate change. The
problem will be solved with special-purpose software linked to a GIS interface, with the design of the
decision-support tool strongly influenced by the preferences of end users, with parameters set by
regional experts.
6. Importance of scenarios. The decision support tool will allow managers to consider changes to
present conditions (e.g. altered markets for agricultural or mining products, new policies) or different
budgets on the achievement of their objectives and the severity of tradeoffs between objectives.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
Short-term outcomes of the project will be new collaborations amongst catchment managers, other
stakeholders and the project team to increase mutual understanding of aspirations for conservation,
development and livelihoods, with qualitative and quantitative objectives clearly identified. Other short-term
benefits will be a much greater understanding of the benefits of explicit, cost-effective and accountable
decision making about investments in catchment management. In the medium-term, one of the main
innovations of the project will be the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary framework for guiding the many
trade-offs required to invest effectively in natural resource management.
This will apply specifically to three large regions where managers make day-to-day investment choices
between protecting globally significant terrestrial biodiversity, managing ecosystem services, and reducing
downstream impacts on marine ecosystems. The framework will be applied with an explicit, participatory
decision support tool that will allow managers to improve the cost-effectiveness and accountability of their
investments. Both the framework and decision support tool will be generic and adaptable to any region at a
wide range of spatial scales. Long-term benefits of this project will include more effective allocation of
resources for managing catchments and enhanced condition of terrestrial, freshwater and marine
ecosystems.
6.
Key Expected Outputs

Explicit objectives for conservation, development and livelihoods, identified by managers and other
stakeholders.
Page 29 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan

High-resolution maps of values of management units (e.g. cadastral units) across catchments,
allowing managers and other stakeholders to understand the tradeoffs necessary between
objectives.

Models of land use change and models of river-mouth water quality implications of these changes.

Explicit decision making framework for managers and other stakeholders to apply, leading to a
spatially explicit decision support tool to allow users to explore options for investment in catchment
management and to resolve tradeoffs between objectives.

Models of alternative futures for catchments with respect to conservation, development and funding,
allowing managers and other stakeholders to anticipate and respond to challenges.
7.
8.
Expected Benefits

Improved management of three important catchments in northern Australia, with lessons, an
operational model for decision making, and an interactive decision support tool applicable to other
regions.

An integrative framework for synthesising the results of other projects in the NERP North Australia
Hub.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Delays in collection of data
Data has gaps that will
impact on the quality of the
analysis
9.
Proposed management strategy
The project is low-risk because it is largely desk-based. Field work will
involve reconnaissance trips, discussions with managers and other
stakeholders, and regional workshops. The timing and logistics of this
work will be flexible to maximize engagement with stakeholders and
avoid unfavourable weather conditions.
The compilation of data, development of models and preparation of the
decision-support tool are adaptable in dealing with gaps in data and
limited access to some stakeholders.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
List of research questions addressed by this project: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.7,
3.8, 3.9, 4.1, 4.2.
This project will develop, for the first time, a multi-objective planning framework that will allow managers and
other stakeholders to interactively explore spatial options for investments in policy and management tools
related to protection, restoration, and best-practice land uses. It will draw on systematic planning methods to
set objectives for biodiversity that address differences between species and ecosystems in requirements for
management (Q1.1).
It will help managers to decide on the spatial distribution of policy and management tools (Q1.3, 1.4). By
considering a variety of objectives for conservation management, it will include ecosystem services such as
carbon sequestration (Q1.5). The project will improve decision making on Indigenous land (Q1.6) and will
address Q2.2 by identifying which aspects of biodiversity pattern and process and human activities will be
considered for spatial assessment of management priorities, thereby informing ecosystem science. This will
also assist in costing and evaluating different management options (Q3.2-3.4) and, by examining these
options across the catchment to coastal system, the project addresses Q3.7-4.2.
The adaptive management part of this project, with managers progressively updating information in the
decision support tool, will help to maintain conservation values on the Indigenous estate (Q1.6), will make
strong contributions to monitoring and appropriate management responses at the scale of individual
conservation reserves (Q2.1-2.3), and is fundamental to the philosophy of adaptive management
emphasised in the context section of the document on policy questions.
10.
Policies and Programs
Water governance: The project will identify management priorities for freshwater ecosystems (including flow
regimes) and water quality.
Page 30 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Marine: The project will identify priority areas for investment to maintain or improve river-mouth water quality,
thereby considering the impacts of catchment management on nearshore marine ecosystems.
Land and Coasts: The focus on integrated planning for terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems is
directly relevant to this program.
Parks Australia: Expansion of protected areas and complementary off-reserve management will be important
considerations in this project.
ERIN: Species Mapping
There are links and synergies between this project and DSEWPaC’s EPBC Strategic Assessments and
regional recovery planning.
11.
DSEWPaC End Users
Mark Flanigan, First Assistant Secretary, Land and Coasts
Steven Oxley, First Assistant Secretary, Marine Division
Peter Cochrane, Director of National Parks
Charlie Zammitt, Assistant Secretary, Biodiversity Conservation
Carolyn Cameron, Assistant Secretary, Strategic Assessment Branch
Tim Bond, National Reserve System (NRS)
Bruce Edwards, Indigenous Policy Branch
Kate Sandford, Read-Head and Jeff Tranter, ERIN
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
Within the NERP North Australia Hub, this project will link closely to economic projects led by Natalie Stoeckl
and Romy Greiner. This project will also synthesise data from other projects in the Hub. The study regions
have been selected for this purpose, to capitalize on previous work by TRaCK, and to align with the wishes
of the Northern Gulf NRM. This project also links closely to conservation planning projects under both the
Rainforest and Great Barrier Reef themes of the Tropical Ecosystems Hub.
13.
Year 1
Activities and Milestones



Year 2




Year 3



Reconnaissance field trips, including initial engagement with
managers and other stakeholders
Workshop on conceptual and technical approach to multiobjective catchment planning, with a generic approach applicable
to all three study regions
Beginning of compilation of existing data (vs data from other Hub
projects) on physical, biological, social and economic attributes of
the study regions
Workshops in all three regions on objectives for conservation,
development and livelihoods
Finalization of data compilation from existing sources
Development of preliminary models for land use change and
water quality
Maps of values arising from objectives, and measurement of
correlations and necessary tradeoffs
Workshops in all three regions on resolving tradeoffs between
multiple objectives (using maps of values)
Formulation and parameterization of the decision model, in close
collaboration with managers and other stakeholders
Preliminary decision support tool with GIS interface
Page 31 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Year 4



Finalization of decision support tool
Development of scenarios for study regions based on possible
development trajectories and funding for natural resource
management
Application with managers and other stakeholders of the decision
support tool to identify scheduled priorities for investment in
natural resource management
Page 32 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 1
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Conservation Planning
1.2
Socio-economic tools to support biodiversity planning:
participatory action research to determine on-farm participation
in biodiversity conservation
Prof Romy Greiner
Charles Darwin University
Prof Romy Greiner, Research Fellow (Resource Economist; TBA)
Project Completion Date:
July 2011
December 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$324,240
$890,653
Project Summary/ Description
This project explores the factors that would facilitate grazier participation in systematic on-farm conservation
programs, and indicators towards effective and efficient design and implementation of such programs.
This project will review and expand the toolkit for on-farm biodiversity conservation with specific focus on
northern Australia, and generate new insights into the social dimensions and economic costs of
conservation. Participatory action research approaches will be used to collect and analyse empirical data on
the social determinants (including motivational, attitudinal, risk management and other factors) of leasehold
and freehold landholders, including the growing number of Indigenous landholders, for providing on-farm
(off-reserve) conservation; and preferences for, and likely effectiveness of, potential institutions, governance
arrangements and market-based policy instruments to facilitate off-reserve conservation.
The project will reveal northern Australian pastoralists’ attitudes towards and motivations for participation in
on-farm biodiversity conservation, and identify effective and efficient avenues for government to achieve onfarm biodiversity conservation in the tropical savannas. It will review the mix of regulatory, suasion, marketbased and other approaches to conservation.
The tropical savannas of Australia cover around 1.9 million km2 (25% of the continent) across the north of
the continent, stretching from Broome in the northwest to south of Mackay on the eastern seaboard.
Following European settlement, the primary land use in Australia’s tropical savannas has been extensive
beef and, to a lesser extent, sheep production. Australia’s tropical savannas remain in a reasonably good
condition and provide many valuable ecosystem services to Australian society—in addition to the production
of meat. They are increasingly important as conservation, recreational, cultural and carbon storage space. In
terms of biodiversity conservation, it has been argued that the formal conservation estate is insufficient to
protect biodiversity, particularly in light of climate change.
Non-government organisations have purchased a number of former grazing properties and land owned and
managed by the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, for example, grew from 5,737 km2 in 2002 to 21,520 km2
in 2008. However, the majority of land continues to be managed by the pastoral industry and managed for
livestock production. The livestock industry is generally based upon private enterprises, which range in size
from about a few square kilometers to 24,000km2 and carry up to 65,000 head of cattle. It will be critically
important to ensure the participation of the industry in conservation through the provision of on-farm
biodiversity conservation activities.
2.
Geographic Location
The tropical savannas of northern Australia provide the geographic scope of the research. Case study areas
will be identified in collaboration with regional NRM groups, taking regional needs, research priorities and
willingness to participate into consideration. It is anticipated that case studies will be conducted across
Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
3.
Problem Statement
Pastoralists in northern Australia manage vast tracks of land and the decisions of each land manager
therefore have significant and long-ranging impacts not only for the production aspects of the property but
also for the natural assets within a property, including biodiversity. Most bioregions in the tropical savannas
remain under-represented in the formal reserve system, despite increasing acquisitions of land by
conservation agencies, and there is a recognised need to engage pastoralists in on-farm conservation. While
Page 33 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
research has looked into pastoralists’ motivations and attitudes, and risk management strategies, the actual
decision variables for active engagement in biodiversity conservation programs have not as yet been
systematically explored.
This project tests the hypothesis that given the ‘right’ market-based tools and appropriate engagement
strategies, sufficient pastoralists would be prepared to commit to participating in regional-scale on-farm
conservation programs.
Research questions include:
 What are the ‘right’ market-based tools for achieving effective and efficient on-farm biodiversity
conservation?
 What are ‘necessary’ underpinning regulatory/ legislative conditions?
 What are ‘appropriate’ engagement strategies?
 What ‘types’ of pastoralists are most likely to participate?
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
A participatory action research will be adopted in consultation with regional NRM groups across the tropical
savannas. We propose to conduct and facilitate a series of focus groups with pastoralists, which explore the
research questions and culminate in a contingent behaviour experiment. This experiment exposes
participants to a systematically constructed set of choices that are associated with compensation payments
and incentive mechanisms of various kinds.
Statistical analysis of stated choices will reveal general preferences for different types of mechanisms
(including market-based instruments) and payment levels required to entice participation. Regional
differences and differences based on e.g. property characteristics, tenure, and manager traits will be
explored. A further set of consultations will be conducted to discuss preliminary results with regional
stakeholders, assist triangulation and discuss the ramifications. The approach will build on methods
developed by (Windle et al., 2009, Greiner and Gregg, 2011, Nicholas et al., 2010, Oh et al., 2005) and
others.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
Short-term



outcomes include:
Strong research—NRM communications
‘Ownership’ of stakeholders of research process and its results
Improved understanding by NRM groups and government of pastoralists attitudes, paradigms
and preferences
Medium-term outcomes include:
 Plans and policies developed that are tailored towards human dimensions and can expect to see
extensive participation
Long-term outcomes include:
 National reserve system in northern Australia successfully complemented by strategic on-farm
biodiversity conservation programs
6.
Key Expected Outputs
The research will deliver the following outputs:
 Negotiated and innovative methodology
 Stakeholder presentations
 Factsheets
 Web-updates (as part of NERP)
 Project Facebook page
 Progress reports
 Final report
 Conference papers and presentations
 Refereed journal publications
7.
Expected Benefits
Page 34 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
The research will deliver a series of environmental benefits but also have social and economic beneficial
effects. This research adopts a ‘multi-functionality’ and ecosystem services framework, and will contribute to
the success of schemes aiming to ensure that current non-market values are remunerated and
institutionalised as part of the mainstream economy, with resulting environmental benefits. This is part of
‘internalising’ former ‘externalities’ and ensuring that vital ecosystem services continue to be provided. By
revealing landholders’ decision-making factors the research will raise awareness of the role of biodiversity
conservation within grazing systems. This research will potentially lead to diversification of operations and
enable stocking pressures to be reduced in some areas. This in turn can lead to improving land and soil
management practices, improving water quality and biodiversity outcomes, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, and improving carbon sequestration in the rangelands. The research will enhance focus on
delivering environmental services as an alternative or supplement to conventional primary production.
Potential economic benefits include contributions to improving grazing industry viability and efficiency, and
developing new markets for delivering biodiversity conservation services. Economic benefits will accrue from
landholders contemplating and adopting new and innovative practices that support non-traditional supply
chains and new markets associated with alternative livelihood strategies. These innovations lead to new
kinds of industry outputs in the form of environmental services and environmental amenities, and new kinds
of value-adding to grazing industry practices. The continued economic viability of the cattle industry will
contribute to developing more sustainable rural economies in the rangelands, and to maintaining vital assets
and infrastructure in otherwise marginal landscapes, thinly-populated and remote regions where few
alternative economic opportunities exist.
By improving understanding of decision-making processes and building capacity, this research will contribute
to strengthening families and rangeland communities. It will contribute to providing better decision-support,
advisory, training and financial counseling services for rangeland families and communities, and enhancing
extension activities designed to encourage adoption of biodiversity conservation. Resulting benefits accrue
to industry, service providers and regional NRM bodies providing an interface between government and
communities, thus improving social outcomes. This research can help build community capacity and
resilience and help retain rangeland populations. Other social benefits flow from building capacity and
resilience, particularly enhanced social wellbeing and improved opportunities for future generations.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Type of risk
Likelihood of
occurrence
low
Likely
impact
high
Difficulty engaging
with NRM groups
and/or pastoralists
Low
Medium
Weather risk, in
particular
accessibility of
remote locations
during the wet
season
medium
low
Key member of the
team resigns,
becomes ill or leaves
the organisation
9.
Risk management strategy
There is capacity to substitute effort between the two
principal researchers. There is also capacity within
the Research Institute to at least partially replace a
departing key team member. For example, Dr Kerstin
Zander could provide input under guidance of the
remaining principal researcher. Strategies to be
considered would include recruitment of similarly
qualified personnel and (temporarily) sub-contracting
tasks. Appropriate strategies would be developed in
consultation with the project management
committee. As a last resort, revised time lines would
be negotiated if the implementation of the above
strategies was to take longer than expected
The lead researcher has long-standing good
communications with NRM groups and a track record
of research with pastoralists. While not all groups
may want to engage in the research, the pool of
potential collaborators and participants is large.
The roll-out of case study work has been designed to
account for this risk and unexpected disruptions can
be mitigated through flexibility in sequencing of case
studies.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
Page 35 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
This research addresses Question 1. Values: understanding the major drivers for maintaining biodiversity,
with focus on evaluating the intrinsic, economic and social values of biodiversity from a landholder
perspective to decide what ecosystems and functions to conserve, and how to prioritise these for
management and investment? This includes considering how biodiversity values contribute to productive
land-use such as grazing, and to other ecosystem services such as maintaining water quality, as well as
examining comparative methods for identifying landscape investment values.
Considerations focus in particular on subquestion: 1.3: What is the fairest and most cost-effective mix of
policy tools to conserve recognised biodiversity values (e.g. land acquisition, covenants, stewardship
payments, regulation, education) at both national and regional scales?
10.
Policies and Programs
The project addresses the following national level biodiversity policy questions for research:



Building and researching the national reserve system, managing Commonwealth terrestrial and
marine protected areas and effective off-reserve and ex-situ management (research issues include
identifying where these important areas are, landscape connectivity, species conservation
thresholds, and linking reserves to off-reserve conservation management).
Adopting an integrated approach to the protection and management of Australia’s natural assets
across the portfolio (research issues include managing at the ecosystem level and a better
understanding of the combined influence of public and industry sector impacts on the environment).
Progressing the biodiversity policy agenda, and raising the profile of the economic, social and
cultural importance of biodiversity (research issues include improving environmental management
through an integrated understanding of economic, social, cultural and biological knowledge).
The project also has relevance to the planning and delivery of the Caring for our Country program.
11.
DSEWPaC End Users
Social and Economic Sections, Charlie Zammit, Sean Sullivan. Strategic Assessment Branch, Carolyn
Cameron. Caring for our Country (Northern and Remote Australia theme), Peter Creaser. Caring for our
Country Qld, NT and WA state teams, Indigenous Policy Branch, Bruce Edwards. ERIN - Kate Sandford
Read-Head and Jeff Tranter.
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
Close liaison and collaboration will be maintained with researchers in the Conservation Planning Theme, in
particular Profs Bob Pressey and Natalie Stoeckl and affiliated research scientists. The different research
activities pursue different approaches and deliver complementary results, which, in combination cover a suite
of economic considerations relating to off-reserve/on-farm biodiversity conservation to inform planning and
policy development.
13.
Activities and Milestones
The activity plan for the project is outlined here:
Page 36 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Implement focus group discussions with grazier groups
and conduct contingent behaviour experiments, in
negotiated locations across the tropical savannas
Conduct data analysis
X
X
X
X
X
X
Writing: progress reports, final report
The milestones for the project are:
Year 1





Year 2





Year 3





Year 4



14.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Provide feed-back sessions with selected NRM and
landholder groups to review results and interpretation
Publications: Conference presentations; journal papers
Oct-14
X
Jul-14
X
Apr-14
X
Jan-14
X
Negotiations and communications with regional NRM
groups across N Australia; develop negotiated
methodology; obtain CDU ethics approval
Oct-13
Oct-12
X
X
X
Jul-13
Jul-12
X
X
X
Apr-13
Apr-12
X
NERP internal consultations, AG communications
Conduct literature review
Jan-13
Jan-12
X
Oct-11
X
Jul-11
X
X
Activities
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Resource Economist appointed to the project
Methodology negotiated
Approval obtained from CDU Ethics Committee
Methodology trialed
Update report delivered
Focus group meetings and choice experiments completed
Data analysis commenced
At least 1 conference paper delivered
At least 1 journal article submitted
Update report delivered
Data analysis completed
Preliminary results reported to community and discussed
At least 2 conference papers delivered
At least 2 journal papers submitted
Update report delivered
At least 2 journal papers submitted
Final report delivered
Presentation made to client
References
GREINER, R. & GREGG, D. 2011. Farmers' intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation
practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land
Use Policy, 28, 257-265.
NICHOLAS, G., PETER, K. & LAURIE, C. 2010. Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53, 317-334.
OH, C.-O., DITTON, R. B., GENTNER, B. & RIECHERS, R. 2005. A Stated Preference Choice Approach to
Understanding Angler Preferences for Management Options. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10,
173-186.
WINDLE, J., ROLFE, J., MCCOSKER, J. & LINGARD, A. 2009. A conservation auction for landscape linkage
in the southern Desert Uplands, Queensland. The Rangeland Journal, 31, 127-135.
Page 37 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 1
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Conservation Planning
1.3
Minimising the costs of biodiversity
Natalie Stoeckl
JCU
Natalie Stoeckl, Sizhong Sun
Project Completion Date:
Jul 2011
Total In-Kind Budget:
$222,722
Dec 2014
$289,525
Project Summary/ Description
This project will investigate the costs of achieving a variety of biodiversity objectives. It will collect data on
the costs of undertaking a range of activities (such as fencing, burning, monitoring or checking for the
presences of weeds or pests) that seek to promote or protect biodiversity (such as the control of weed or
feral animals, the protection of riparian zones). It will also collect data on the costs of activities undertaken
by a range of other market-based ventures (such as those associated with grazing or tourism) that are
frequently carried out by private landholders in Northern Australia.
The cost data will be analysed in manner that allows researchers to test for the presence of economies of
scale (seeking to determine if it cheaper to achieve biodiversity objectives if working on large properties than
small) and economies of scope (seeking to determine if it is cheaper to achieve multiple biodiversity
objectives simultaneously, and possibly even in conjunction with other market based objectives, than to aim
for individual objectives).
This project will thus help identify cost-effective methods of achieving singular biodiversity objectives and will
also identify opportunities for reducing the overall cost of achieving multiple biodiversity outcomes by
capitalising on economies of scope and/or scale. Information about these costs will also allow one to assess
the size of stewardship payments likely to be required to adequately compensate private land-holders for the
resources expended in promoting and protecting biodiversity.
2.
Geographic Location
Researchers need to collect data from a wide variety of enterprises, capturing a range of different sizes (to
allow one to test for economies of scale) and a range of different activities (to allow one to test for economies
of scope). Researchers also wish to consider a variety of land uses and tenures, including, but not
necessarily limited to: those which are privately owned and managed for profit (grazing, horticulture or other);
those controlled by Indigenous traditional owners (be they IPA’s or other areas); and parks – managed either
by state, territory or federal government organisations. But researchers will need the co-operation of land
owners/managers. As such, exact locations will need to be determined/ negotiated during the initial months
of project.
Nevertheless, at this stage, it seems that research efforts are likely to be concentrated in QLD (so as to
minimise the costs of collecting data), particularly in and around the Mitchell River Catchment (thus aligning
with project 1.1 and allowing researchers to capitalise on partnerships developed in previous TRaCK
projects). If it is not possible to elicit the help/cooperation of sufficient enterprises to test for economies of
scale and scope in this region, researchers will expand the geographic scope of their investigation (thus
increasing sample size).
3.
Problem Statement
The main hypotheses underlying this investigation are that:
 economies of scope are present if the cost of producing A + the cost of producing B > the cost
of producing both A and B together.
 one must undertake a variety of different activities (e.g. fencing, travelling across country) to
achieve any given objective (be it related to biodiversity or to other private objectives such as
maximising profit); and
 at least some of the activities required to achieve some objectives are likely to be
complementary to those required for other objectives (e.g. landholders use fences to prevent
stock from straying; fences can also be used to protect riparian strips).
Page 38 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
To the extent that at least some of the activities which landholders must undertake to achieve certain
objectives are complementary, economies of scope must be present, indicating that the per-unit cost of
achieving multiple objectives will be cheaper than the per-unit costs of achieving single-objectives
This project will thus test for the presence of economies (or diseconomies) of scope in biodiversity
conservation, by empirically investigating the extent to which the activities which are required to achieve a
diverse range of objectives (be they biodiversity, market-based or other) complement, or compete with, each
other.
Simplistically, it is as if this project seeks to determine if the cost of achieving a particular biodiversity
objective A + the cost of achieving another objective B is less than, equal to, or greater than the cost of
achieving objective A and B simultaneously. Somewhat less simplistically, this project seeks to identify
baskets of complementary objectives which, if pursued simultaneously, could be met at lower cost than if
pursued individually.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
During the first year, researchers will:

Survey the literature, consult with and conduct at least one focus group/workshop with leading
researchers and other key stakeholders to
a. Identify and characterize key biodiversity objectives for assessment (these objectives will be
linked to those investigated in project 1.1).
b. Identify and characterize some of the activities (e.g. pest and weed control, fire
management) that must be undertaken and the inputs/resources (e.g. labour, fencing
materials) that must be used to meet those objectives.

Survey the literature, consult with and conduct at least one focus group/workshop with private
landholders and other land managers to
a. Identify and characterize some of their key private objectives (be they market based or
other)
b. Identify and characterize some of the activities and associated inputs required to meet
those objectives.
c. Identify and characterize potentially ‘complementary’ activities and objectives

Construct a survey instrument that will allow them to assess the price, quantity (or total cost) of the
inputs required to undertake the activities necessary to meet objectives individually, and in
conjunction with other objectives.
During the second year, researchers will:
i)
Test the survey instrument in focus groups and/or interviews.
ii)
Devise a data collection process that will allow them to collect information from a broad range of land
managers.
iii)
Begin collecting data
During the third year, researchers will:
i)
Finish collecting the data
ii)
Use descriptive statistics and more sophisticated analytical techniques to explore the relationship
between the required inputs and objectives.
iii)
Use insights from (ii) to identify complementary objectives, and to assess the cost-savings that could
be achieved by combining such complementary objectives.
During the last six months of the project, researchers will:
i)
finalise publications associated with the research.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
This project will
 Strengthen networks and relationships between researchers, NRM bodies and private land-holders
in Northern Australia;
 Increase research capacity in northern Australia;
 Improve our understanding of the activities (and associated inputs) required to achieve a range of
different private and biodiversity-based objectives;
 Improve our understanding of the cost of achieving a range of different biodiversity and private
objectives;
 Identify baskets of complementary objectives;
Page 39 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan

6.
Quantify some of the potential savings that could be made by pursuing multiple, related, objectives.
Key Expected Outputs
Findings will be disseminated in a variety of ways.
Researchers will generate different printed materials, designed to suit a variety of different audiences
including
 Plain-English ‘fact sheets’ that describe the key objectives and findings of the research – largely
intended for ‘lay people’ and land-holders
 A final report that details the activities undertaken, methods, and findings of the research – largely
intended for government and NGO’s
 Journal articles – for the scientific community
Researchers will also take the opportunity to talk about the work in public forums – be they community
meetings, work-based seminars, or conferences.
7.
Expected Benefits
This project will enable end-users to identify strategies for lowering the costs of protecting and maintaining
biodiversity in Northern Australia. By identifying least-cost methods of achieving biodiversity objectives, this
project will also allow one to determine the minimum stewardship payments required to cover the true
(marginal) costs of meeting those objectives.
This is of significant benefit to Australia as a whole, since it will enable the country to either achieve more
(biodiversity) with the same budget, or to achieve the same, with a lower budget.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Loss of key staff due to
unforseen events may delay
progress
IP issues resulting from illconceived research plans
could reduce collaboration
researchers and key
Indigenous stakeholders
Extreme weather conditions
caused by unseasonable
weather may delay some
planned fieldwork activities.
Risks to personnel during
field work, especially in
remote locations
Poor or weak relationships
with key regional
stakeholders make data
collection difficult
Proposed management strategy
Relatively low risk because multiple researchers are involved with this
project, and because the larger consortium has the capacity to draw on
additional staff expertise from partner organisations. The key researcher
on this project has already demonstrated a long-term commitment to
northern Australia, and JCU has the capability to attract high quality
applicants if key positions need to be filled.
If research is conducted on Indigenous lands, it will be necessary to
negotiate IP agreements. NAILSMA is able to assist if required.
Researchers have allowed for an entire year for data collection activities
– allowing them to work ‘around’ unseasonable weather events.
JCU has detailed OHS plans and procedures covering field operations
and these will be strictly applied.
We have already established good working relationships with some
stakeholders in this region (including Traditional owners, some
pastoralists and some mining groups). Access to Indigenous lands will
be facilitated through our existing partnerships and through our Hub’s
partnership with NAILSMA.
Cultural obligations, funerals This has been factored in to the project plan – the aim being not to try to
and other activities of
‘rush’ the engagement and data collection process.
Traditional Owners in trial
sites may contribute to
delays in collecting data
Low levels of adoption and
By engaging with land-holders and other key stakeholders during the
limited uptake of research
early, planning and development phases of this work (in focus groups,
outputs by land managers
workshops and in private consultations), we hope to ensure that our work
and other end-users lead to is relevant and of interest – thus increasing the chance of adoption and
poor research outcomes
uptake.
Page 40 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
9.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
Information generated from this project, ‘feeds into’ project 1.1’s Catchment to coast planning. As such, it
contributes, indirectly, to each of the 5 NERP research questions (as per Table 1, page 12 of the final NABH
document). Moreover, a major emphasis of this project is to identify the most effective mix of activities to
conserve biodiversity on and off-reserve (Q1.3). This project will also address Q1.4, Q3.9, Q4.1, Q5.1-5.4
and Q5.6 by analysing the relative costs of pursuing different objectives under different tenures and land
uses, and the economies of scale and scope related to combinations of tools in individual areas or in
particular relative configurations. It will improve decision making on Indigenous land (Q1.6) and it will also
assist in costing and evaluating different management options (Q3.2-3.4).
10.
Policies and Programs
The project addresses the following national level biodiversity policy questions for research:



11.
Building and researching the national reserve system, managing Commonwealth terrestrial and
marine protected areas and effective off-reserve and ex-situ management (research issues include
identifying where these important areas are, landscape connectivity, species conservation
thresholds, and linking reserves to off-reserve conservation management).
Adopting an integrated approach to the protection and management of Australia’s natural assets
across the portfolio (research issues include managing at the ecosystem level and a better
understanding of the combined influence of public and industry sector impacts on the environment).
Progressing the biodiversity policy agenda, and raising the profile of the economic, social and
cultural importance of biodiversity (research issues include improving environmental management
through an integrated understanding of economic, social, cultural and biological knowledge).
DSEWPaC End Users
As noted in section 7, this project will enable end-users to identify strategies for lowering the costs of
protecting and maintaining biodiversity in Northern Australia – both on and off-reserve – taking into account
the existing patterns of land use and market activities. This information is potentially useful to any program
operating within a budget constraint, since it will enable managers to identify ways of either achieving more
with the same budget, or achieving the same amount, with a lower budget.
That said, end users who may be particularly interested in this work include:
Social and Economic Sections, Charlie Zammit, Sean Sullivan. Director of national Parks, Peter Cohcrane.
Indigenous Policy Branch, Bruce Edwards. Strategic Assessment Branch, Carolyn Cameron, Caring for our
Country – (Northern and Remote Australia theme), Peter Creaser.
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
This project will generate information that is useful by, and of itself. It will also:
 Directly contribute to the work of Bob Pressey (project 1.1) who is developing an integrated approach to
catchment to coast planning that considers multiple management requirements and multiple
management tools within a practical framework that can be easily understood and readily adopted by
stakeholders. This will be based on linked models of expanding threats, values for multiple requirements
(e.g. EPBC listed species, marine water quality), catchment runoff and water quality, multi-criteria
weighting of requirements, and the cost, feasibility and effectiveness of alternative policy tools.
Specifically, this research project will provide project 1.1 with information about the costs of achieving
multiple objectives in a terrestrial environment.
 Complement the work of Romy Greiner (project 1.2) who is investigating the social determinants
(including motivational, attitudinal, risk management and other factors) of leasehold and freehold
landholders, including the growing number of Indigenous landholders, for providing on-farm (off-reserve)
conservation; and preferences for, and likely effectiveness of, potential institutions, governance
arrangements and market-based policy instruments to facilitate off-reserve conservation.
13.
Year
Activities and Milestones
Activities
Milestone
Page 41 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
 Survey the literature, consult with and conduct at least one
(possibly two) focus groups/workshops with leading
researchers and other key stakeholders to
a. Identify and characterize key biodiversity objectives for
assessment.
b. Identify and characterize some of the activities (e.g.
pest and weed control, fire management) that must be
undertaken and the inputs/resources (e.g. labour,
fencing materials) that must be used to meet those
objectives.
 Survey the literature, consult with and conduct at least one
(possibly two) focus groups/workshops with private
landholders and other land managers to
a. Identify and characterize some of their key private
objectives (be they market based or other)
b. Identify and characterize some of the activities and
associated inputs required to meet those objectives.
c. Identify and characterize potentially ‘complementary’
activities and objectives
 Construct a survey instrument that will allow them to assess
the price, quantity (or total cost) of the inputs required to
undertake the activities necessary to meet objectives
individually, and in conjunction with other objectives.
 Test the survey instrument in focus groups and/or
interviews.
 Devise a data collection process that will allow them to
collect information from a broad range of land managers.
 Begin collecting data
 Finish collecting the data
 Use descriptive statistics and more sophisticated analytical
techniques to explore the relationship between the required
inputs and objectives.
 Use insights from (ii) to identify complementary objectives,
and to assess the cost-savings that could be achieved by
combining such complementary objectives.
 finalise publications associated with the research.
 Draft Survey Instrument
Complete
 Some of the data
collected, and
preliminary (largely
descriptive) analysis of
that subset of data
complete.
 Data collection and
analysis complete.
 Final report and
publications complete.
Page 42 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme 1:
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Planning and sustainable financing for biodiversity conservation
1.4
Carbon and biodiversity outcomes from pastoral lands
Alaric Fisher
NT DNRETAS
Alaric Fisher, Leigh Hunt, Anna Richards
Project Completion Date:
August 2011
July 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$445,286
$600,421
Project Summary/ Description
The development of national and international markets for carbon provide opportunities for diversification of
land use across many tenures, including pastoral lands in northern Australia. If management systems on
pastoral lands are modified to deliberately improve carbon stocks, there may be attendant benefits for
biodiversity (e.g. associated with a reduction in total grazing pressure and changes in vegetation structure
and composition). Indeed, concurrent improvements in biodiversity may be deliberately sought to increase
the value of carbon credits, particularly where traded in voluntary markets. Conversely, it is feasible that
there will be perverse biodiversity outcomes from management to improve carbon (e.g. fire suppression may
disadvantage species requiring relatively frequent burns).
There remain substantial knowledge gaps that limit our ability to predict and validate carbon outcomes from
changes in pastoral management, and to ensure that these may be linked to positive biodiversity outcomes.
For both tropical savanna and arid biomes, there is little hard data on carbon stocks within many soils and
vegetation types, or for areas in different condition states within a landtype, which inhibits estimation of
carbon resources across broader landscapes, and robust modelling of the outcomes of various management
scenarios. While there is information on the relationship between pastoral land condition and biodiversity
from previous studies in scattered locations, these data have not been synthesised for major northern
Australian biomes, or explicitly linked to predicted ecosystem changes under management for carbon
outcomes.
This project will develop case studies at up to three locations spanning a broad environmental range in the
Northern Territory, and investigate key questions relating to the baseline assessment of carbon resources;
methods for monitoring and validating change arising from management intervention; and opportunities for
biodiversity co-benefit from carbon management. In conjunction with other projects in this theme this will
strengthen the evidence base for policy development and management decisions relating to carbon
management, particularly as a mechanism for securing conservation outcomes.
2.
Geographic Location
Pastoral lands in the Northern Territory. Study areas will be finalised in the early stages of the project, based
on meeting sampling requirements (target ecosystems with a clear contrast in land condition), incorporating
the broad climate gradient within northern Australian rangelands, and landholder support. This is likely to
include at least one RM Williams property (Labelle/Welltree) where management for carbon outcomes is
being considered.
3.
Problem Statement
There are emerging opportunities for achieving economic return, positive carbon outcomes and biodiversity
co-benefits from changing management of some pastoral lands in northern Australia. CSIRO is currently
modelling carbon dynamics for all IBRAs in northern Australia where grazing by domestic livestock occurs,
with the aim of ascertaining which areas have the greatest potential to improve carbon stocks under
alternative grazing and fire management strategies.
Whilst the models appear to perform well, a major limitation with the work is the availability of data on actual
carbon stocks for various regions and management regimes to verify model output. There is a critical need to
obtain such data from several locations across the rainfall gradient to allow validation of model output and
extrapolation to other sites.
Page 43 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Similarly, there has been little evidence-based prediction or modelling of biodiversity outcomes that may be
associated with deliberate management to improve carbon stocks in tropical savannas. In particular, it is
important to ensure that there are not perverse outcomes for biodiversity of such management change.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
Case study locations will be selected that represent the primary North - South environmental gradient
through northern Australian rangelands, and where clear contrasts in land condition and adequate evidence
of long-term management history is available. Research will focus on selected land-types within these
locations, selected as being likely to be most suitable for management for carbon outcomes.
Within this stratification, a space-for-time substitution approach will be used to select sample sites that are
representative of ‘start’ and potential ‘finish’ endpoints of adjusting management regimes. Scenarios will be
determined through discussion with land managers combined with published information and expert opinion
on the trajectory of landscape change, but this will essentially equate to a comparison between matched
sites currently in “poor” and “good” condition.
Where necessary, selection of sample sites will be assisted by targeted mapping of vegetation and condition
(bare ground cover) from remote-sensed imagery. Assessment at each sample site will include:
- above-ground carbon stocks (standing vegetation and litter)
- soil carbon stocks
- biodiversity (including birds, reptiles, mammals, plants, ants)
Sample methods will generally follow existing standard methods but will also consider existing and proposed
verification standards, and will be finalised via an expert workshop at the start of the project. Real data from
study sites will be tested against model outputs from a variety of current models (including FULLCAM,
Century, Flames).
In the first year of the project, assessment of potential biodiversity outcomes will be developed from a review
of published and unpublished data from previous studies linking biodiversity and land condition or grazing
management history in northern Australian rangelands and refined through an expert workshop. Biodiversity
data collected from during this project will be used to assess the validity of predicted responses.
Sampling during the first year will concentrate on a single location, and the project will be reviewed at the
end of the first year. Based on an initial analysis of year 1 data, the review will consider whether sampling in
year 2 and 3 is more usefully conducted at more locations and/or more land-types (providing greater
generalisablity) or at a greater intensity within fewer locations/ landtypes (providing greater resolution).
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
The short-term outcomes sought are significant increase in the understanding of carbon stocks within
representative land types in northern Australia, and securing hard data for use in the parameterisation and
testing of models for carbon dynamics. Similarly there will be improved understanding of the response of
biota across contrasting condition states.
The medium-term outcome sought is improved capacity for evidence-based planning and policy
development relating to management of land in northern rangelands for carbon and biodiversity benefit.
The long-term outcomes sought are positive environmental and economic benefits in northern rangelands,
flowing from productive engagement with carbon and biodiversity markets.
6.
Key Expected Outputs
Key expected outputs include technical and scientific reports detailing assessment of carbon stocks in
selected land types in northern Australia, reliable modelling of carbon dynamics under land management
scenarios, and evidence-based prediction of biodiversity outcomes form these scenarios.
7.
Expected Benefits
The key benefit is to provide an improved understanding of likely carbon and biodiversity outcomes from
potential management change, which can then be incorporated into economic cost-benefit analyses, policy
development and tool to support land management planning at a variety of scales.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Page 44 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Possible risks
Restricted access to sites
and poor support from land
managers
Budget blow-outs
Recruitment issues
Inconclusive results
Research results are
impractical to implement on
broad-scale
9.
Proposed management strategy
The project will be developed in collaboration with RM Williams
Agricultural Company, which has a strong interest to carbon
management and will facilitate access to sites on at least one property in
northern Australia. Project staff also have well-established links with the
pastoral community in many parts of the Northern Territory and the noncontentious nature of the project means the potential for conflict about
access is reduced.
The budget is fixed, so blow-out will not be tolerated; and expenditure will
be regularly and carefully scrutinised by Hub administrative staff.
Additional (non-NERP) funding may be sought to bolster, extend or
complement this study.
The project will receive some operational support through a new parttime fixed-term position. Recruitment of staff often presents challenges
in northern Australia, especially for non-permanent positions. To reduce
risks of employment delays, recruitment processes will be commenced
as soon as possible after project funding is received.
One area of uncertainty is the sample intensity required to achieve the
required precision in estimation of carbon stocks (e.g. arising from spatial
variability at local scales). The review after year 1 will specifically address
this issue and project design will be adjusted accordingly.
Sampling will inevitably be restricted to a small number of locations and
land-types. However, the use of data from this project to assess existing
models will help validate extrapolation to wider landscapes. Information
on likely biodiversity outcomes from carbon management will also be
synthesised from existing data and expert opinion relating to a range of
land-types in northern Australia.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
The project will address the following NERP national-level Policy Questions for Research:
1.3 What is the fairest and most cost-effective mix of policy tools to conserve recognised biodiversity
values (e.g. land acquisition, covenants, stewardship payments, regulation, education) at both national
and regional scales?
1.5 What are the carbon sequestration benefits associated with management interventions designed
primarily to improve the biodiversity value of degraded native vegetation (e.g. fencing out stock)?
2.1 How can we improve our capacity to understand, monitor and evaluate ecosystem function/health,
including by using predictive models/tools, to ensure Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems?
5.1 How can biodiversity markets integrate with markets for other ecosystem services, such as water
provision and carbon capture and storage?
The project also addresses a number of priorities and outcomes in Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy, including those under 1.1. Mainstreaming biodiversity; 1.3 Enhancing strategic investments and
partnerships; 2.1Protecting biodiversity.
10.
Policies and Programs
Major portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy
 Development of predictive models
 Stewardship Program
 National Reserve System
Minor portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 Terrestrial NARP
 Evaluate the collective effectiveness of existing and proposed management strategies at the
landscape-scale to achieve multi-program/sectoral/jurisdictional outcomes for biodiversity and
ecosystems
 Caring for our Country – planning and delivery of program and Northern and remote Australia theme
Page 45 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
11.
DSEWPaC End Users
The project addresses a range of DSEWPaC interests and responsibilities, including research and science
management (Parks & Biodiversity Science - Judy West), the implementation of conservation policy
(Biodiversity Conservation – Charlie Zammit, National Reserve System (NRS) - Tim Bond), indigenous
programs (Indigenous Policy– Bruce Edwards), Caring for our Country Northern Australia interests (Qld, NT
and WA state teams), sustainable agriculture (Grants and Sustainable Agriculture - Paul McNamara) and
land care and regional delivery (Landcare and Regional Delivery Improvement - Michelle Lauder).
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
Within the North Australian Hub, this project has a very close link to Projects 1.2 (Socio-economic tools to
support biodiversity planning), and outputs form the project can also be incorporated into catchment to
coastal planning (project 1.1).
13.
Year 1
Activities and Milestones


obtain all necessary research and ethics approvals;
complete project design, select study areas finalise sampling methods (expert
workshop);
 recruit as required;
 undertake vegetation mapping at Property 1
 select sites at Property 1
 undertake above- and below- ground carbon sampling at Property 1
 undertake biodiversity sampling at Property 1
 analysis of samples collected in Year 1, and initial data analysis
 assessment of potential biodiversity outcomes through synthesis and review of
existing data, and expert workshop
 progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
 project review and decision about continuation, and modification
Year 2*
 undertake vegetation mapping at Property 2
 select sites at Property 2
 undertake above- and below- ground sampling at Property 2
 undertake biodiversity sampling at Property 2
 analysis of samples collected in Year 2
 initial modeling of management outcomes
 develop collaboration with project 1.2 for cost-benefit analyses
 progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
Year 3*
 undertake vegetation mapping at Property 3
 select sites at Property 3
 undertake above- and below- ground carbon sampling at Property 3
 undertake biodiversity sampling at Property 3
 analysis of samples collected in Year 3
 modeling of carbon dynamics using data from all sites
 refine assessment of potential biodiversity outcomes through data analysis and
expert workshop
 collaboration with project 1.2 for cost-benefit analyses of management scenarios
 final reporting; and other appropriate communication products
* Indicative activities, but dependent on the outcome of project review after Year 1. This may include more
intensive sampling at Property 1 and 2 as an alternative to new sampling at Property 3.
Page 46 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 2
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Biodiversity Values and Indigenous Livelihoods
2.1
Indigenous livelihoods
Sue Jackson and Jon Altman
CSIRO and ANU
Jon Altman, Sue Jackson, Marcus Barber, Nic Gambold
Project Completion Date:
Sep 2012
Dec 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$853,774
$659,900
Project Summary/ Description
This project will support Indigenous biodiversity management and improve understanding of the full-range of
private and public benefits derived from Indigenous community-based natural resource management,
including customary management practices (e.g. local knowledge) and customary use of biological
resources. The research team will develop methods for measuring economic, social and cultural benefits for
prioritising landscape investment funding to complement other methods for demonstrating environmental
benefits/outcomes. We will identify incentives, new sources of funding, information and support required to
improve current community-based practice to build more resilient Indigenous management institutions. This
will be achieved through collaboration with researchers working on Indigenous NRM projects to build a
common framework for evaluating benefits and through direct assistance to groups to develop or adapt
management plans.
2.
Geographic Location
The locations for case study research will be confirmed during closer consultation with groups who have
expressed interest in joining the NERP project as partners. Indigenous partners are likely to include the
Kowanyama Land and Natural Resource Management Office on Cape York and the Djelk and Yirralka
Ranger Groups of Arnhem Land. Other groups requiring assistance with management planning will be
identified during the first six months of the project.
3.
Problem Statement
Indigenous groups undertake a portfolio of activities and, in the Northern Territory at least, are working on all
major cultural, environmental and biodiversity issues, including fire management, feral animal and weed
control, biodiversity monitoring, and threatened species protection. Indigenous landscape management
provides considerable national benefit and also offers the potential for allied social, cultural and health
benefits, although these are yet to be rigorously measured and frameworks for integrating values, and
evaluating benefits and costs have not been developed. Increased investment in biodiversity conservation on
the Indigenous estate presents development opportunities, however these may not be fully realised without
demonstrating returns on investment (across multiple dimensions).
The research will test approaches and methods that can address this knowledge gap and improve the
prioritisation of conservation resources and land management effort. It will assist in resource allocation,
regulatory, planning and management decisions at a number of scales.
The research will also improve understanding of the factors influencing and very often constraining
Indigenous natural resource management. The current institutional landscape is complex, characterised by
ethnic and linguistic diversity, different state legal systems and historical experiences. Across the north there
is a spectrum of Indigenous land and water management activity, differing degrees of engagement with nonIndigenous management systems and varying capacity within community organisations. There are also
different land management models – some groups are focused on ranger activities, others are establishing a
wider capacity to integrate land management, fee-for service business activity, research, cultural resource
management etc. A variety of land tenure regimes account for a significant degree of variation in the control
Aboriginal people can assert over their wetlands and water sources in northern Australia Indigenous
responses to land and water management pressures have been diverse, ranging from leaseback of
protected areas to government conservation agencies and self-declaration of inalienable freehold land to be
included in the conservation estate as Indigenous Protected Areas, to the small-scale community activities
undertaken by Indigenous Ranger groups. The Indigenous natural and cultural resource management sector
is growing in capacity and it has the potential to increase the concomitant social, cultural and economic
benefits and, in doing so, address the Government’s current “Closing the Gap” targets.
Page 47 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Notwithstanding rapid growth, the sector remains under-resourced and under-valued and is therefore
vulnerable to inappropriate policy settings and policy changes. Programs such as Working on Country are
new and evolving; its effectiveness will unfold slowly and community attitudes will similarly develop
incrementally. Policy makers and program managers may need to be open and responsive to change if new
evidence indicates that reform is required.
A need remains for good research on governance requirements that place the NRM group within a wider
community and policy perspective and reflects the self-governance aspirations of many of the groups.
Research that recognizes multiple pressures common to remote regional economic development, including
human capacity constraints, is needed. Similar questions faced the community arts sector in the 1980s for
example: what are the pre-conditions and requirements for coordination and leadership?
The project will also address the need to provide Indigenous organisations with a sound knowledge base
from which to make informed decisions. The project will work with groups at various stages in the adaptive
planning cycle to ensure that orthodox management approaches and tools are suited to Indigenous contexts
and provide the knowledge to improve their capacity to respond to practical management problems.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting are essential components of adaptive resource management and many
government funded land management and conservation programs are looking for methods to improve the
rigour of community-based management. Few groups are currently collecting much socio-economic
information and this is a challenge, particularly for groups seeking multiple goals. One group, Djelk Rangers,
are counting trips to protect sites and undertaking condition assessments and the Kowanyama Land and
Natural Resource Management Office is conducting surveys of aquatic resource use. According to one
group (Kowanyama) the extent to which groups operate in an integrated manner affects their success,
defined in terms of the degree of local community support and acceptance and their viability as
organisations.
Some groups, (including Yugul Mangi Land and Sea Rangers and Waanyi Garawa Rangers), will have basic
requirements to undertake first generation plans and build local governance structures. Assistance will be offered to
such groups to develop management plans for IPAs (including marine) and establish monitoring frameworks. Other
groups, including the project partners already identified (Gumurr Marthakal Rangers, Djelk, Yiralka and Kowanyama)
have previously undertaken management planning and so part of this project is likely to focus on improving the
management process, increasing the adaptive capacity of groups to embrace new information, more reflective to internal
review, and therefore more accountable to local constituencies and stakeholders.
Many groups have expressed an interest in learning from their experiences, which can be thought of as a product of a
lengthy social learning process (Sinnamon pers comm.), and in addition, discussing lessons internally. This project aims
to assist in that process of review and reflection. Methods to improve biodiversity management will include review and
refinement of MERI (Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement) plans on the basis of improvements in
monitoring techniques (i.e. broader use of cyber-trackers), increased focus on traditional owner identified outcomes and
uptake of new (best) practices (i.e. as identified by scientists).
An important challenge for the well-established groups is to prepare the next generation of land managers
and plan for succession. Ranger groups provide a model for employment and their experience is relied upon
for teaching and training, as well as youth diversion activity. The success of education programs and
succession planning are also linked to the stability and robustness of local governance arrangements. Such
groups also need diverse sources of income to protect their independence and ensure resilience in the face
of changing policy priorities. Promotional and communication products may be of use to groups seeking to
build alliances and relationships with potential funders and supporters.
Information obtained from the project will contribute to the needs of the ‘mature’ groups while providing
insights and lessons to groups at a less developed stage (e.g Archer River under NAILSMA’s project). The
project will draw out lessons from recent history and experiences that could be relevant to newly formed or
forming groups, while being mindful of local differences and priorities. Information on the political success of
groups in advocating alternative development models will be of interest to the researchers and potential
Indigenous partners.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
The project consists of four related activities that will:
(i) assist Indigenous landholders to develop adaptive management frameworks to meet community
aspirations and identify natural and cultural resource targets, many of which are consistent with
DEWHA’s Working on Country and Indigenous Protected Area objectives, M&E and reporting
systems;
Page 48 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
(ii)
apply innovative approaches to the evaluation of social, cultural, environmental and economic
benefits from Indigenous management;
(iii) assess governance requirements for a sustainable Indigenous NRM sector; and
(iv) investigate and promote opportunities to overcome the sector’s current investment deficit.
Participatory, action-based research methods will involve Indigenous communities in the design, execution
and evaluation of research. This would include the training of Indigenous researchers and the adoption of
effective mechanisms for the dissemination and transfer of research findings.
Activity (i) will be undertaken primarily by Nic Gambold and will initially focus on Waanyi Garawa, Gumurr
Marthakal and Yugul Mangi Ranger groups. It will result in IPA Management Plans, associated MERI plans,
and group capacity necessary for implementation. Participatory IPA planning includes identification,
interpretation and assessment of new and apt activities, projects or programs for uptake by Indigenous ranger
groups. Establishment of appropriate governance structures (principally, landowner representative IPA
Management Committees) and negotiated Land Use Agreements (covering core IPA management activities)
are also significant aspects of the IPA planning process.
Projects with both Yugul Mangi and Gumurr Marthakal Ranger groups (Ngukurr and Galiwinku Arnhem Land)
seek to establish collaborative plans for Sea Country management with a view to marine IPA declaration.
Broad stakeholder consultation and negotiated planning are fundamental to these projects because they cover
marine areas where indigenous rights are non-exclusive. The project may assist the traditional owners of the
Crocodile Islands (Maringa Ocean Patrol).
The wider project team will investigate whether a regional planning approach could help new groups in areas
where relatively little assistance has previously been provided (e.g the NT Gulf). CAEPR’s team are working
with groups who are using IPA funds to undertake a regional management plan for the Nicholson River,
where there are five Aboriginal-owned pastoral stations. Such groups might like to establish a country plan
before they go to DSEWPaC for IPA or WOC funding, for example. It is possible that this project could assist
communities to produce a regional economic development strategy and might help with government and
private sector funding.
With respect to activity (ii), firm plans cannot be made until Indigenous partners have contributed to the
research design. Local communities and organizations will need to define the objectives for their programs,
their expectations and perceived benefits and any other issues and dimensions of their work to be evaluated
(including potentially negative impacts). It is therefore not yet possible for this project team to identify the
variables to be evaluated, nor to outline the methods to be applied. Potential direct benefits include providing
access to country, fulfilling obligations and responsibilities under customary law, generating well-being,
providing role models for children and other community members, building capacity and training staff for
work in other sectors. Some of these benefits may have trade-offs (e.g. increased road access may have a
negative impact on biodiversity) and understanding these will be important to management planning. This
potential relates to the design of appropriate performance assessment methods for the ‘ranger group’ model
to ascertain whether this way of doing NRM is meeting the broader environmental, economic and cultural
aspirations of indigenous peoples.
The research will need to be critical in framing the questions, and may choose to for example, research any
negative aspects of Indigenous NRM. There have been changes as a result of new programs and new
activities, are they all positive? What aspects may people wish to address or modify? (e.g. have spending
patterns changed with employment and what are the health effects, gender relations, generational effects,
pressure on key individuals, burn-out from full-time work). Such an approach will require that sufficient
attention is given to the context in interpreting issues and balancing the relative weight of costs and benefits.
The research could explore local interpretations of the costs and benefits, as well as local responses to any
negative issues e.g. capturing the discourse by identifying themselves as ‘rayndjas’ with different objectives
and values to non-Indigenous rangers.
As a first step, the project team will need to ascertain what information the groups need to help them reflect,
learn and improve their practice and what kind of evaluation will be useful?
Information may be generated at a number of scales and for multiple audiences reflecting the variety of
beneficiaries from Indigenous NRM e.g. Kowanyama has requested some form of assessment of their role in
wider regional debates about land use and development for the Gulf/Cape York area for close to 30 years.
Conscious that their advocacy, alliances, strategic plans and on ground management are of benefit to the
wider Australian public, there is a need to think about researching and reporting in diverse ways. In such a
case, non-Indigenous beneficiaries could be interviewed for insight into the value and benefit of the
Kowanyama approach. Other groups may wish to identify a more localized group of beneficiaries (e.g. those
Page 49 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
people in the community who hunt and fish, who senior custodians with responsibility to key sites threatened
by environmental pressures).
This activity will likely employ a range of quantitative and qualitative methods to ‘take stock’ of group
activities, impacts and benefits. The annual reports of ranger groups, some facilitated by the ANU’s People
on Country Program, are proving very popular and could be considered as a means of assisting other groups
to reflect and change practices where necessary. They are internally useful and generate pride in
achievements. Groups face the need to analyse the large amount of data that is now collected and annual
reports can be one impetus for this. Links will be made to the NERP Monitoring theme in any discussions
about indicators.
In the first quarter of the 2011/12 financial year, the project team will hold a workshop with participating
Indigenous groups and researchers to identify the variables to be evaluated and to develop a common
framework for evaluation.
Subject to consent from current partners, the research on governance (Activity (iii)) will be undertaken in the
same locations as the evaluation activity. Drawing on literature on Indigenous governance and adaptive
governance, the project will generate institutional descriptions and analyse barriers and impediments. The
governance component might include an examination of the disjuncture between regional development
policy, programs and funding and NRM and the critical role of a strong community group, such as
Bawinanga Aboriginal Council, to either NRM planning and management or regional economic development
planning. Governance research will be drawn upon in the IPA planning activities in (i) above.
Activity (iv) will involve investigation of the economic potential of environmental services. Although payment
for environmental services will only be a part of any development solution for remote Indigenous
communities it is important on two counts. First, there are few opportunities available for market engagement
in such contexts and so returns from provision of environmental services constitute rare opportunity for
employment that accords with local aspirations. Second, such activity articulates well with other sectors of
the hybrid economy reflecting sectoral inter-dependencies and regular occupational shifts across market,
state and customary sectors. It is critically important in assessing development options for remote
communities to explore how the environmental services sector might be expanded while ensuring a diversity
of funders to reduce risk and a ready pool of skilled labor to ensure sustainability and inter-generational
transfer of Indigenous knowledge and resource management expertise.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes









6.
Methods for measuring social, cultural and economic benefits to assist in generating and prioritising
landscape investment funding
Methods to inform the development of incentive mechanisms
Increased efficacy of Indigenous resource management strategies and actions
Improved understanding of Indigenous service provision and perspectives of offsets and other
incentives for biodiversity conservation, including market-based instruments
Holistic consideration of Indigenous values and management aspirations in conservation planning
and biodiversity management
Increased investments in Indigenous biodiversity management and cultural resource management
Institutional descriptions and understanding
Enhanced Indigenous capacity for biodiversity management and more resilient Indigenous
management institutions
Greater awareness of the benefits of biodiversity management to Indigenous social and economic
outcomes
Key Expected Outputs
Outputs include:



Explicit cultural resource management targets consistent with DEWHA’s Working on Country and
Indigenous Protected Area Program
Adaptive management plans including monitoring and evaluation plans for indigenous land
management activities
Products and publications that identify incentives/resources, new sources of funding, information and
support that are needed to improve current community-based practice (e.g. prospectus for
investment funding under off-set programs)
Page 50 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan

7.
Research and general community publications reporting results (e.g. journal articles, newsletters,
DVDs)
Expected Benefits
The project will attempt to improve the capacity of Aboriginal land owners and managers to respond to
environmental threats and in doing so, meet socio-economic objectives. Insights and evidence relating to
ways of improving resource governance will contribute to departmental policy and program development.
The outcomes from the case study research will be applicable to the extensive areas under Indigenous
management in northern Australia.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Support from Indigenous
partners and community
consent will be critical to
the success of the project
Risks to personnel during
field work, especially in
remote locations
Loss of staff
9.
Proposed management strategy
Managing the risk will require a considerable amount of effort and
resources from all components of the project. The project approach is
participatory, therefore consultation will be a high priority and the major
focus of the initial 12 months. The project will be working in areas where
there are already established relationships with Indigenous
organisations.
There are OHS issues relating to field research in this region and this
may restrict some field activities. All partners have detailed OHS plans
and procedures covering field operations and these will be strictly
applied.
Key researchers have already demonstrated a long-term commitment to
northern Australia. All partners have the capability to attract high quality
applicants if key positions need to be filled, and some (eg. CSIRO) have
some capacity to move staff to fill positions.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
In most regions of north Australia, where the Indigenous population experiences multiple sources of socio-economic
disadvantage with limited opportunities to participate in mainstream economic activity, natural and cultural resource
management has significant potential to generate economic value in ways that are consistent with cultural
prerogatives. This potential was recognised by the North Australia Land and Water Taskforce. The emerging and
growing Indigenous natural and cultural resource management sector remains severely under-resourced and undervalued, and is therefore particularly vulnerable to inappropriate policy settings and frequent policy changes. Remote
area conservation management also needs to account for the diversity of Indigenous perspectives, the complexity of
customary governance institutions and significant financial and human resource capacity constraints.
The theme will make a significant contribution to supporting sustainable management of natural resources and the
environment within Indigenous estates. It will target Indigenous IPAs, National Parks and areas of high significance
to Indigenous people and thereby recognise ‘the traditional association of Indigenous people with aspects of
biodiversity conservation’. Indigenous values relating to water resources will be particularly relevant to any future
water allocation planning.
The project will address the following questions:
 Q 1.6 How can the management of biodiversity values of the indigenous estate by indigenous custodians be
improved upon, and water incentives, resources, information and support are needed to achieve this?
 Q 1.3 What is the fairest and most effective mix of policy tools to conserve recognised biodiversity values?
 Q 3.9 How can the different threats to biodiversity be prioritised for management and investment
purposes, and how can cumulative threats be assessed?
 Q 5 Biodiversity markets. Improve the understanding of conservation incentives by revealing Indigenous
perceptions of offset schemes.
10.
Policies and Programs
By focusing on Indigenous NRM and livelihoods, the project will assist the Department to ‘recognise the
traditional association of Indigenous people with aspects of biodiversity conservation’ and ‘to ensure the
continued contribution of traditional knowledge’ (Biodiversity policy questions for research). The research
aims to advance the biodiversity policy agenda, and ‘raise the profile of the economic, social and cultural
importance of biodiversity (research issues include improving environmental management through an
integrated understanding of economic, social, cultural and biological knowledge)’.
Page 51 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
It aligns with the National Biodiversity Strategy and will address the research needs of the following key
policy areas and programs within the Department:




11.
Indigenous Protected Area Program
Working on Country Indigenous Ranger Program
Heritage Values
The project will be working with groups seeking the protection of places of cultural significance
DSEWPaC End Users
The project addresses DSEWPaC interests and responsibilities under the IPA program (Bruce Rose) and
Working on Country program (Fiona Fraser) within the Indigenous Policy Branch (Bruce Edwards). The
MERI component of the project is of interest to the Communications and Reporting Branch (Carol Cribb), in
the Land and Coasts Division. Other end users include ERIN (Kate Sandford Read-Head and Jeff Tranter).
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
The project is strongly linked to theme four (monitoring) and may link to theme one (conservation planning).
13.
Activities and Milestones

Year 1 Milestones
1.
Communication Strategy
developed – Dec 2011
2. Research agreements with
participating communities
finalized – Dec 2012
3. Ethics approval in place –
Dec 2012
4. Framework for evaluating
benefits from Indigenous
NRM – March 2012
5. Revised MERI plan for
Gumurr Marthakal - June
2012
6. Draft IPA PoM for Waanyi
Garawa project – June
2012
7. Produce project newsletter
(#1)










Year 2 Milestones
1. Report on progress
towards MERI plans for
Waanyi Garawa and Yugul
Mangi – Dec 2012
2. MERI Plan for Waanyi
Garawa - June 2013

Finalise selection of field sites for all projects in consultation
with SEWPAC and Indigenous communities (CSIRO, ANU
and Gambold)
Identify and retain two indigenous co-researchers for each of
two projects in Activity (i) (Gambold)
Commence negotiation of research agreements and submit
ethics applications (CSIRO and ANU)
Develop project communication strategy (CSIRO)
Gap analysis of existing socio-economic literature and data to
inform evaluation of costs and benefits of Indigenous NRM,
especially the literature on socio-economic benefits of
‘mainstream’ stewardship projects (CSIRO and ANU)
Working with selected case-study regions, identify for socioeconomic research: (a) beneficial activities and multiple
community development objectives and (b) framework for
evaluating benefits (CSIRO and ANU)
Identify and review (by scientists, Indigenous and other
stakeholders) a testable framework for integration of multiple
biodiversity values in Indigenous-driven and collaborative
conservation planning for Gumurr Marthakal (Gambold)
Commence new data collection for socio-economic research
and scope governance research (ANU and CSIRO)
Identify and review (by scientists, Indigenous and other
stakeholders) a testable framework for integration of multiple
biodiversity values in Indigenous-driven and collaborative
conservation planning for Waanyi Garawa & Yugul Mangi
(Gambold)
Complete draft IPA Plan of Management for one group,
incorporating adaptive conservation management methods
addressing both landowner targets and specific biodiversity
objectives (Gambold)
Identify and review (by scientists, Indigenous and public
stakeholders) a testable framework for integration of multiple
biodiversity values in Indigenous-driven and collaborative
conservation planning for Waanyi Garawa (Gambold)
Finalise selection of additional project field sites in
consultation with SEWPAC and Indigenous communities
(CSIRO, ANU and Gambold).
Page 52 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
3. Draft report on benefits of
Indigenous NRM and
governance arrangements
4. Draft IPA Plan for Yugul
Mangi Project (SE Arnhem
Land)
5. Interim Report on
selection of 2 additional
project sites – June 2013





Year 3 Milestones

1. Produce Project
newsletter(#2)
2. Report on progress
towards sea country
planning with Gumurr
Marthakal – Dec 2013
3. MERI plan for Yugul Mangi
(SE Arnhem Land) IPA Dec 2013
4. Complete Draft Sea
Country Management Plan
incl. DSEWPaC accepted
MERI Plan – - June 2014
Year 4 Milestones

1. Final Sea Country
Management Plan inc. MERI
Plan for one project
2. Second Plan completed either Draft Sea Country
Management Plan or IPA
incl. DSEWPaC accepted
MERI Plan for second group
3. Final project report on
benefits of Indigenous NRM
and governance
arrangements
4. Publications
5. Final project newsletter






Ongoing evaluation of benefits from Indigenous NRM (ANU
and CSIRO)
Indentify beneficiaries from Indigenous NRM and conduct
interviews (ANU and CSIRO)
Report on mid-term progress in evaluating benefits and
describing governance arrangements (ANU and CSIRO)
Assess establishment of Djelk and Yirralka IPAs, sustainability
of WoC employment, governance robustness and
management training and succession; in post-NTER and post
CDEP policy environment (ANU)
Assess establishment of Kowanyama joint management
arrangements, sustainability of WoC employment, governance
robustness and management training and succession; in post
CDEP policy environment and in light of Wild Rivers and other
relevant Qld environment policy (CSIRO).
Complete data collection for socio-economic research and
begin data analysis and interpretation
Identify and review (by scientists, Indigenous and public
stakeholders) a testable framework for integration of multiple
biodiversity values in Indigenous-driven and collaborative
conservation planning for Gumurr Marthakal Marine IPA
Complete Meri plan for Yugul Mangi IPA (SE Arnhem Land)
Assist partners with business planning for sustainability;
explore innovative means to generate income from NRM
including range of climate change related options (ANU and
CSIRO)
Identify and review (by scientists, Indigenous and public
stakeholders) a testable framework for integration of multiple
biodiversity values in Indigenous-driven and collaborative
conservation planning with second marine IPA group or landbased IPA (e.g. Fish River).
Finalise reports on benefits and costs of Indigenous NRM and
governance arrangements
Provide final reports to stakeholders and discuss next steps
for sustainability in workshops; assess significance of PES for
stakeholders 4 years on and analyse opportunities and
constraints observed during project window 2011-2014 (ANU
and CSIRO)
Finalise any products of use to Indigenous partners to develop
business options (ANU and CSIRO).
Page 53 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme 2:
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Biodiversity values and Indigenous Livelihoods
2.2
Research to support Indigenous NRM and Livelihoods
Joe Morrison
NAILSMA
TBA
Project Completion Date:
Aug 2011
June 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$487,346
$nil
Project Summary/ Description
NERP 2.2 will develop tools and research partnerships to provide community based and scientifically robust
natural resource management that supports both Indigenous livelihoods and resource sustainability within a
catchment area of the tropical north of Australia.
The work builds on existing work to further
 establish governance structures for decision making
 research interests for Indigenous livelihoods that support biodiversity outcomes (eg Land Trust area
providing secure Indigenous tenure, national park supporting environmental services, wetlands
supporting partnerships for prioritising land use and protection areas
 water and carbon market potential
 interests in integrating innovative tools with Indigenous knowledge toward sustainable land
management and use practices
2.
Geographic Location
This proposal supports community identified aspirations in the Archer River Basin and relevant hinterland in
western Cape York, Queensland, including areas under TRaCK and NAILSMA Carbon projects that will be
key research foci.
3.
Problem Statement
The expanding area of bio-diverse landscapes under active Indigenous management presents not only an
unprecedented opportunity to manage and monitor biodiversity but to earn an income and generate
livelihood and other co-benefits. A variety of policies and programs are directed at Indigenous ranger led
conservation (eg IPAs and WOC) with an increasing interest in assessing and monitoring co-benefits (see
Project 2.1). Significant NRM based income opportunities (such as from PES and markets for carbon and
biodiversity credits) will be transformative of the local socio-cultural environment and local land managers
(whether or not associated with ranger groups or programs such as above) are needing to develop their own
best practice criteria and mechanisms for managing change as they develop NRM opportunities.
Project 2.2 will use the Archer River case study area and local NRM projects to examine livelihood benefits
and develop local measures and monitoring frameworks from a ‘ground up’ perspective. This participatory
action research a) aims to empower local Indigenous land managers by b) helping them generate and work
with their own best practice criteria and information resources which will c) inform local project management
and provide important tools for ongoing assessment of their projects against their socio-cultural values and
aspirations and d) support a universal biodiversity and social benchmarking framework. This will compliment
Theme 2.1 and support biodiversity conservation research, monitoring and management by strengthening
Indigenous engagement and long term management capacity.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
In brief, Project 2.2 will undertake a participatory action - based research approach to:
 Investigate and facilitate project information and communications needs;
 investigate culturally appropriate land use activities that support biodiversity values;
 through participatory process map multiple land use interests and issues;
 workshop NRM related values and aspirations, particularly with regard to existing water management
and emissions abatement opportunities;
Page 54 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan



assess infrastructure needs to support implementation (skills, services, natural and cultural resources,
governance structures);
develop biodiversity and livelihood targets and a practical local benchmarking framework; and
examine co-benefit prospects, monitoring, evaluation and reporting needs particularly regarding
development of water and carbon projects (eg to suit CCBA or future ‘Indigenous Carbon’ project
accreditation requirements).
To do this, in the first year a part time project coordinator will be employed to implement the delivery of the
project by generally engaging research and other partnerships, communication networks, and community
participation and delivering the overall management of the project needs and communications.
Also in the first year, appropriate research consultant(s) and partners will be appointed to facilitate research
outputs. A steering committee made up of key interests will be convened to provide advice on the delivery of
the project.
Throughout the program, key forums will be held to capture community interests, ensure accountability of the
project, evaluate and report back findings and recommendations of the project.
The project will essentially take a four step participatory approach using the project coordinator, research
consultant, steering committee, communities and forums:
1. collate, review and discuss relevant information on past, present and prospective NRM activities and
opportunities, including commercial.
2. hold regional workshops to describe inherent and potential value, aspirations and issues associated
with NRM activities and opportunities.
3. develop targets, practical measures/indicators and mechanisms for ongoing evaluation and
management of NRM project.
4. draft, populate and implement an agreed benchmarking framework for project and co-benefits
management.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
Short term:
 an enhanced understanding of north Australian Indigenous peoples’ aspirations for economic
development driven by their values, perceptions and priorities (see communications below);
 improved understanding by Indigenous community of water and carbon project opportunities;
 improved indigenous participation in local NRM activities;
 development of key partnerships and collaborations, including multiple skill sets;
 technology transfer to NRMs associated with fledgling projects;
 better understanding on the inputs required to achieve a balanced quadruple bottom line (ensuring
socio-cultural, economic, ecological and political aspects receive requisite recognition);
 identification of research needs to support future sustainable Indigenous livelihoods.
Medium term
 enhance a range of economic development opportunities identified in past studies on sustainable
Indigenous livelihoods;
 improved Indigenous NRM employment opportunities;
 entry into carbon market by local NRM group;
 input to the creation of innovative government policy to support sustainable Indigenous livelihoods;
 support the delivery of existing government initiatives;
 enhance and establish partnerships;
 build capacity of community established regional governance structures to manage livelihood
ventures.
Longer term
 enhance knowledge of traditional practises, use and means to integrate Indigenous knowledge with
western science toward integrated application of NRM with economic development and policy
decision making;
 sustained and viable participation in Carbon and other NRM markets / arrangements;
 development of Indigenous land management group capacity to meet NRM and livelihood targets
consistent with local aspirations, commercial and government incentives, such as CFOC and IPA;
 creation of appropriate tools required for long term and scientifically robust social and biodiversity
monitoring for best practise land management and supports Indigenous livelihood interests.
Page 55 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
6.
Key Expected Outputs
The key output of this project will be the delivery of a greater catchment focused framework for sustainable
land management practices that provides:
 scientifically robust biodiversity monitoring regimes from which co-benefits and associated policies to
improve best practice NRM are identified;
 a context driven social benchmarking and monitoring framework supporting Indigenous livelihoods
and NRM project management;
 tools and partnerships.
Other key outputs will be around communications materials and strategies, both into communities and their
focal projects and out from the same to inform service providers, researchers and policy makers. The
communications element of the theme will support and promote well-being outcomes for people and country.
It will include:
 networking partners, research groups, government agencies, business sectors and a range of
stakeholders;
 face to face forums at project and wider level consistent with local best practice;
 steering committee meeting regularly;
 deliver to networks regular updates via electronic e-news and bulletins and hard copy Kantri Laif
articles;
 deliver to networks audio-visual story reporting;
 deliver to communities promotional materials to assist in raising awareness and evoke discussion
toward decision making;
 deliver to decision makers, both community and government leaders, reports that articulate
aspirations, interests and frameworks that support best practise for Indigenous management and
use of resources and economic opportunity;
 deliver to networks research and policy papers articulating the above.
7.
Expected Benefits








8.
Development of local management tools for NRM enterprise, including benchmarking and monitoring
for social and biodiversity values.
Promotion and support of co-benefits from NRM.
Learnings from the research will be circulated in a range of communications to a well established
network, particularly Indigenous land holders and a range of policy arenas locally, regionally and
across the north of Australia.
Compliment a range of national policy settings including regional development in north Australia,
closing the gap directed at alleviating Indigenous poverty, and land management frameworks and
initiatives created under DSEWPaC toward sustainable development.
Establishing stronger networks, linkages and partnerships with research agencies and stakeholders.
Improved awareness and community engagement in NRM and related decision making processes.
Establishing culturally appropriate land management frameworks that will support long term
biodiversity, land use and enterprise management practices.
Providing valuable global and local research contribution to existing projects and inform other
Indigenous and non Indigenous NRM practices.
Key Risks Assessment
Risk Assessment
Page 56 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Consequences for longer-term
outcomes if assumption is wrong 1-5 (1
= extreme, 5 = insignificant)
Key Evidence to support this
Likelihood of assumption being wrong
1-5 (1 = rare, 5 = almost certain)
Assumptions
A livelihoods and
co-benefits
assessment and
management
framework is
desirable and will
be a practical and
effective tool for
local land
managers
2
2
Participating
Indigenous
organisations,
communities and
ranger groups
remain committed
to goals of the
project during and
beyond the funding
timeframe
Indigenous
communities will
continue to support
existing rangers
and develop new
ranger programs
as necessary
Indigenous ranger
groups will
continue to receive
funding for their
core operations
and activities
1
1
2
2
Indigenous peoples’ aspirations to actively manage their land and
sea country and associated resources are well documented and
are increasingly acknowledged in national and state legislation,
policies and programs. The number of Indigenous ranger groups
in operation in northern Australia continues to grow.
3
1
Collecting data will
lead to improved
awareness of
1
3
The merits of Indigenous community-based management of
natural resources and areas with high biodiversity value are well
documented. Increasingly, national and state legislation, policies
and programs recognise the importance of supporting Indigenous
management of natural resources. Funding for cultural and natural
resource management projects is available to Indigenous
organisations through a range of government and some nongovernment initiatives. Long-term funding for building the
institutional capacity of Indigenous ranger units on a sustainable
basis is more difficult to secure through current programs in
Australia.
Baseline data collection and monitoring activities will support
earlier identification of potential threats and environmental
pressures.
Effective project ownership and control are significant features of
local land management groups as they seek to generate more
income from commercial and philanthropic sources, without
wanting to compromise social and cultural characteristics and
aspirations. Indigenous land managers have an holistic NCRM
style including language, cultural and social etc interests and
activities. For this they need to develop locally appropriate
management tools to keep track of and manage impact and
provide direction and elicit community support. Some of these
livelihoods factors are also of interest to funders, investors and
donors. A livelihoods framework is only one part of what enables
an Indigenous land management group to function. A practical
framework and this project require supporting funds for NRM
activities within the case study area.
Indigenous communities have demonstrated high levels of
commitment and innovation to livelihoods outcomes in NRM
activity. Considerable interest has been expressed within the
NAILSMA Carbon project, for example, for the development of
means to ensure local aspirations and benefits associated with
NRM are able to be managed along with environmental outcomes.
NAILSMA is supported by major Indigenous bodies and has
robust and sustainable governance arrangements.
Page 57 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
threats to
biodiversity and
social aspirations
Networking,
information
exchanges and
cross-regional
forums will lead to
better collaborative
and cross-regional
decision-making
Indigenous
communities and
researchers will
continue to seek
collaborative
partnerships
Indigenous
communities will be
willing to share
information with
government and
researchers
9.
1
3
Ranger exchanges conducted under previous and current
NAILSMA projects have resulted in information transfer and
improved collaborative decision-making. Indigenous cultural
practice provides an underpinning belief system in the need for
shared decision-making about resource use. The need for shared
decision-making across northern Australia contributed to the
formation of NAILSMA.
1
4
Previous research conducted over the course of NAILSMA
Projects have been of a collaborative nature. These research
projects have been well supported and directed by Indigenous
communities to ensure research outcomes address local priorities,
and methodologies are respectful of cultural protocols.
2
3
Indigenous communities have continuously expressed willingness
to engage in government initiatives. A significant amount of data
collected in collaboration with researchers and government has
already been published. Indigenous communities have repeatedly
expressed willingness to share information provided that
appropriate Intellectual Property and data ownership agreements
exist. This is standard practice for any collaborative
arrangements between government, industry, and researchers or
non-Indigenous communities. However, culturally insensitive and
inflammatory media coverage of issues has previously affected
Indigenous willingness to engage.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
This project addresses the Environment Policy questions:



10.
Question 2. Ecosystems: understanding ecosystem function/monitoring ecosystem health
Question 3. Threats: maintaining/building resilience for future changing threats
Question 4. Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems
Question 5. Biodiversity markets
Policies and Programs
Objective of
Policy/Program
Natural and Indigenous
Heritage
Current Key sources of known research/information available on the
Policy/Program
Branch overall responsibility is to develop and implement the Australian
Government's policies, programs and legislation to identify, protect,
conserve and celebrate Australia's natural and Indigenous heritage values;
and to strengthen the integrity of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
Caring for our Country – Caring for our Country is a public investment program that aims to achieve
(Northern and Remote
an environment that is healthy, better protected, well-managed, resilient
Australia theme)
and provides essential ecosystem services in a changing climate.
Under the Northern and Remote Australia National Priority Area for
investment Caring for our Country recognises (Outcomes 2008-2013) that
“The unique environmental, social and economic challenges faced by
northern and remote Australia require a tailored approach to sustainable
natural resources use and environmental protection”.
Indigenous Protected
Indigenous Protected Areas aims to:
Areas
• support Indigenous land owners to develop, declare and manage
Indigenous Protected Areas on their lands as part of Australia's National
Reserve System.
• support Indigenous interests to develop cooperative management
arrangements with Government agencies managing protected areas
• support the integration of Indigenous ecological and cultural knowledge
with contemporary protected area management practices.
Working on Country
Working on Country aims to:
Page 58 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Develop a better
understanding of the
marine biodiversity and
major drivers for
maintaining biodiversity
in the North and Northwest Marine Regions
and Coral Sea.
Design practical and
cost effective
monitoring, evaluation
and reporting of marine
ecosystem health
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
Northern Australia
Water Futures
Assessment (NAWFA)
11.
• support Indigenous aspirations in caring for country
• protect, conserve and manage Australia's environment and heritage
values contribute to Closing the Gap targets by providing a career pathway
and opportunity for Indigenous people to enter into real jobs in the land and
sea management sector
• provide nationally accredited training for Indigenous people in land and
sea management, in partnership with industry and others.
Indigenous Protected Areas aims to:
• Support Indigenous land owners to develop, declare and manage
Indigenous Protected Areas on their lands as part of Australia's National
Reserve System
• Support Indigenous interests to develop cooperative management
arrangements with Government agencies managing protected areas
• Support the integration of Indigenous ecological and cultural knowledge
with contemporary protected area management practices.
The marine bioregional planning process identified a number of key
ecological features and processes that are important for maintaining
biodiversity in the North and North-west marine regions and the Coral Sea.
However, our understanding of these features is based on a relatively low
level of data (i.e. compared to other marine regions, such as the Southwest and East marine regions). Developing a better understanding of key
ecological features and the processes that are important for maintaining
biodiversity in these regions will significantly improve the Division’s capacity
to administer biodiversity conservation programs in these regions and
evaluate marine ecosystem health at the national-scale.
The marine environment reporting framework will enable the Marine
Division to monitor, evaluate and report on marine ecosystem health at
national scale. National indicators of marine ecosystem health are being
identified and there will be a requirement to develop cost effective and
robust monitoring programs and evaluation procedures to report marine
ecosystem health at a national-scale. There is also a need to identify and
periodically acquire national data priorities to evaluate marine ecosystem
health at a national-scale. This information will inform state of the
environment reporting and underpin adaptive management approaches in
the implementation of marine bioregional plans, the Commonwealth marine
reserve estate, and development of a more integrated oceans management
policy. It will also inform the Marine Division’s response to climate change
and marine species conservation and will help put more emphasis on a
preventive approach of managing ecosystems as a whole.
There is a need to assess and build on the knowledge base that supports
existing reserves and the declaration of the new Commonwealth marine
reserve estate to further inform management arrangements of the estate.
Understanding the effectiveness of State and Commonwealth marine
protected area networks for achieving conservation outcomes is needed to
inform consistent and/or complimentary management arrangements and
ease administrative and regulatory burden for reserve users and the
Department. There is also a need to evaluate the effectiveness of
management arrangements such as zoning and approval conditions and
evaluate the level of community support for the estate. This information will
inform continuing management of the Commonwealth marine reserve
estate and off-reserve implementation of marine bioregional plans.
To provide the science needed to inform the development and protection of
Northern Australia’s water resources, so that development is ecologically,
culturally and economically sustainable
DSEWPaC End Users





Parks & Protected Areas Program Assistant Secretary Mr Bruce Rose (A/g)
Parks & Biodiversity Science Assistant Secretary Ms Judy West
Indigenous Policy Assistant Secretary Mr Bruce Edwards
Biodiversity Conservation Assistant Secretary Dr Charlie Zammit
ERIN Director Ms Kate Sandford Read-Head and Mr Jeff Tranter
Page 59 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
This work compliments work under most NERP themes in terms of planning process for sustainable resource
management (Theme concerning carbon markets & evaluating socio-economic tools); supporting Indigenous
livelihoods (within this theme); managing and monitoring aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (Theme 5) while
supporting sustainable use and culturally appropriate management frameworks of those systems. This work
will also compliment work being started within DSEWPaC on Indigenous Carbon and co-benefits Standards
for the Australian market.
13.
Activities and Milestones
Year 1 (June 2011-12)
Year 2 (June 2012-13)
















Year 3 (June 2013-14)










appoint part time project coordinator
engage research consultants (contractual arrangements)
convene steering committee (TORs established)
project partnerships established
communities informed and engaged
strategic plan for research endorsed
communication plan endorsed
desktop review undertaken
community research consultations begin
prospective co-benefits described
initial work-shopping of NRM related values, measures and
monitoring mechanisms
draft ground-up biodiversity and social benchmarking framework
field trial of framework (associated with water and Carbon
projects), including measures associated with relevant industry
standards etc
employment of local co-researchers and monitors
community research consultations continue
co-benefits assessment reviewed in light of water and carbon
project dev.
steering group review process and outcomes
results interpreted and framework re-drafted, adapted
strategic plan for research reviewed
communications - ongoing delivery
framework reviewed by steering group and other key experts
framework reviewed through community consultation
local best practice framework for social and biodiversity
benchmarking endorsed and implemented by local land
management group
co-benefits description and assessment (local and global criteria)
interim report
final case study report delivered
policy papers and other communications delivered (including coauthorship with local practitioners
Page 60 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme:
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Theme 3 Aquatic biodiversity conservation
3.1
River to landscape connections and biodiversity
Prof. Stuart Bunn
Griffith University
Prof Stuart Bunn (GU), Dr. Doug Ward (GU), Dr. Brad Pusey (GU), Dr.
Tim Jardine (GU), Prof Michael Douglas (CDU), Dr. Erica Garcia
(CDU), Dr. Peter Kyne (CDU), Prof Peter Davies (UWA), Dr. Neil Pettit
(UWA), Dr. Renee Bartolo (eriss)
Project Completion Date:
June 2011
Dec 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$1,302,240
$3,248,572
Project Summary/ Description
Linkages among habitats and fluxes of materials across ecosystem boundaries often have major implications
for the production of animal and plant biomass and resultant biodiversity. Fully-aquatic species which
typically inhabit the river channel, floodplain billabongs and estuarine waters in the dry season move onto
floodplains during the wet season. As these floodwaters recede, aquatic production that has been
assimilated by consumers such as fish is often transferred back into the river systems and exported offshore.
These types of subsidies can therefore represent a significant transfer of aquatic carbon and nutrients from
floodplains to other parts of the river system and indeed to other aquatic systems over hundreds or
thousands of kilometers. Yet it is very difficult to quantify the importance of these linkages and fluxes. This
project will use remote sensing techniques, stable isotope analyses and telemetry to quantitatively estimate
the importance of different habitats in sustaining fish and other consumers in river-floodplain systems,
thereby predicting how natural and human-induced changes to ecosystem connectivity might affect
biodiversity and fish yields.
2.
Geographic Location
Rivers and floodplains of Kakadu National Park (Alligator Rivers), and the southern Gulf of Carpentaria
(Norman, Gilbert, Leichhardt), Daly River.
3.
Problem Statement
Previous research within TRaCK identified that there is great variability in floodplain inundation duration
across northern Australian rivers, with some systems typically inundated for less than one month (e.g. Fitzroy
River, WA) and others with areas inundated for almost half the year (e.g. Daly River, NT). Using stable
isotope analysis, we showed that organic matter produced in these floodplains is exported by fish both
upstream to low productivity main channels and offshore to coastal food webs, in many cases sustaining
consumers through the dry season.
Systems with floodplains inundated for longer periods and with higher overall connectivity appear to allow
considerable movement of biota within the river network to exploit seasonally available resources. What we
do not know is how rates of productivity within floodplains compare with those in permanent waterbodies
(e.g. main river channels and billabongs), whether the presence of long periods of inundation lead to higher
biodiversity, and the extent to which large-bodied consumers (e.g. predatory fish) use the entire river network
(floodplains, rivers, estuaries and coasts).
In this project, we propose to expand on our earlier findings by: 1) further identifying where water is held on
the landscape (i.e. floodplain “hotspots”), 2) developing landscape scale models to explain why some
systems hold water longer than others, 3) determining the rates of primary productivity and resultant biomass
produced in these flooded areas, 4) calculating how that material is exported to and used in the remainder of
the system and offshore areas, 5) measuring any tangible benefits to food webs (e.g. greater biodiversity,
higher biomass and better condition of animals), and 6) determining the amount of movement of large
keystone predators between habitats.
We hypothesize that the export of floodplain-derived organic matter to the remainder of the catchment and
estuarine/coastal areas will be directly proportional to the flood index (as calculated by an extent x duration
function). Further, this contribution will lead to higher biodiversity and higher fish yields (biomass, density) in
Page 61 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
systems with greater inundation, and large mobile predators will show extensive movements that relates to
hydrological connectivity.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
To test these hypotheses, we will compare two regions with contrasting inundation patterns – rivers of
northeastern NT (Kakadu National Park, with floodplains that are inundated for up to six months in a given
year) and rivers of northwestern QLD (southern Gulf of Carpentaria) with floodplains that are inundated for
weeks to a few months. A minimum of three catchments in each region will be sampled over the course of a
hydrological cycle (Table 1), in collaboration with other Hub projects where possible.
Table 1: Sampling Trips
Region
Potential Rivers
East Alligator, South
Alligator, West Alligator
Floodplain trip
Kakadu NP
April 2012#
Southern Gulf
of Carpentaria
Gilbert, Norman, Leichardt
Feb 2013
#in collaboration with Project 3.3; *in collaboration with Project 3.2
Dry season trip
Estuarine trips
August 2012
2012 (wet, dry)*
July 2013
2013 (wet, dry)
Stable isotopes
At each site and time, collections will be made of producers (e.g. algae, leaf litter, macrophytes, plankton)
and consumers (e.g. insects, prawns, fish) and analysed for stable isotopes to assess whether animals are
feeding locally or if they are carrying biomass derived from elsewhere. All sampling will be done
quantitatively to calculate catch per unit effort and biomass present at a given location with the goal of
comparing across catchments. Remote sensing will be used to identify the most likely floodplain areas
where productivity is highest and sampling will occur there.
Dry season field work sampling will be conducted in flowing main channels where there is most likely to be
an isotope distinction between potential foraging areas. Isotope mixing models will be used to calculate the
percent of each species’ diet derived from marine, floodplain, and dry season freshwater locations, and
these measures will be linked to biomass estimates to calculate how much each habitat contributes to the
support of overall food web biomass.
Primary productivity
A series of measures will quantify rates of and limits to primary productivity on seasonally inundated
floodplains. This will include light bottle/dark bottle techniques (O2 production and depletion) with various
combinations (bare earth, macrophyte with epiphytes, macrophyte without epiphytes), light extinction
measurements, and macrophyte biomass (quadrats). This information will be linked with remote sensing
methods to estimate productivity at the landscape scale by estimating the total biomass and production of
plant material (algal and vascular) within a defined area that can be detected with remote sensing. Sampling
will be conducted in the late wet (April), early dry (June) and mid dry (August).
Remote sensing
A combination of MODIS, Landsat and PALSAR imagery will be used to identify where in the landscape
water is held, thereby identifying floodplain hotspots that are likely to drive production of the system.
Previously developed predictive relationships between visible spectra and measured on-ground turbidity and
vegetation will be used to the light environment for algal growth, thereby forecasting potential primary
productivity under different flow scenarios.
Fish movement
Acoustic tags will be implanted in large-bodied fishes (e.g. bull sharks and sawfish) in the rivers of Kakadu
NP (and/or the Daly River, NT). A fixed array of receivers will be placed in the lower reaches of these rivers
to monitor daily movements of these species from fresh to salt water.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
These findings will help clarify the food web implications of water resource development by assessing if there
is a flood pulse advantage that allows for greater biodiversity and biomass of consumers in systems with
intact flood regimes.
Assessment of the importance of natural flow attributes to the protection and maintenance of river-floodplain
assets, together with analysis of flow development scenarios, will assist policy makers in ensuring that future
development scenarios for northern Australia are truly sustainable.
Page 62 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
6.
Key Expected Outputs





7.
Peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals
Plain English summaries of research findings
Remote sensing tools to map, monitor and asses the seasonal connectivity between catchments,
floodplains and coastal receiving waters,
Understanding of the movement patterns of key fauna that use floodplains and the freshwatersaltwater interface in estuaries.
Understanding of the direct contribution of seasonally available habitats (i.e. floodplains) to food web
biomass and implications of the loss of such habitats
Expected Benefits
The benefits of this project will be measured in a better understanding of the maximum and minimum
contributions of floodplains to the maintenance of biodiversity and fish biomass, meeting both pure and
applied scientific objectives. It will feed directly into the conservation planning aspects of the NAH by
providing end users with a tool to quantify the importance of different landscape units towards overall system
biodiversity.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Inability to access key sites
due to poor landholder
engagement may delay the
acquisition of data.
Injury to a key staff member
due to high-risk field work
may delay the acquisition of
data
Unusually wet or dry
weather due to global
climate patterns may cause
results to be poorly
exportable to other systems
and years.
Increased costs of field work
due to e.g. high oil prices
may limit the ability to
sample the maximum
intended number of sites.
9.
Proposed management strategy
Risk strategy: we will have alternative suitable sites on standby if
preferred sites cannot be accessed; similar to TRaCK on-ground
consultation with stakeholders, including Indigenous groups, will be a key
feature of the field work.
Risk strategy: Risk assessment protocols for field trips are in place at GU
and other participating organizations to help identify and minimize risks
particular to each field trip (e.g. crocodiles, cyclones, dehydration, vehicle
accident).
Risk strategy: the research conducted will evaluate connectivity between
two hydrological extremes. Therefore, differences among regions should
be larger than interannual differences within regions.
Risk strategy: As much as possible, coordination of field trips with other
NAH projects will be used to minimize extensive field work costs.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
Understanding the degree of riverine connectivity in these systems will contribute directly to NERP research
questions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 3.3. Using novel tools such as stable isotope analysis to measure energy
flow, we will improve our capacity to understand ecosystem function (e.g. flux of materials across ecosystem
boundaries). These tools also integrate highly variable information through time, and as such can simplify
some of the complexity of these systems.
By measuring sources of energy and trophic level of top predators (sharks, etc.) along with underlying
sources of production, we will generate ecosystem-level science needed for management. The use of
remote sensing methods to identify hot spots of productivity in another poorly studied biome (floodplains) will
reveal the location of the fuel for food webs in entire river systems.
10.
Policies and Programs
This project will provide information towards the Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment and,
because much of the research will be carried out in Kakadu NP, the Parks Operations and Tourism Branch,
Parks Australia. It will also contribute knowledge of the ecology and resources supporting species (e.g.
sawfish) listed under the EPBC Act, as well as broader coastal, estuarine and riverine fisheries covered
under the Sustainable Fisheries Section.
Page 63 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
11.
DSEWPaC End Users
The project addresses a range of DSEWPaC interests and responsibilities, including biodiversity
conservation within the Parks Australia estate (Peter Cochrane), research and science management (Parks
& Biodiversity Science - Judy West), the health of aquatic ecosystems (Aquatic Systems Health – Tanja
Cvijanovic), the protection of the environment and people of the Alligator Rivers region (Supervising Scientist
Division – David Jones), implementation of national obligations under CITES (Lesley Gidding, Director of
Species Conservation Section), the management of invasive species (Joanne Nathan, Environmental
Biosecurity Section) and species mapping (Kate Sandford Read-Head and Jeff Tranter, ERIN).
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
This project will collaborate strongly with NAH 3.2 (threats to floodplain biodiversity), 3.3 (freshwater
biodiversity) and 3.4 (estuarine and coastal biodiversity), and will include joint field trips of mutual interest to
estuaries and floodplains of Kakadu NP.
13.
Activities and Milestones
Year 1 Milestones
1) Project planning meetings
held in Kakadu NP (June
2011) and Brisbane (July
2011) and Darwin (October
2011)
2) Preliminary visit to Kakadu
NP completed (Oct 2011)
3) T.O. consent and sampling
permits obtained (Dec
2011)
4) Acoustic tags and array
installed in ARR (June
2012)
5) Draft manuscript on tropical
floodplain ecology prepared
(June 2012)
6) Two trips to Kakadu NP
floodplains completed (June
2012)
Year 2 Milestones
1) Third trip to Kakadu NP
floodplains and main river
channel – productivity and
isotope sampling completed
(August 2012)
2) Methods updated based on
Year 1 field trips and
consultation (Oct 2012)
3) MODIS image library for
Kakadu NP catchments
completed (Oct 2012)
4) Telemetry data retrieved
from fixed arrays; new tags
added (Oct 2012)
5) Two trips to southern Gulf
rivers completed (June
2013)
Activities
 Hold project planning meetings to develop conceptual
models and coordinate field work
 Turn conceptual models into a manuscript on tropical
floodplain ecology, to be submitted to an accessible journal
(e.g. BioScience)
 Develop multi-year plan
 Consult with landholders to determine site access and
Indigenous engagement
 Obtain sampling permits
 Determine sites in consultation with other project leaders
(3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
 Perform preliminary reconnaissance to Kakadu NP to
assess suitability of sites for isotope work
 Two trips (late wet and early dry) to Kakadu NP to measure
floodplain primary productivity and vegetation cover; isotope
sampling to be conducted only on the first trip
 Image capture for Kakadu floodplains to coincide with onground measurements
 Begin processing isotope samples in lab at GU
 Establish acoustic monitoring array in one study catchment
 Conduct initial surveys of migratory crustaceans in Daly
River
Activities
 Aerial estimates of emergent vegetation cover
 Begin processing of MODIS imagery for flood events
(Kakadu NP and southern Gulf)
 Begin aquatic light modeling for the ARR floodplains
 Download telemetry data from fixed arrays
 Collection of stable isotope samples for a mid dry season
time period to estimate contribution of floodplain to food web
in catchments with high hydrologic connectivity (Kakadu NP)
 Processing and analysis of stable isotope samples from
Kakadu NP
 Preliminary evaluation of stable isotope data from Kakadu
NP
 Preliminary evaluation of telemetry data
 First field sampling in southern Gulf of Carpentaria (wet and
dry season)
Page 64 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Year 3 Milestones
1) Third trip to southern Gulf
rivers – field sampling
completed (August 2013)
2) Kakadu NP isotope
samples analysed – data
spreadsheet generated
(August 2013)
3) MODIS image library for
southern Gulf of
Carpentaria catchments
completed (Oct 2013)
Activities
 Project team meeting to discuss results
 Complete flood mapping for Kakadu NP and southern Gulf
 Calibration of productivity with remote sensing data (open
water vs. macrophytes)
 Collection of stable isotope samples for a mid dry season
time period to estimate contribution of floodplain to food web
in less hydrologically connected catchments (southern Gulf)
 Processing and analysis of stable isotope samples from
Southern Gulf
 Preliminary evaluation of stable isotope data from Southern
Gulf
Year 4 Milestones
1) Southern Gulf isotope
samples analysed – data
spreadsheet generated
(August 2014)
2) Landscape models of flood
residence times completed
(August 2014)
3) Draft manuscript on
floodplain primary
productivity (Dec 2014)
4) Draft manuscript on
floodplain contribution to
food webs (Dec 2014)
5) Draft manuscript on fish
yields and biodiversity (Dec
2014)
6) Draft manuscript on aquatic
light model complete (Dec
2014)
7) Draft manuscript on fish
movement
8) Metadata and raw data
made available to public via
online repository (Dec
2014)
9) Plain English summaries of
food web and flood
mapping results sent to
stakeholders (Dec 2014)
10) Final report to DSEWPaC
(Dec 2014)
Activities
 Complete analyses of stable isotopes in collected samples
 Project team meeting to prepare manuscripts
 Draft manuscripts prepared
 Preparation of plain English summaries and final
consultation with stakeholders (return visits to Kakadu NP
and southern Gulf)
 Preparation of final report summarizing best knowledge of
riverine connectivity, with updated conceptual models based
on remote sensing, telemetry and food web data
Page 65 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme 3:
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
Aquatic biodiversity conservation
3.2
Managing threats to floodplain biodiversity and indigenous
values
Samantha Setterfield
Charles Darwin University
Aaron Petty, Michael Douglas, Peter Bayliss, Leo Dutra, Sue Jackson,
Emma Woodward, Renee Bartolo and Wayne Erskine (ERISS)
Project Completion Date:
June 2011
Dec 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$1,295,419
$2,440,380
1.
Project Summary/ Description
A participatory modelling approach will be used to establish a framework to undertake an integrated
environmental, social, cultural and economic risk assessment of sea level rise and the expansion of invasive
grasses on biodiversity and related ecosystem services of coastal floodplains. It will also consider the
adaptive capacity of regional communities to respond. Indigenous knowledge of past and current
environmental change in the Kakadu region will be used to assess the consequences of climate change and
invasive grasses on floodplain habitats and iconic/culturally important species. Predictive habitat models will
specifically be developed for two key susceptible species, magpie geese and their critical dry season food,
water chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis), as they are both culturally important resources.
These models will be used to estimate threshold impact levels of salinity and weeds, and to identify potential
refuge sites. A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) framework will then be developed with Traditional
Owners and parks to explore adaptive management options to protect natural and cultural floodplain values
under a range of future climate scenarios and in combination with current and future threats from aquatic
weeds. The MSE will draw also on the substantial biophysical knowledge base that exists for the region, and
will incorporate new knowledge gained in other closely interrelated Northern NERP studies on floodplains
(projects 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 & 5.3)
Background
Managing any complex socio-ecological system such as co-managed Kakadu National Park is a very difficult
task and cannot be underestimated. For example, Parks Australia wants good environmental outcomes at
the least cost and, at the same time, there is an obligation to include all stakeholder interests and needs. An
additional challenge is that more often than not we have incomplete and variable information. Hence,
managers are often required to achieve high-level goals in the face of uncertainty and limited resources.
Whilst an Adaptive Management (AM) framework helps us understand in principle ‘where we are’ and ‘where
we want to be’ with respect to environmental management goals, it does not come with guidelines about how
to make the approach operational. We will therefore adopt another version of AM called “Management
Strategy Evaluation” (MSE).
This applied approach links objectives, targets and performance indicators to decision-making by managers
and other stakeholders, and focuses on comparing outcomes with objectives. Hence, MSE is a design
system for AM, or a “flight simulator” for decision makers as not everything we need to learn has to take
place in the real world. MSE uses computer simulation models to assess the consequences of a range of
management strategies in a “safe” environment, and presents the results as a set of trade-offs in agreed
performance measures of selected indicators across a range of management objectives. Use of simulation
models in collaborative decision-making for the management of environmental and related social issues is
one of the characteristics of AM. However, the use of models to ensure the participation of all stakeholders
in the definition and development of management scenarios is rare, and this research component will
specifically aim to address that gap.
Agent-based simulation modelling (ABM) has been increasingly used to help understand the complex
interactions between coupled human and natural systems. Combined with a GIS and a participatory
modelling process, they will provide a powerful and spatially explicit planning and decision making tool for
Traditional Owners and conservation mangers. In particular, they may help bridge the gap between the two
knowledge domains (western science & Indigenous ecological knowledge), and help facilitate tradeoffs
between conflicting goals.
Page 66 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Climate change seriously threatens the resilience of communities that rely on ecosystems for their wellbeing. Indigenous coastal communities in northern Australia are particularly vulnerable because such
impacts will exacerbate existing landscape-wide threats to natural and cultural values that are inextricably
connected. These cumulative impacts will substantially reduce opportunities for sustaining and developing
future ecosystem-based livelihoods such as ecotourism. Hence, the socio-ecological impacts of a range of
climate change scenarios need to be examined in combination with other existing pressures, and adaptation
options developed and implemented before there are few or no options left. The main driver for future
climate change impacts on floodplain habitats within KNP is sea level rise, which will be exacerbated by
changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme events such as cyclones and storm surges. The major
current threat to floodplains on Kakadu is aquatic weeds, particularly the aquatic invasive grass species,
para grass and olive hymenachne, as well as mimosa and salvinia. Floodplain habitats support much of
Kakadu’s biodiversity and tourism values, and provide highly significant food and other cultural resources for
resident Indigenous communities.
Kakadu has other advantages for integrative studies on climate change and weed impacts besides its iconic
status. It has a substantial biophysical and Indigenous knowledge base, particularly on the ecology of
wetland weeds, and therefore there is a unique opportunity to draw critical links between ecological, socioeconomic and cultural impacts. Additionally, climate change impacts in the Kakadu region have recently
received considerable attention in response to increasing global and national concerns (Stern 2006; IPCC
Report 2007; the First Pass Vulnerability Assessment of Climate Change on Kakadu Wetlands and
Biodiversity; & Symposium 4 of the Kakadu Landscape Symposia Series 2007–2009). However, these
previous desktop assessments are basically “issues based” rather than “outcomes based” and, hence, one
of the main aims of this project is to provide the underpinning knowledge of an adaptive MSE framework that
will allow Traditional Owners and Park managers to jointly develop and evaluate alternative management
options.
2.
Geographic Location
Kakadu National Park, NT. The final choice of locations will be determined in consultation with the KNP Staff and the
Traditional Owners but will likely include: Magela Creek floodplain, selected floodplains of the West Alligator River
and the Boggy Plain-Mamukala-Yellow Water floodplain system of the South Alligator River.
3.
Problem Statement
Climate change and aquatic invasive grasses have both been identified as management issues that require additional
research to improve Park management. These threats are having numerous ecological and socio-economic impacts and
yet little is known about their potential extent and severity as well as compounding interactions between environmental
and anthropogenic factors. Understanding and improving the adaptive capacity of Indigenous communities and
managers will be central to the success of strategies to mitigate the negative effects of ongoing and emergent floodplain
pressures/changes.
Adaptation is dependent on three factors: (i) information regarding changes that must be adapted to; (ii) knowledge of
ways to respond; and (iii) the resources and capability to put agreed adaptation strategies into practice. In focusing on
the first two factors, this project aims to improve Traditional Owner adaptability by employing innovative participatory
approaches to risk assessment and the design of adaptation strategies. Traditional Owners and Park managers need tools
and skills to design and develop their own monitoring and assessment programs and, in doing so, integrate the best
available biophysical and social data.
In addition, the research will evaluate the utility of participatory approaches from two perspectives: (i) on adaptive
capacity - Bininji should have the opportunity to evaluate the process and to make suggestions for ways to
adjust/change the process to meet their learning and management needs (essential to MSE approaches in general); and
(ii) on improved methods – the project team needs to assess the performance of the elicitation methods that are adopted.
Insights should result in improvements in understanding of the process of learning and decision making that underpins
the MSE approach to adaptive management, and the adaptive capacity of existing governance systems to manage risks.
Broad research question:
What are the management options and actions to respond to multiple threats on tropical floodplains?
Specific questions:
(i)
What are the patterns of floodplain resource use by Aboriginal people and how will climate change and weeds
affect these and other intangible values?
(ii)
What are the likely impacts of elevated sea level rise due to climate change on floodplain biodiversity and
resources?
(iii)
What are the likely impacts of exotic grass invasion on floodplain biodiversity and resources?
Page 67 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
(iv)
How can MSE be used to improve understanding of and decision making about the multiple threats to tropical
floodplains?
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
Project Approach
The overarching aim of this project is the development of a management strategy evaluation (MSE)
framework for the Kakadu floodplains. An MSE framework allows managers and other stakeholders to
assess the consequences of a range of management strategies or options. An advantage of an MSE
framework is that managers can focus on comparing outcomes of management actions with objectives.
An MSE framework contains quantitative or semi-quantitative sub-models for each of the main steps in the
management framework (e.g. the impact of sea level rise on floodplain hydrology, the impact of exotic grass
invasion on floodplain biodiversity etc). This project incorporates the following four linked but discrete
research components, with components 1-3 being undertaken within the aim of contributing critical
knowledge to sub-models within the MSE.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Risks from sea level rise due to climate change
Invasive aquatic grass management
Indigenous values of floodplains
Assessment of management options within an MSE framework
The project team represents numerous scientific disciplines. Team members from a range of organisations
will contribute their expertise in researching complex socio-ecological systems that demand a high degree of
community engagement. The research will focus on the floodplains of Kakadu National Park, particularly
areas in the South Alligator, Magela and West Alligator floodplains.
Development of the MSE will build on: the landscape-scale risk assessment framework developed by Bayliss
et al. (in press) for the Magela Creek floodplain using Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs); the participatory and
spatially explicit agent-based modelling approach developed jointly with Traditional Owners and Park
management (Woodward et al. (2011), and used to undertake an MSE for feral animal management on
Kakadu; and the MSE tools developed by Dutra et al. (2010) for the Healthy Waterways Partnership in
South-east Queensland for the management of water quality in catchments and Moreton Bay, particularly
their study on the role of active learning and decision making within an adaptive framework (Dutra et al.
2011).
(i)
Risks from sea level rise due to climate change
The project team will commence this component of the project with a review of climate change prediction
and sea level rise for the Alligator Rivers Region (ARR). In particular, by December 2011, the project team
will:
(a) Obtain the most recent global and regional sea level rise predictions for the NT from colleagues in
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, out to 2030, 2070 and 2100.
(b) Commence collaboration with the Weather and Environmental Prediction program in the Centre for
Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR), to access the most recent downscaled decadal
and long-term climate predictions for the ARR (rainfall, temperature, wind), and which will be used at the
next IPCC forum.
(c) Commence collaboration with other CAWCR colleagues to scope the potential application of ACCESS
(Australian Community Climate & Earth-System Simulator) for predicting rainfall-flow relations in the
ARR over a 50-year time frame at the best resolution possible.
The project team will develop a conceptual model of regional climate and hydrodynamic processes by
December 2011, showing key links and interactions, and knowledge gaps and uncertainty in data and
models. This will provide context and links with the development of a hydrodynamic model for van Diem’s
Gulf (project 3.4 Williams/Parry), and the development of conceptual models and BBNs planned for section
(iv) below as a precursor to the development of the socio/cultural component of the MSE framework.
In addition, the project team will help scope and design LIDAR surveys of floodplain study sites to obtain
high resolution DEMs to greatly improve predictions of climate change sea level rise impacts, and habitat
suitability modelling for aquatic weeds and key native plants and animals, particularly for magpie geese and
the water chestnut. Depending on availability of external funding (e.g. NCCARF) this could be undertaken in
the late dry of 2012. As a fall-back position if LIDAR is not available, the team will use existing and planned
(project 5.3) high resolution vegetation maps as a surrogate predictor of sea level rise impacts.
Page 68 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Based on the data collected, the research team will incorporate and calibrate a seasonal flood inundation
model into the ABM. Either LIDAR surveys or the high resolution vegetation maps will be used to predict the
combined impacts of salinity and weeds.
The team will also develop interactive habitat models for magpie geese and water chestnut using historical
population survey data and historical remote sensing captures on Boggy Plain. If feasible, mesocosm salinity
experiments will be undertaken to estimate salinity tolerances/thresholds for a range of key wetland plants, in
particular water chestnut. The results of these studies will be incorporated into the ABM.
(ii)
Invasive aquatic grass management
Research on invasive aquatic grasses will include field-based research to determine the current extent of
olive hymanachne and para grass in the study area, the ecological characteristics of sites suitable for
invasion, and an assessment of control methods using fire and herbicide. Data in this project and associated
projects (3.1) will underpin the development of spatially explicit models of weed spread, and assessments of
alternative management approaches that minimise cost and maximise cultural and biodiversity protection.
In the first year, the team will undertake helicopter-based mapping of the current extent of invasion in study
areas not previously mapped (primarily the S. Alligator and the southern part of the W. Alligator floodplains).
Our previous research in the Magela floodplain and the northern W. Alligator has shown that aerial mapping
is the most effective method of gaining a regional assessment of the distribution of tropical invasive grasses
and for determining patterns of spread (Petty et al. 2010). Mapping will be done using aerial survey methods
developed by the project team (Petty et al. 2010), with weed density assessed from a helicopter flying along
transect lines at 100kph and 90m above ground level. Cover will be recorded at 250m intervals using a fivepoint scale, and the data used to generate a GIS raster layer. Ground-based surveys will be undertaken to
ground-truth the accuracy of helicopter survey and to characterise sites of invasion, e.g. water depth, native
vegetation, size of patch. Monitoring plots will be established to determine the rate of expansion of an
individual patch which is a key knowledge gap in the predicting future patterns of spread and appropriate
management actions.
A network of 19 water-depth data loggers will be established in the Magela Creek to provide detailed data on
the duration and depth of inundation. A network of loggers will also be established on other key floodplain
areas. Remote sensing techniques will be used to convert the point source data into landscape-scale maps
of seasonal inundation frequency and duration. A fusion approach using a combination of optical (Landsat 5
TM) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR- ALOS PALSAR ScanSAR) data will be assessed in the
classification process. Accuracy assessment of seasonal inundation classes will be undertaken using the
ground survey and depth sensor network data.
Control trials will be established in collaboration with Parks Australia North. Treatments of burning and
spraying will be compared to uncontrolled invasive grass to determine the effectiveness of the treatments.
Follow-up treatments will be monitored for 2 follow-up years to determine the effect of repeated
management. The cost of each component of control (spray, travel, labor etc) will be determined for each
treatment time.
Data from the aerial and ground surveys, and the hydrological remote sensing data will be used to develop
habitat suitability models (HSMs) for para grass and olive hymenachne in key floodplain areas. HSMs will be
developed using boosted regression tress, a robust method that can fit complex variable responses and
interactions. A model of spatial spread of the invasive grasses will be developed based on a cellular
automata model developed for para grass in the Magela floodplain. This model will be linked to the HSMs to
create a spatially explicit spread model for the south Alligator floodplain. A management model will be
developed to test the effect of specific management approaches (e.g. spraying outliers, treating prioritized
sites to restore cultural and/or biological values, treating olive hymenachne but not para grass). A
management cost model will be developed to compare the cost of each approach.
(iii)
Socio-cultural participatory research
The socio-cultural component will employ a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to:
(a) engage traditional owners and ensure their understanding of the project’s aims thereby improving the
likelihood of effective participation in the MSE
(b) elicit information on indigenous use and broader indigenous values relating to floodplains and
Indigenous perceptions and observations of change
(c) generate an understanding of indigenous responses to change informed by the theoretical frameworks of
adaptation and vulnerability, and support the entire team to design and implement a process that allows
traditional owners and managers to define management objectives for the floodplains, levels of risk and
Page 69 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
performance criteria to assess scenarios and deliberate over the (costs and benefits) of management
options.
Following the design stage, small group discussions on country and participatory mapping exercises will
promote the disclosure of information on aquatic resource use and the identification of places, features and
species of significance to traditional owners. A range of methods for quantifying aquatic resource use will be
discussed with traditional owners to determine their suitability and efficacy (household surveys, direct
observation, diaries). A valuation exercise will be undertaken to determine the relative importance of places
and species in consultation with traditional owners (e.g. replacement method). The valuation method will be
discussed in the early stages of the project to ensure community consent.
In the later stages researchers will develop an Agent-based Model (ABM) model of historical and current
wetland use to feed into the MSE as outlined below.
(iii)
Development of an agent-based modelling framework for integrated assessment and participatory
MSE
In the first year (July 2011-June 2012) an agent-based modelling (ABM) framework for floodplain study areas
on Kakadu will be developed using Repast-Simphony software at high (e.g. 200m) and medium (1km 2) levels
of resolution. The ABM will be linked to NASA Worldwind and Google Earth satellite imagery in order to
enhance visualisation and communication of MSE results.
In the six month period January 2012 to June 2012the team will develop a conceptual model via a desktop
exercise as part of the literature review/project design phase. The conceptual model will be revisited with
traditional owners in later stages of the project. The conceptual model will be transformed into a Bayesian
Belief Network (BBN) that captures existing knowledge in order to identify key knowledge gaps (e.g.
Indigenous values, ecological assets & process, socio-economic drivers), critical links and hypothesised
causal pathways. The results of the BBN will then be incorporated into the ABM prototype, and the software
tested for performance by June 2012 so that it will be ready for “road-testing”at the participatory MSE
modelling workshops during the second (i.e. calibrated for real world performance) and subsequent years
(i.e. continually revised & updated).
An inaugural workshop with Traditional Owners and Parks staff will be undertaken by February 2012 in order
to introduce the study and to collaboratively design an agreed approach using acceptable protocols for the
coming participatory MSE modelling workshops, the aim of which is to help develop management strategies
to protect floodplain values from the combined impacts of weeds and sea level rise.
An analysis of values, issues, needs and perceptions recorded during workshops and interviews will be
undertaken using content analysis software (Leximancer or nVivo) and will be reported back to participants
in subsequent meetings. At the end of each workshop stakeholder feedback will be elicited in order to
improve subsequent workshops.
Two participatory MSE modelling workshops will be undertaken in the second year (July 2012-June 2013),
each of approximately two weeks duration, with the timing dependent on peoples availabilities. The first
workshop will be completed by December 2012, and will: design and commence a process to incorporate
maps of past and current floodplain values in relation to Indigenous resource use into the MSE tool, and
similarly for the condition of Park conservation values, with the view of using long-term changes in both as
surrogates of predicted future change; develop agreed management objectives (targets), performance
criteria and indicators for monitoring; undertake a trial MSE simulation to demonstrate its potential utility; and
develop an assessment process for the participatory MSE approach adopted in this project, to be completed
at the end of the following year. The MSE modelling tool will be updated from the results and outcomes of
this and all subsequent workshops. The second workshop will be completed by June 2013, and will:
demonstrate updates and improvements to the MSE tool; develop agreed management scenarios and
strategies for MSE to be undertaken in the following year; and undertake a final trial MSE simulation in
preparation for full MSE modelling workshops in the third year.
Two participatory MSE modelling workshops will also be held in the third year (July 2013-June 2014). The
first workshop will be completed by December 2013 and will demonstrate updates to the MSE tool and
commence evaluation of the full suite of management scenarios that stakeholders wish to explore. The
second participatory MSE workshop in this year will be completed by June 2014, and will: demonstrate
updates to the MSE tool, particularly any new biophysical and social/cultural knowledge derived from
components (ii) and (iii) of this project and other related Northern NERP floodplain projects; and complete
evaluation of the full suite of management scenarios.
Page 70 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
A final participatory MSE workshop will be undertaken in the fourth year (July 2014-December 2014) and will
be completed by September 2014. This workshop will synthesise and summarise all workshop and MSE
modelling results to date. The final workshop presents Traditional Owners and Park managers with a unique
opportunity to commence co-development of “Caring for Country” monitoring and adaptive management
programs to confront current and future risks from weeds and future risks from sea level rise due to climate
change.
Throughout the project the team will produce regular newsletters for traditional owners and Park managers
to update them on new information and the outcomes of research activities.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
(i) Risks from sea level rise due to climate change
 Improved understanding of regional climate in the ARR at decadal and longer-term time scales.
 Improved understanding and, hence, management of the dynamic relationship between magpie geese
and water chestnut (Eleocharisdulcis). Both are iconic and culturally important species across northern
Australia. The Boggy Plain-Mumakala wetland system off the South Alligator River in Kakadu contains
the most important magpie goose dry season refuge because of its extensive stands of water chestnut,
and contains up to 85% of the NT goose population during the dry season.
 Improved understanding of options used to manage sea level rise risks to Kakadu’s natural and cultural
floodplain values.
(ii) Invasive aquatic grasses
 Improved understanding of the spread of para grass and olive hymenachne in the tropical floodplains,
and how spread patterns are related to hydrological regime, fire, and edaphic factors.
 Improved understanding of the cost-effectiveness of strategies to control aquatic invasive grasses
 Improved management actions to limit the spread of aquatic invasive grasses in KNP
(iii) Socio-cultural participatory research
 Improved understanding of Indigenous values relating to the floodplains of the (South Alligator River and
other key study sites) and descriptions of Indigenous patterns of aquatic resource use
 Subject to Indigenous consent, quantification of the use of significant aquatic resources, and analysis of
the range of social factors influencing spatial and temporal use of aquatic resources
 Understanding of the relative importance of species and places of importance (in order to inform the
modelling of management options and trade-offs)
 Awareness of Indigenous perceptions of past environmental change (tacit ecological knowledge may
inform the threat assessments of weed and climate change impacts)
 Understanding of social responses to changes documented above (both anticipatory and reactive)
 Understanding of the factors that promote or constrain adaptation and social and economic thresholds or
limits of acceptable change
 Assessment of the social impacts of environmental change (past and projected) on access to resources,
local knowledge, social networks and dynamics, land management practices.
(iv) Assessment of management options within an MSE framework
 Recognition and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge in an integrated assessment that will be used to
explore alternative adaptive management options to confront the compounding risks from climate
change and other more immediate threats. The assessment would also incorporate the best available
biophysical knowledge, models and data for the region.
 Improved participation and interaction between Traditional Owners and Park staff in the management of
cumulative risks to natural and cultural floodplain values.
 Improved adaptive capacity of Traditional Owners and Park managers to respond to multiple and interrelated environmental threats to floodplain values, such as sea level rise due to climate change and
aquatic weeds.
6.
Key Expected Outputs


A conceptual model of regional climate and hydrodynamic processes showing key links and
interactions, and which highlights knowledge gaps and uncertainty in data and models.
Comprehensive risk assessment of sea level rise impacts on Kakadu floodplain vegetation, and the
confounding effects of other cumulative risks such as aquatic weeds.
Page 71 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan













7.
In collaboration with project 5.3, high resolution vegetation maps of key floodplains on Kakadu (the
Boggy Plain-Mumukala wetland system, Yellow Water, floodpains of the West Alligator River).
High resolution DEMs of key floodplains on Kakadu (depends on external funding for LIDAR
surveys).
Habitat Suitability Models (HSM) for magpie geese and water chestnut, and an interactive plantherbivore model that couples the two.
Quantified assessment of the cost and effectiveness of control methods of aquatic invasive grasses
Maps of current distribution patterns of olive hymenachne and para grass in key areas of KNP
Habitat suitability models (HSMs) for olive hymenachne and para grass in key areas of KNP
Spatially explicit, cell-based spread model for olive hymenachne and para grass in key areas of KNP
Maps of frequency and duration of flooding in KNP floodplains (produced in collaboration with
Project 3.1)
Analysis and assessment of elicitation methods used in participatory MSE modelling workshops, and
an assessment by Traditional Owners and Park staff.
A spatially explicit agent-based MSE simulation tool linked to satellite imagery for enhanced
visualisation and communications.
Agreed and clearly defined management objectives (targets) for sea level rise and weed impacts,
and associated management performance criteria and indicators used in monitoring.
Maps of Indigenous floodplain values, and conservation values, used to spatially prioritise
management objectives.
Newletters, scientific and technical articles disseminating information about the research project,
including updates on the projects and recommendations of relevance to traditional owners, Parks
staff, policy-makers, and other relevant stakeholders.
Expected Benefits
The key benefit will be improved adaptive capacity of Traditional Owners and Park managers to respond to
multiple inter-related environmental threats such as anthropogenic climate change and aquatic weeds. The
participatory research approach towards filling knowledge gaps about key threatening processes to
floodplains, and the development of the MSE tool will result in derivation of agreed management objectives
(targets) for sea level rise and weed impacts, and associated performance criteria and indicators used in
monitoring. The outcomes from this case study in Kakadu will be applicable to the extensive areas of
floodplains found across northern Australia.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Lack of support from
Indigenous engagement
and consent will be critical
to the success of the
project.
Risks to personnel during
field work, especially in
remote locations.
Loss of staff
Lack of required data,
particularly high resolution
DEM
9.
Proposed management strategy
Managing the risk will require a considerable amount of effort and
resources from all components of the project. The project approach is
participatory, therefore consultation will be a high priority and the major
focus of the initial 12 months.
There are significant OHS issues relating to field research in this region
and this may restrict some field activities. Coordinated field campaigns
provide one means to minimise risk. All partners have detailed OHS
plans and procedures covering field operations and these will be strictly
applied.
Low risk because of the large consortium and capacity to draw on
additional staff expertise from partner organisations. Key researchers
have already demonstrated a long-term commitment to northern
Australia. All partners have the capability to attract high quality
applicants if key positions need to be filled, and some (eg. CSIRO) have
some capacity to move staff to fill positions.
Various approaches to gaining this data are being strongly pursued and
alternatives are also being explored (e.g. accessing remote sensing data
for vegetation and flood mapping that can be used as a surrogate).
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
This project directly addresses the NERP goal “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”.
Page 72 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
This project clearly addresses the assessment of threats to biodiversity, which is fundamental to
understanding the need for management intervention and the type of intervention that is feasible (NERP
Question 2.1). This project will involve the development of predictive models to forecast rates and patterns of
expansion of weeds and saltwater intrusion and to identify thresholds of impact and to improve our
understanding of ecosystem functioning (Q2.1).
The project considers management responses to maintain resilience to the threats above which addresses(
Q3.1), and will identify refugia from sea level rise and consider how best to manage these refugia (Q3.2).
The MSE model provides a framework for prioritising investment to address multiple threats and assessing
cumulative impacts of these threats (Q3.9). This project will improve our understanding of Indigenous and
biodiversity values of the Indigenous owned Kakadu National Park and the participatory development of the
MSE will support improved management of biodiversity by Indigenous custodians (Q1.6).
10.
Policies and Programs
By focusing on issues of sea-level rise and invasive grasses in Kakadu National Park, this project addresses
research needs of the following key policy areas and programs within the Department:






EPBC Act Listed threatening processes and Threat Abatement Planning
Climate change
World Heritage Values
Ramsar Wetlands
National Reserve System
Environmental Biosecurity
EPBC Act listed threatening processes
The critical need to improve management of tropical invasive grasses was demonstrated by the listing five of
these species as a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act in 2009; a Threat Abatement Plan is being
developed by DEWHA. The KTP nomination and TAP are underpinned by research undertaken by staff in
this theme who will continue to address DEWHAs knowledge gaps to effectively implement the TAP.
Climate change, World Heritage Values, Ramsar Wetlands, NRS
This project relates directly to Parks Australia’s work in climate change, science and research and monitoring
and assessment of ecosystems within parks. The aims of research and monitoring under the Kakadu
National Park Management Plan 2007-2014 include the need for research to lead to a better understanding
on the park’s biodiversity and natural and cultural heritage values; the need for research to identify changes
in the environment in the park; and research should contribute to the effective management of the park and
the region.
The Parks Australia Climate Change Strategic Overview 2009-2014 identifies the principles and objectives
that will guide Parks Australia’s response to managing the consequences of climate change in Parks
Australia’s terrestrial reserves. The Kakadu National Park Climate Change Strategy 2010-2015 recommends
preliminary adaptation, mitigation and communication actions that are required to manage the consequences
of climate change on the park. The strategy provides a series of recommended management actions which
are relevant to the proposed NERP additional coastal projects.
This project will contribute to increasing the modelling tools available to assess the impacts of climate
change on Kakadu National Park. The Kakadu National Park Climate Change Strategy includes the following
actions which relate to this project:
 Identify priorities for further research or integrated monitoring programs to study the causes and
effects of landscape change, how these processes interact and how effects vary across different
landscape types and vegetation communities. Use this information to refine decisions about
acceptable change.
 Partner with research institutions on projects that target identified knowledge gaps and improve
understanding of the resilience of species and communities in the park
 Identify a set of baseline parameters (climatic, geomorphological, hydrological, ecological and social)
to effectively monitor the effects of climate change
 organisations and the digitising and cataloguing of scientific information on a web-based information
portal
 Work with partners to develop a high resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the park
Page 73 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan

11.
Work with partners to develop spatial information systems that assist in predictive modelling of
climate change impacts on the distribution and abundance of vulnerable species and communities
(including invasive species) under different scenarios
DSEWPaC End Users
The project addresses a range of DSEWPaC interests and responsibilities, including biodiversity
conservation within the Parks Australia estate (Peter Cochrane), research and science management (Parks
& Biodiversity Science - Judy West), the health of aquatic ecosystems (Aquatic Systems Health – Tanja
Cvijanovic), indigenous programs (Indigenous Policy Branch – Bruce Edwards), Caring for our Country
Northern Australia interests (Qld, NT and WA state teams), the management of invasive species (Joanne
Nathan, Environmental Biosecurity Section), the protection of the environment and people of the Alligator
Rivers region (Supervising Scientist Division – David Jones) and species mapping (Kate Sandford ReadHead and Jeff Tranter, ERIN).
.
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
The project has close linkages with several other projects in the North Australian Hub, particularly Projects
3.1, 3.3, 3.4 and 5.3. The Supervising Scientist Division (ERISS) has undertaken work on the Magela
Floodplain to use Remote Sensing for seasonal inundation and duration, and has commenced work on
vegetation mapping with a draft Magela floodplain vegetation map prepared. Collaboration will occur with
ERISS in relation to floodplain vegetation mapping, risk assessment work on sea level rise impacts and the
conceptual model of regional climate and hydrodynamic processes.
13.
Activities and Milestones
Year 1 Milestones
Activities
1. Review of climate
change and sea level
rise predictions – Dec
2011
2. Develop conceptual
model of regional
climate and
hydrodynamic
processes – Dec 2011
3. Approvals in place
and traditional owner
consent granted –
Dec 2011
4. Literature review
complete and
conceptual model
developed – June 12
5. Communications
Strategy developed
March 12
6. Implement field
program to map and
assess weed
occurrence and
spread March 12
7. Develop an ABM of
floodplains for
prototype MSE tool –
June 2012
8. Methods refined and
finalized after
consultation – June
12
9. Project newsletter (No

Consult and engage over draft research plan including
methodology and study area (high level)
 Lodge KNP research permit and ethics applications
 Literature review (KNP social and cultural research, Indigenous
knowledge and international adaptive capacity literature)
 Consult traditional owners groups directly over aims, methods
and outputs (and determine if quantification of resource use is
appropriate)
 Team meeting to confirm points of interaction, plan team-wide
field trips modelers to identify information requirements for agent
based model (inc. format), scope out questions relating to
environmental change for Indigenous knowledge-holders and
confirm communications strategy
 Commence small group interviews with land owners to identify
values, places and species of importance, map spatial data, and
understand past and current patterns of resource use (including
factors influencing use), perceptions of environmental change,
threats and socio-economic responses to change
 Collate Park data of current invasion history for aquatic invasive
grasses, including history of introduction, and complete aerial
survey in study area, including ground truthing.
 Establish water depth loggers, and undertake associated
vegetation, seed bank and soil characterization
 Establish plots to monitor weed spread
 Commence weed control trials
 Obtain most recent regional sea level rise predictions for the NT
from CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research (2030, 2070,
2100)
 Collaborate with CAWCR to access the most recent downscaled
decadal and long-term climate predictions for the ARR, and to
assess the potential of the ACCESS model to predict rainfallflow in the ARR over a 50y timeframe and at the best spatial
resolution.
 Develop a conceptual model of regional climate and
Page 74 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
1) produced – June 12
Year 2 milestones
1. Complete sociocultural mapping
exercise – Sept 2012
2. Complete 1st MSE
workshop – Dec 2012
3. Complete mapping of
weed distribution.
4. Socio-economic data
50% complete – Mar
2013
5. Initial operational
MSE model developed
– June 2013
6. Complete 2nd MSE
workshop – June
2013& update MSE
tool
7. Project newsletter #2
produced – June 2013
hydrodynamic processes in the ARR and identify key
uncertainties.
 Develop a conceptual model of past and present Indigenous use
of floodplain resources and incorporate into a BBN, which itself
will be incorporate as a sub-model into the ABM below
 Help scope LIDAR surveys of floodplains to obtain high
resolution DEMs.
 Collate historical data on magpie geese and water chestnut in
the ARR for development of HSMs.
 Develop an Agent-based Model of Kakadu floodplains for MSE
 Incorporate and calibrate a seasonal flood inundation sub-model
model into the ABM
 Undertake an inaugural workshop to introduce the floodplains
study to Traditional Owners and Parks staff.
Activities











Year 3 Milestones
Continue group interviews with land owners throughout the year
Collect quantifiable data on aquatic resource use over a 12
month period
Use the BBN to commence development of the agent-based
participatory modeling framework with traditional owners
Start to incorporate parallel development of biophysical
processes and floodplains use data
Initial operational MSE model developed in partnership with
TOs, parks and other NERP researchers.
Complete year 1 monitoring of weed control trials
Undertake surveys to determine aquatic invasive grass impacts
on magpie geese and turtles
Complete year 1 of monitoring hydrological variables
Commence development of Habitat Suitability Models for
magpie geese
and water chestnut in August 2012
MSE workshop 1: incorporate past and current floodplain values
of Indigenous resource use into MSE tool and other Park values;
develop management objectives, performance criteria and
indicators for monitoring w.r.t sea level rise and weeds; run a
trial demonstration and update MSE tool.
MSE workshop 2: develop agreed management scenarios and
strategies to evaluate; undertake final trial run; update MSE tool.
Activities
1. Complete 3rd MSE
workshop – Dec 2013
2. Socio-economic
data100% complete –
Mar 2014
3. Indigenous resource
valuation exercise
complete – March
2014
4. Complete risk
assessment of weeds,
incorporating spread
and weed
management
modeling.
5. MSE model tested –
March 2014
6. MSE scenario









Complete all fieldwork studies
Complete HSM and cell-based spread models of invasive
grasses in study areas
Determine areas/assets at high risk of invasive grass impacts.
Undertake valuation exercise to determine the relative
importance of places and species in small group workshops,
perhaps with one large workshop to seek agreement
Test MSE model with traditional owners and refine
Developing scenarios to test with TOs and run them over a 12
month period to ensure model is understood and useful
In the last 6 months evaluate the research approach (elicitation,
participatory) with TOs.
MSE workshop 3: commence evaluation of full suite of
management scenarios chosen by stakeholders; and update
MSE tool
MSE Workshop 4: update MSE tool with new NERP research
knowledge; complete full suite of management scenario
evaluations.
Page 75 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
workshops complete
– June 2014
7. Complete 4th MSE
workshop – June
2014
8. HSMs for magpie
geese & water
chestnut complete –
June 2014
Year 4 Milestones


Complete HSMs for magpie geese and water chestnut.
Complete comprehensive risk assessment for sea level rise
impacts on floodplains, including identification of refuge sites for
magpie geese.
Activities
1. Complete final MSE
Workshop 5 – Sept
2014
2. Final report and final
newsletter (No 3)
produced – Dec 2014
3. Plain English report
and feedback
workshop(s) – Dec
(2014)




Complete analysis and write up of research
Submit final scientific reports and stakeholder-targeted
newsletters
Incorporate magpie goose and water chestnut HSMs, and weed
HSMs, into MSE tool.
MSE workshop 5 (final): synthesise and summarise all
workshops to date; commence co-development of a Caring for
Country adaptive management and monitoring program for
Traditional Owners; Traditional Owners and park staff to assess
the participatory MSE approach.
Page 76 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 3
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Aquatic biodiversity conservation
3.3
Biodiversity patterns, conservation planning and resilience of
freshwater fauna
Mark Kennard
Griffith University
Mark Kennard, Jane Hughes, Simon Linke, Brad Pusey, Joel Huey
Project Completion Date:
July 2011
July 2013
Total In-Kind Budget:
$714,275
$1,292,368
Project Summary/ Description
This project will use innovative methods and new data to quantify key environmental determinants of
freshwater and estuarine biodiversity patterns in northern Australia, define appropriate conservation targets
to promote the long-term resilience of freshwater biodiversity and quantify the socioeconomic costs and
conservation benefits to freshwater biodiversity of alternative management actions within a systematic
conservation planning framework (in conjunction with Project 1.1 – Catchment to coastal planning).
This project has four sub-projects:
Sub-project 1 – Cryptic biodiversity in northern Australia. Current taxonomy significantly underrepresents actual species diversity within freshwater fishes and turtles of northern Australia (Cook et al.
2010). This sub-project will use existing molecular data sets that have indicated cryptic species within
several genera of freshwater fishes and turtles from throughout northern Australia. It will use explanatory and
predictive modelling techniques to evaluate the potential for these cryptic biological species to: (i) Enhance
the ability of systematic conservation plans to identity high conservation value aquatic ecosystems, (ii)
Enhance the performance of ‘predictor’ variables (i.e. environmental metrics) in explaining species
distributions and (iii) Enable the identification of fundamental niche differences among cryptic species and
therefore identify key environmental factors to which species may be differentially adapted.
Sub-project 2 – Estuarine biodiversity in the Alligator Rivers region. Estuaries and the coast are key
features of northern Australian rivers supporting high value fisheries and biotic assemblages of high
diversity. Our understanding of the extent and nature of differences among estuaries and their adjacent
coastal habitats across northern Australia, and the processes that sustain high productivity and diversity is
limited, even in high conservation value and pristine areas such as Kakadu National Park. Consequently, our
understanding of the potential cumulative impacts of terrestrial developments and climate change on these
key habitats is also limited. This sub-project will fill a significant knowledge gap in spatial patterns of
estuarine fish biodiversity in the Alligator Rivers Region related to catchment processes and condition. The
study can be used as a critical reference site to compare estuarine biodiversity in catchments and coastal
areas subjected to developments. Models of estuarine fish distribution and abundance will be developed
based on the outputs of a hydrodynamic model for the Alligator Rivers estuary. These models will be used
to assess changes in estuarine fish communities under different climate change scenarios, particularly sea
level rise, and will help predict likely impacts from water resource use and infrastructure developments in
other locations across the north.
Sub-project 3 – Genetically viable populations as conservation targets in the Daly River.
Conservation targets used in conservation plans often relate to protection of a specified portion of habitat for
each species (e.g. 100 km of river length protected for each species in each river system). However, these
are often arbitrary targets, and for some species they likely over-estimate the amount of habitat needed to
protect viable populations, thereby making the plan less efficient. In contrast, for some species such arbitrary
conservation objectives may not protect enough habitat to ensure viable populations, thereby making the
plan less effective. This sub-project will use recent developments in landscape and conservation genetics to
determine the appropriate size and configuration of spatial units that bound viable populations based on
cryptic biodiversity patterns and estimates of effective population sizes. This project will focus on freshwater
fish biodiversity in the Daly River for which we have tissue samples from a large number of sampling
locations but will require additional sampling to fill in key gaps. Depending on data availability, we may also
conduct this sub-project in the Mitchell River basin.
Sub-project 4 - Socioeconomic costs of freshwater conservation management actions in the Daly
River. Systematic conservation planning aims to identify priority areas to best represent and sustain
Page 77 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
biodiversity in the most cost-effective way. However existing frameworks usually do not prescribe the
conservation actions needed to mitigate threats and sustain biodiversity over the long term. They also do not
explicitly incorporate the potential costs and explicit benefits of these actions. This sub-project will explicitly
consider multiple types and levels of threats to freshwater biodiversity and model conservation benefits to
freshwater biodiversity (e.g. fish, turtles, waterbirds) as well as environmental surrogates (including river,
lake and wetland types) in the Daly River catchment. Based on species-specific responses to threats –
derived from expert elicitation and data - we will prescribe spatially-explicit optimal allocation of conservation
measures (mitigation of nutrient and toxicant inputs to improve water quality, restoration of riparian
vegetation, environmental flow allocations) under socio-economic considerations. Here, the aim is to
optimize the set of management actions required to achieve biodiversity conservation goals with the
minimum cost (or impact in local economies). This sub-project will be conducted in conjunction with Project
1.1 – Catchment to coastal planning (led by Bob Pressey).
2.
Geographic Location



3.
Patterns and environmental determinants of cryptic diversity in freshwater fish and turtles (subproject 1) will be evaluated across all of northern Australia.
Quantification of estuarine fish diversity and predictive habitat modelling (sub-project 2) will be
conducted in the lowlands and estuary of the Alligator River Region.
Estimation of freshwater conservation targets (sub-project 3) and socioeconomic costs of
alternative freshwater conservation management actions (sub-project 4) will be focussed on the
Daly River catchment. Key findings from all four sub-projects have considerable potential for
transferability to other parts of northern Australia where data/knowledge may be limiting and/or
where threats to biodiversity are likely in the future.
Problem Statement
Sub-project 1 – Cryptic biodiversity in northern Australia
Previous TRaCK research (e.g. Kennard 2010, Cook et al 2011) has developed a sound preliminary
understanding of key historical and contemporary environmental determinants of biogeographic patterns in
freshwater fauna in northern Australian rivers. This subproject seeks to extend this knowledge by answering
the following research questions: 1) what is the nature and extent of cryptic biodiversity present in selected
genera of freshwater fish and turtles in northern Australia, 2) are spatial patterns of cryptic biodiversity
related to particular environmental and evolutionary drivers (e.g. continental shelf width, historical river
connectivity, bathymetry, palaeoclimatc data) and how does this differ from spatial models based on
recognised species, 3) how does the representation of cryptic biodiversity patterns in systematic
conservation plans change the spatial arrangement of priority areas for conservation management from
those based on recognised species.
Sub-project 2 – Estuarine biodiversity in the Alligator Rivers region
Limited evidence suggest that estuarine fish are a major component of total catchment diversity in northern
Australia yet our understanding of spatial patterns and the processes that sustain estuarine fish biodiversity
is extremely limited. This sub-project seeks to answer the following questions: 1) do estuarine fish display
distinct spatial structuring in response to changing environmental conditions (e.g. due to variation in salinity,
tide, substrate composition), 2), can we develop models to quantify relationships between environmental
conditions and species composition/abundance, 3) can these models be used to assess ecological
responses to climate change and other stressors (e.g., sea level rise, flow regime change).
Sub-project 3 – Genetically viable populations as conservation targets in the Daly River
Identifying appropriate conservation targets to ensure the long-term persistence of species is a significant
conservation challenge. Using recent developments in landscape and conservation genetics, this sub-project
seeks to answer the following questions: 1) what is an appropriate effective population size to ensure long
term population viability, 2) what is the length of river channel required to conserve populations with an
adequate effective population size, 3) how should these protected areas be arranged in the landscape to
ensure ongoing gene flow, also bolstering long term population viability.
Sub-project 4 - Socioeconomic costs of freshwater conservation management actions in the Daly
River
Systematic planning approaches help decision-makers to conserve biodiversity in the most cost-effective
way but do not directly prescribe actions to remediate threats in a spatially-explicit manner. This sub-project
seeks to answer the following questions: 1) can we estimate the impact of different management actions on
of persistence of biodiversity (or integrity of aquatic ecosystem types, 2) can we estimate the socio-economic
costs of alternative management actions to sustain or restore freshwater biodiversity 3) can we develop an
Page 78 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
optimisation algorithm that considers multiple management actions to restore or sustain freshwater
biodiversity while simultaneously considering socioeconomic costs with the aim of prescribing an optimal
allocation of conservation effort across the river and surrounding landscape.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
Sub-project 1 – Cryptic biodiversity in northern Australia
Year 1. We will use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence data to determine patterns of cryptic biodiversity
across northern Australia within six genera of freshwater fishes (i.e. Glossamia, Neosilurus, Oxyeleotris,
Craterocephalus, Ambassis, Hephaestus) and the long-necked turtle genus, Chelodina. Much of this data
exists in published or unpublished form, and the first step of this project will be to collate the mtDNA data for
the candidate species.
Year 2. Phylogenetic methods will be used to analyse the data and identify genetic lineages within each
species, with the lineages reflecting intra-specific evolutionary units. These intra-specific genetic lineages are
appropriate taxonomic units for conservation, and some lineages may reflect newly discovered species
(Moritz, 1994). The identified genetic lineages will be used as ‘taxa’ in spatial modelling.
Year 3. Explanatory and predictive models of spatial patterns in cryptic diversity will be conducted using
multiple modelling methods including artificial neural networks (ANN), multiple adaptive regression splines
(MARS) and generalised dissimilarity models (GDM).
Sub-project 2 – Estuarine biodiversity in the Alligator Rivers region
Year 1 & 2. Estuarine fish in the Alligator Rivers region will be sampled twice (dry season and wet season).
Multiple methodologies (gill netting, beam trawl, electrofishing, seine netting) will be employed at a large
number of locations throughout the estuary and lower reaches of the river. Sampling would be stratified by
tide (e.g. low and high water). A large proportion would be sampled on each sampling occasion although a
proportion of the total number would be unique given that wet season locations would not be inundated
during the dry season. A range of environmental variables would also be collected at the time of sampling
e.g. depth, velocity, salinity, tidal movement, vegetation and substrate. Additional environmental information
would be derived from remotely sensed information sources and from the results of the proposed
hydrodynamic modelling (see project 3.4) of the saltwater-freshwater interface.
Year 2. Fish samples collected and preserved in the field will be processed in the laboratory for species
identification and enumeration. Explanatory models of variation in estuarine fish distribution and abundance
will be developed using multiresponse artificial neural networks (ANN) and/or multiple adaptive regression
splines (MARS).
Year 3. Models will be used to assess changes in estuarine fish communities under different climate change
scenarios, particularly sea level rise, and will help differentiate impacts from water resource use and
infrastructure developments in other locations across the north.
Sub-project 3 – Genetically viable populations as conservation targets in the Daly River
Year 1 & 2. We will use landscape, hydrographic and existing population genetic data, to identify
representative hydrographic units reflecting various aquatic habitat types (e.g., upland, perennial, ephemeral,
lowland) for fine scale longitudinal sampling. We will sample the candidate species at multiple sites along
the full length of the identified hydrographic units, taking tissue samples from a minimum of 15 individuals
per species per site. These tissue samples will be screened for variation at already available microsatellite
loci, generating large population genetic datasets.
Year 2 & 3. We will use population genetic data to calculate traditional population genetic parameters (e.g.,
FST, allelic richness) and some novel conservation genetic indices (e.g., effective population size, N e).
Effective population size is a fundamental parameter in population genetics, equating to the size of an
idealised population that would lose genetic diversity (by genetic drift) at the same rate as the actual
population (Charlesworth, 2009). It is typically orders-of-magnitude lower than the census size and reflects
demographic and population processes (e.g., past bottlenecks, skewed sex ratios) that are causing genetic
diversity to be lost from populations. Recent breakthroughs in its estimation from genetic data (e.g., Tallmon
et al 2008) make it an ideal tool for integration in conservation planning.
Year 3. Using a landscape genetics approach (Manel et al, 2003), relationships between environmental
variables (e.g. landscape topography, hydrology) and genetic indices will be examined. These analyses will
provide ‘landscape rules’ or ‘hydrographic rules’ that indicate important patterns in population genetic
variation. These rules will then be applied in spatial modelling to extrapolate patterns of predicted genetic
population structure and genetic diversity throughout the full river network. These novel predicted spatial
Page 79 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
models of genetic diversity will be used to set specific targets for application in systematic conservation
planning. Once we can predict how genetic variation will be partitioned throughout the Daly River for the
candidate species, we can perform systematic conservation planning analyses which will identify the
number, location and spatial connectivity of subpopulations required to maximise genetic diversity and
effective population size and ensure long-term resilience and persistence of species. This information can
be used to identify populations that harbor the highest genetic diversity and adaptive potential. These
populations are those that have already exhibited historical resilience to environmental change, and should
continue to do so. These populations can be considered ‘refugia’ to future environmental change.
Sub-project 4 - Socioeconomic costs of freshwater conservation management actions in the Daly
River
Year 1.
Asset mapping
Aquatic ecological assets (aquatic ecosystems types and freshwater biodiversity) have recently been
identified and mapped for all river basins of northern Australia (Kennard 2010). The current project will
expand this earlier study by developing and assessing the species distribution models using several
alternative predictive modelling approaches (including artificial neural networks, multiple adaptive regression
splines, random forests). By using ensemble predictions across the models, uncertainty in model predictions
can be quantified (Elith & Leathwick 2009). As a spatial framework, we will use the spatially explicit,
consistent and comparable aquatic ecosystem delineation and classification that has recently been
developed for northern Australia (Kennard 2010). The results of the delineation and classification process
provide base level mapped aquatic assets for the Daly River at a scale of 1:250,000.
Threat mapping
We will evaluate management actions for some of the most common and important threats to the
conservation of freshwater biodiversity in general and the Daly River in particular in the planning process.
These threats include weeds and feral animals (pigs and water buffalo), cattle grazing, water extraction,
artificial barriers to riverine connectivity (e.g. weirs and road crossings), inappropriate fire regimes and land
clearing for more intensive land-uses such as urbanization, pasture and agriculture (Chan et al. 2011).. The
spatial allocation of these threats will be characterised across the study area by using existing cartography,
whenever available, or using expert criteria.
Year 2.
Costs and socio-economic aspects of multiple conservation actions
The integration of multiple conservation actions, their costs, and their socio-economic impacts on various
stakeholders - as well as the uncertainty associated with all of these factors - is essential for the goal of
realistic conservation planning. The monetary costs of these actions would be defined in a spatially explicit
manner, using an expert elicitation process. Experts in conservation management would be asked to define
the activities required in carrying out each action and their costs over incremental additions of effort, and
uncertainty associated with these estimates. Experts in aquatic ecology would be asked to define the likely
benefits in terms of improved persistence of aquatic species and ecosystems, and the uncertainty
surrounding these estimates, if varying levels of each action was implemented. Experts in socio-economic
system of the region would be asked to identify key stakeholder groups and how each of the actions is likely
to impact upon these groups. A stakeholder engagement process would also be undertaken to ensure that
actions may be planned that are aligned with the priorities and aspirations of people within the region.
Particularly important groups to consider and involve in the Daly River Catchment are Indigenous
landholders and land users and pastoralists. Indigenous Australians and pastoralists currently manage a
large proportion of land and water in northern Australia, and have enormous potential for further contributing
to conservation goals. While conservation actions must consider compensation for economic losses and
opportunity costs to people within the region, there is also vast potential for conservation actions to
contribute benefits outside conservation for people in the Daly region and northern Australia in general. A full
analysis of the costs and the benefits to multiple stakeholders, the uncertainty surrounding these, and a
process to engagement key stakeholders, will enable informed decision making that takes account of the full
set of important goals for northern Australia and people within the Daly region.
Ecological responses to management actions
The impact of different management actions on of persistence of biodiversity (or integrity of aquatic
ecosystem types) will be estimated by using either species-specific response curves, whenever available, or
response curves for groups of species with similar ecological traits (e.g., species with similar habitat and lifehistory requirements). These curves will inform on the probability of persistence of current biodiversity values
if management actions were implemented (e.g., probability of persistence of a fish species if water quality
was improved to a certain level). Alternatively, whenever data on species responses are not sufficient to
build these curves, expert derived information will be used to estimate the type and magnitude of the
Page 80 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
response of biodiversity to the tested management action. A similar approach has been recently used by
Carwardine et al. (2011) in a study of cost-effective conservation management of the Kimberley region in
North Australia.
Year 2 & 3
Development of optimisation algorithms
To solve the allocation problem, we will use simulated annealing - an optimisation method popular in natural
resource management (Ball et al. 2009). Simulated annealing is a trial and error method, in which – out of
the complete pool of actions – one action is randomly selected and its effect on the set of objectives is
measured. If the simulated action was a good choice (ie. takes a step towards fulfilling the objectives), the
action is always accepted. If the simulated action was a bad choice, it is rejected. While most optimisation
algorithms thus far were used in reserve design, project team member Simon Linke and colleagues have
modified these algorithms to deal with environmental water allocation and sedimentation restoration
respectively.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes








6.
Key Expected Outputs












7.
Improved knowledge base for conservation and management of freshwater and estuarine
biodiversity in northern Australia (all sub-projects)
A greater understanding of the environmental and evolutionary processes that sustain freshwater
biodiversity so that these may be adequately managed under regional natural resource management
plans (sub-project 1 & 3)
Foundational knowledge on the estuarine fish biodiversity of the Alligator River and the processes
that sustain this biodiversity (sub-project 2)
Improved ability to identify and predict the impacts of the key threatening processes on estuarine
and freshwater biodiversity to underpin mitigation and adaptation planning (sub-projects 2 & 4)
Greater scientific rigour and defensibility in the choice of biodiversity targets to maintain long-term
resilience of freshwater biodiversity (sub-project 3)
Greater cost-effectiveness in natural resource management activities aimed at protecting and restore
freshwater biodiversity (sub-project 4)
Active engagement of stakeholders in the management of freshwater biodiversity and aquatic
ecological assets in northern Australia (sub-project 4).
Greater public confidence in catchment planning decisions that are based on world-class science (all
sub-projects)
Development of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence database for selected genera of freshwater
fishes and turtles across all of northern Australia. (sub-project 1)
Explanatory and predictive models of spatial variation in cryptic biodiversity for freshwater fish and
turtles across northern Australia (sub-project 1)
Comprehensive list of estuarine fish biodiversity in the Alligator River (sub-project 2)
Explanatory model for estuarine fish in the Alligator River (sub-project 2)
Spatial models of genetic diversity for freshwater fishes in the Daly River (sub-project 3)
Preliminary identification of conservation priorities for freshwater fish in the Daly River using
systematic conservation planning algorithm (sub-project 3
Maps of aquatic ecological assets and threats in the Daly River basin (sub-project 4)
Estimates of the ecological responses of aquatic assets to conservation management actions (subproject 4)
Estimates of the socioeconomic costs of conservation management actions in the Daly River Basin
(sub-project 4)
Development of comprehensive conservation plan for the Daly River catchment (sub-project 4, in
conjunction with Project 1.1 – Catchment to coastal planning)
Scientific publications in high quality international journals (all sub-projects).
Plain English summaries of research findings (all sub-projects)
Expected Benefits
The ecological sustainability of river-floodplain ecosystems in northern Australia is threatened by the
pervasive effects of hydrological alteration, agricultural and urban land-use, and invasive species. Climate
change is an added stress, with critical implications for the long-term integrity of aquatic biodiversity and
productivity. These issues are important biodiversity conservation challenges for scientists and managers in
Page 81 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
northern Australia. The project will enhance the capacity of natural resource managers to implement costeffective threat mitigation and adaptation programs. Millions of dollars are spent each year on river
management activities aimed at resorting and protecting freshwater biodiversity, yet we currently lack the
knowledge or tools to ensure that these investments are spread efficiently and effectively.
The scientific outcomes of the proposed research will assist environmental management agencies in
identifying aquatic ecological assets that are most threatened from current and future human impacts, and
will enable appropriate mitigation, restoration and monitoring strategies to be developed. This research
should aid greatly in the development of strategies and policies for environmentally sustainable economic
and social development of northern Australia.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Risks
Loss of key research
team members
Capacity to support
the research is
inadequate
Research costs
exceed budget
Adoption of outputs
below expectations
New policy initiatives
makes research
redundant
Health, safety and
environmental risks
limit outcomes
9.
Management Actions
All key members of the research team are committed to the project and are
unlikely to be lost from the program. The project investigators have the skills
to oversee the completion of all aspects of the project.
Capacity exists within the research team and their supporting institutions to
fully support the major activities outline in this project
The budget has been based on similar sampling projects undertaken by
members of the project team who have extensive experience in costing this
type of work. We will seek additional funds from other sources to ensure that
sufficient funds are available in the unlikely event that costs exceed the
budget.
This risk is greatly minimised as the agencies responsible for adoption have
been involved in the development of the research
The research project fills a fundamental knowledge gap, which will be
essential to the implementation of policies aimed at aquatic ecosystem
management and sustainable development in northern Australia. We
All research activities will have to pass University OHS and ethical clearance
committees before commencement
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
 Building and researching the national reserve system, managing Commonwealth terrestrial and
marine protected areas and effective off-reserve and ex-situ management (research issues include
identifying where these important areas are, landscape connectivity, species conservation thresholds,
and linking reserves to off-reserve conservation management).
 Identifying places of heritage value to Australia through major strategic assessments of the Kimberley
and Cape York, and protecting these and already recognised sites, such as the Wet Tropics World
Heritage Area and its associated rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef.
Question 1. Values: understanding the major drivers for maintaining biodiversity
1. How we do we evaluate the biological (intrinsic), economic and social values of biodiversity to decide
what ecosystems and functions to conserve, and how to prioritise these for management and
investment?
Considerations include:
1.3 What is the fairest and most cost-effective mix of policy tools to conserve recognised biodiversity
values (e.g. land acquisition, covenants, stewardship payments, regulation, education) at both
national and regional scales?
1.4 What are the best mechanisms for sharing the costs of management between the various
beneficiaries?
1.6 How can the management of biodiversity values of the Indigenous estate by Indigenous custodians
be improved upon, and what incentives/resources, information and support are needed to achieve
this?
Question 3. Threats: maintaining/building resilience for future changing threats
Page 82 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
3. What adaptation strategies, including improvements to current management and completely novel
strategies, could be used to improve the resilience of Australia’s environment—particularly in the face of
climate change and cumulative threats?
Considerations include:
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.9
10.
How do we manage ecosystems and regions for ecological resilience: how is resilience maintained,
restored and monitored?
How do we best manage important ecological features, such as climatic refugia, that could prevent
decline in ecosystem function or improve species management?
How can we assess the effectiveness of habitat connectivity as an adaptation mechanism for future
climatic changes?
How can the biodiversity value of protected areas be improved through a system of establishing
adjacent buffering areas?
What role will genetic adaptation play?
In coastal areas, how can catchment and near-shore management be improved to better protect
coastal ecosystems? How can we characterise and quantify threats to marine species posed by
coastal development?
How can the different threats to biodiversity be prioritised for management and investment purposes,
and how can cumulative threats be assessed?
Policies and Programs
By focusing on patterns, threats and management options to sustain estuarine and freshwater biodiversity,
this project addresses research needs of the following key policy areas and programs within the Department:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
EPBC Act Listed threatening processes
Climate Change
Natural Heritage Values
Ramsar Wetlands
NRS
Caring for our Country Program, including Working on Country
This research fits well within the National Research Priority 1 – An Environmentally Sustainable
Australia. The project will increase our understanding of the linkages between hydrology, catchment
characteristics and aquatic biodiversity (Priority Goal 1 Water – a critical resource”), identify and prioritise
areas for conservation and management of freshwater biodiversity (Priority Goal 5 “Sustainable use of
Australia’s biodiversity”), and predict the impacts of climate change on freshwater fish (Priority Goal 7
“Responding to climate change and variability”).
This project is also timely given that the Council of Australian Governments and the Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council identifies biodiversity as a priority for climate change adaptation and has
called for increased research into the impacts of climate change and adaptation options for species and
ecosystems threatened by climate change.
This research can also inform the Aquatic Ecosystems Task Group established by the Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council in part to develop a national policy framework for the identification,
classification and management of high ecological value aquatic ecosystems, as required by the National
Water Initiative (as well as the Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment).
11.
DSEWPaC End Users








12.
Anthony Whalen – Natural and Indigenous Heritage
Paul Marsh – Aquatic Ecosystems Policy (Aquatic Ecosystems Task Group)
Judy West – Parks & Biodiversity Science
Tim Bond - National Reserve System (NRS)
Bruce Edwards – Indigenous Policy Branch
Caring for our Country Qld, NT and WA state teams
Kate Sandford Read-Head and Jeff Tranter - ERIN
Another key end-user is the Daly River Management and Advisory Council (DRMAC)
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects

Project 1.1 Catchment to coast planning (Pressey)
Page 83 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan


13.
Project 3.1 River to landscape connections and biodiversity (Bunn)
Project 3.4 predicting patterns and processes of biodiversity in estuarine and coastal environments:
assessing climate change impacts (Parry, Williams)
Activities and Milestones
Year 1
(2011 - 2012)
Activities
 Hold project planning meetings (all sub-projects)
 Develop draft project proposal (all sub-projects)
 Collate mtDNA data (sub-project 1)
 Dry season (Aug 2012) sampling of estuarine fish in the Alligator River (subproject 2)
 Sample fish in the Daly River (sub-project 3)
 Undertake laboratory genetic analysis of Daly River fish samples (sub-project 3)
 Collate data on distribution of freshwater assets and threats for the Daly River
(sub-project 4)
Milestones
 Signed contract
 Completed multi-year research plan
Year 2
(2012-2013)
Activities
 Conduct phylogenetic analysis (sub-project 1)
 Wet season (March 2013) sampling of estuarine fish in the Alligator River (subproject 2)
 Laboratory processing of estuarine fish samples (sub-project 2)
 Develop explanatory models of estuarine fish distribution and abundance (subproject 2)
 Sample fish in the Daly River (sub-project 3)
 Undertake laboratory genetic analysis of Daly River fish samples (sub-project 3)
 Calculate population genetic parameters (sub-project 3)
 Hold expert workshop to estimate ecological responses to conservation
management actions (sub-project 4)
 Hold expert workshop to estimate socioeconomic costs of conservation
management actions (sub-project 4)
 Hold stakeholder engagement workshop (sub-project 4)
 Develop conservation optimization algorithm (sub-project 4)
 Draft scientific publications to high quality international journals (all sub-projects).
 Draft Plain English summaries of research findings (all sub-projects)
Milestones
 Financial report for Year 1
Year 3
(2013 – 2014)
Activities
 Develop predictive models of cryptic biodiversity (sub-project 1)
 Develop explanatory models of estuarine fish distribution and abundance (subproject 2)
 Assess changes to estuarine fish under future environmental scenarios (subproject 2)
 Calculate population genetic parameters (sub-project 3)
 Estimate conservation targets based on population genetic parameters (subproject 3)
 Perform systematic conservation planning analyses (sub-project 3)
 Implement conservation optimization algorithm (sub-project 4)
 Draft scientific publications to high quality international journals (all sub-projects).
 Draft Plain English summaries of research findings (all sub-projects)
Milestones
 Financial report for Year 2
Page 84 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Year 4
(2014)
Activities
 Submit scientific publications to high quality international journals (all subprojects).
 Complete Plain English summaries of research findings (all sub-projects)
Milestones
 Financial report for Year 3 & 4
References
Charlesworth, B. (2009) Effective population size and patterns of molecular evolution and variation. Nat Rev
Genet, 10, 195-205.
Tallmon, D.A., Koyuk, A., Luikart, G. & Beaumont, M.A. (2008) Onesamp: a program to estimate effective
population size using approximate Bayesian computation. Molecular Ecology Resources, 8, 299-301.
Manel, S., Schwartz, M.K., Luikart, G. & Taberlet, P. (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape
ecology and population genetics. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 189-197.
Moritz, C. (1994) Defining 'Evolutionarily Significant Units' for conservation. TREE, 9, 373-375.
Page 85 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 3
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
Aquatic biodiversity conservation
3.4
Hydrodynamic, sediment transport and water quality models in
estuarine and coastal environments of the Alligator Rivers
Region: assessing climate change impacts
David Williams
AIMS
David Parry, David Williams
Project Completion Date:
Sep 2011
Sep 2013
Total In-Kind Budget:
$228,480
$247,858
1.
Project Summary/ Description
The northern Australian rivers, estuaries and coastal zone are dynamic due to combinations of the tidal
climate and wet season flows. Biodiversity and sediment transport in the marine and fresh water
environment are intrinsically linked. Bed sediments influence habitat development and suspended sediments
affect the water column light climate and primary production. Models and remote sensing tools will be
developed that link biodiversity with environmental processes in order to map present conditions and analyse
changes over time.
These tools will be used to make predictions for a range of coastal change scenarios, land use and climate
change. The study will focus on the Alligator Rivers Region and the Lower Mary River as these areas are
culturally, ecologically and economically important in the Northern Territory, nationally and internationally
(given the World Heritage status of Kakadu National park.
2.
Geographic Location
South and East Alligator River Estuaries from the mouth of the estuaries to the tidal limits within Kakadu
National Park.
3.
Problem Statement
The Alligator Rivers are the only river and estuarine systems in the Northern Territory that lie wholly within a
national park. Kakadu National Park is an iconic park and world heritage area. It encompasses many cultural
and environmental values. The estuary and adjacent flood plain are potentially at risk from climate change
due to rising sea level and more intense rainfall and cyclone activity. This could result in the saline intrusion
on the floodplain, saline intrusion into freshwater wetland areas such as Yellow Waters and change the
ecology of the system. This could have potential disastrous effects on biodiversity, tourism and cultural
values.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
The project will develop models of key processes including coastal and estuarine tidal ranges and tidal
flows, sediment and water quality transport. The models will be designed to have ample spatial and temporal
resolution to define key processes and be able to identify key drivers of change and areas of impact. This
will be done through a series of targeted surveys during the dry and wet season periods.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
The main outcomes of the project are a suite of hydrodynamic, sediment transport and water quality models
that underpin the ecologic and social framework models being undertaken by a range of other researchers.
Project meetings have indicated that all researchers consider the models make strong linkages to and
between all other projects.
Page 86 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
6.
Key Expected Outputs





7.
Bathymetric map of estuarine systems
Tide levels and predictions
Hydrodynamic, sediment transport and water quality models
Climate change risk assessment scenarios
Framework for eco-hydrology model
Expected Benefits
This project will provide a tangible link between all NERP projects in the Alligator Rivers region. The models
will provide a decision support system for adaptive management. The modeling project and the data
collected during the project is a key tool in the understanding of the physical, chemical and biological
processes in the region.
These outcomes will allow an understanding of the movement patterns of key fauna that use the freshwatersaltwater interface in estuaries in the ARR combined with the use of chemical signatures in order to better
predict the impact of climate change.
In addition there will be a substantial increase in knowledge of seasonal biodiversity patterns of estuarine
fish in the ARR, particularly Kakadu National Park, in relation to catchment and coastal processes, and
climate change and other threats.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
The most significant risk for
this project relates to
climatic events during the
wet season. It may be a
severe wet season (Risk),
caused by severe
monsoonal activity and
cyclones (Source) and this
could delay (or prevent) wet
season data collection in the
rivers and estuaries
(Consequence).
9.
Proposed management strategy
The project site is 2.5-3 hours from Darwin on sealed roads. The
researchers are local, live in Darwin and know the area well. The dry
season is predictable, rain events are rare and the estuary is protected
from strong south easterly winds which dominate during the dry season.
Research work is planned during the wet season but unless there is an
extremely wet season, even wetter the 2010-11 which was the wettest on
record, roads are likely to be cut by floodwater for less than 1 month of
the 3-4 month wet season period.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
This project addresses Question 2. Ecosystems: understanding ecosystem function/monitoring
ecosystem health; specifically questions under 2.1 and 2.2:
How can we improve our capacity to understand, monitor and evaluate ecosystem function/health, including
by using predictive models/tools, to ensure:
 key ecosystem functions can be understood and maintained through effective management
 threats to values, such as biodiversity or important ecosystem functions, can be detected
 trends can be monitored and tipping points/thresholds, that indicate species, population or
ecosystem collapse, can be predicted, and
 which management actions are effective and timely, can their success be measured over time,
and how can their relevance/effectiveness be evaluated as the environment changes (i.e. use of
adaptive management systems)?
What are practical models for incorporating complex ecosystem science into management, e.g. through key
drivers such as keystone species, core processes and human activities?
What are the minimum data needed to determine the health of an ecosystem?
 The project will provide an understanding of the links at a catchment to coast scale. Models and
tools will be developed to predict the impact of land and coastal use and climate change.
10.
Policies and Programs
Page 87 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
This project relates to the following DSEWPaC policies and programs as identified from feedback from the
Department:




11.
DSEWPaC End Users




12.
“The Biodiversity Vulnerability Assessment 2009 identifies that many of Australia’s most valued
and iconic natural areas, and the rich biodiversity they support, are especially vulnerable to the
effects of climate change (see
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/publications/biodiversity/biodiversity-climatechange.aspx).
Climate change is a major threat in its own right, and will exacerbate existing threats to
biodiversity.”
In Conservation Policy Section, Land and Coasts Division the project is relevant to Australia’s
Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and the government’s commitment to managing biodiversity
at landscape-scale. The outcomes from the project support the approaches advocated in the
biodiversity strategy, and in particular will provide examples of tools for understanding and
managing a catchment from headwaters to coast using decision tools, the hydrodynamic, water
quality and ecohydrology model.
The Strategic Assessment Branch, Environment Assessment and Compliance Division identified
that “any future strategic assessment of coastal areas across northern Australia would likely
require information related to hydrodynamics/water quality; nutrients inflows, sediments. Having
predictive capacity/models for this (will be) useful.”
Parks Operations and Tourism Branch, Parks Australia identified that “These proposed projects
(including 3.4) are related to Parks Australia’s work in climate change, science and research and
monitoring and assessment of ecosystems within parks.” The project is highly relevant to:
o Kakadu National Park Management Plan 2007-2014 ;
o The Parks Australia Climate Change Strategic Overview 2009-2014 ;
o The Kakadu National Park Climate Change Strategy 2010-2015 .
Steven Oxley and Mark Flannigan, marine and coastal areas
Anna Morgan, Parks Operations
Martin Wardrop - Conservation Policy Section, Land and Coasts Division
Margaret Considine, Carolyn Cameron – Strategic Assessment Branch, Environment Assessment
and Compliance Division
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
The project will link with at least three other projects within the Hub:



13.
3.5: Targeted surveys for estuarine biodiversity in the Alligator Rivers Region encompassing
Kakadu National Park;
5.2: Remote sensing methods to map and monitor the condition of coastal habitats and other
surrogates of biodiversity;
5.3: Use of ecogenomics to monitor and assess biodiversity in estuaries of the Alligator Rivers
Region, encompassing Kakadu National Park.
Activities and Milestones
Year 1
Start September 2011
Activities:











Deploy tide gauges for dry season South Alligator River Sept
2011
Commence bathymetric survey South Alligator River Sept 2011
ADCP transects begin October 2011
Retrieve tide gauges South Alligator end October
Analyse tides and reduce bathymetric survey
November 2011 begin hydrodynamic and WQ models
Deploy tide gauges for wet season February 2012
ADCP transects begin March 2012
Retrieve tide gauges end March 2012
Analyse tide records April 2012
Wet season modeling May – June 2012
Page 88 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Year 2
September 2012
Milestones:
 Incorporate data from other projects and run modeling scenarios
for current and altered states for South Alligator River: July –
August 2012
 Report on year one results: August 2012
Activities:











Deploy tide gauges for dry season East Alligator River Sept 2012
Commence bathymetric survey East Alligator River Sept 2012
ADCP transects begin October 2012
Retrieve tide gauges East Alligator end October
Analyse tides and reduce bathymetric survey
November 2011 begin hydrodynamic and WQ models
Deploy tide gauges for wet season February 2013
ADCP transects begin March 2013
Retrieve tide gauges end March 2013
Analyse tide records April 2013
Wet season modeling May – June 2013
Milestones:

Year 3
September 2013
Incorporate data from other projects and run modeling scenarios
for current and altered states for East Alligator River: July –
August 2013
 Report on year 2 results: August 2013
Activities:


September 2013 – August 2014, combine South Alligator and
East Alligator models with flood plains and Van Diemen Gulf
model and run scenarios for current historic conditions and altered
conditions based on climate change scenarios.
Capture any outstanding data as identified through the modeling.
Milestones:



Produce hydrodynamic and water quality models; September
2014
Produce hazard maps: September 2014
Publish reports: December 2014
Page 89 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 4
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
4.1.
Research and management to reverse decline of native mammal
fauna
John Woinarski
Charles Darwin University
John Woinarski, Sarah Legge, Alaric Fisher
Project Completion Date:
July 2011
December 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$2,171,894
$1,148,586
Project Summary/ Description
This project seeks to undertake the necessary research to inform and steer management that can more
effectively conserve that component of the biodiversity of northern Australia under most immediate threat
(native mammals). A suite of native mammal species is currently undergoing rapid and broad-scale decline,
even in relatively well-resourced conservation reserves. Research to date has not yet definitively proven the
relative contribution of alternative drivers of this decline, rendering it difficult to cost, direct and apply
responsive management. Nonetheless, the research to date suggests that predation by feral cats and
inappropriate fire regimes are the most plausible causative agents (with disease not discounted, in part
through lack of evidence).
This project seeks to provide the evidence from which to apportion blame: to design and implement
controlled experiments particularly targeting the impact of cats, and thence to develop costed options for
remedial management. Beyond the experimental research, this project also seeks to synthesise existing
knowledge relating to the issue, and contribute to the development and implementation of recovery plans
and actions for threatened mammal species in the region.
2.
Geographic Location
Subject to ongoing negotiations with traditional owners and park managers, the research will be undertaken
at Kakadu National Park, Cobourg Peninsula (Garig Gunak Barlu NP), and a selection of AWC properties
across northern Australia. Where it adds strategic value or transferability, additional sites may be added.
3.
Problem Statement
The problem here is unusually explicit and well-defined, and the research is targeted to specifically address
the problem. The core problem is that many native mammal species of northern Australia are in rapid and
broad-scale decline. This decline affects world heritage values in some reserves, it affects cultural
obligations, it may reverberate through savanna ecological processes more broadly, and it is inconsistent
with the objectives of many international, national and jurisdictional polices and strategies.
The research aims to provide the evidence to allow managers to staunch and reverse that decline. There are
two subordinate questions:
(i) what is the relative contribution of each of the factors that are causing the decline? and
(ii) what are the most cost-effective, efficient and appropriate means for managing the threats to a
level that allows recovery?
The hypothesis underlying this research project is that the most likely major causal factor is predation by
feral cats, and that hypothesis can be tested most definitively only through controlled experimentation
(involving cat exclosures and in some cases experimental translocations).
However, this project seeks also to embed the research within an adaptive management framework,
recognising that a good research outcome alone will be insufficient, and that the key deliverable will be
knowledge transfer to steer effective threat management for conservation benefit.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
The main component of this project addresses the role of predation by feral cats in the current decline of
small- and medium-sized native mammals in northern Australia. Other components consider the potential
role of disease (in years 3 and 4); further application of mechanisms to manage the impacts of toads on the
Page 90 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
most susceptible native mammal species (the northern quoll) (in years 2 and3) [details of these components
will be fleshed out further contingent on results from the first phase of this project]; and a synthesis and
review designed particularly to guide managers on the most cost-effective and efficient management
mechanisms to conserve the native mammal fauna.
A key approach to all components is to embed the research into an adaptive management context, and to
involve managers, landholders and other key stakeholders collaboratively in all parts of the project.
At this stage of the project, the primary focus is the design of the study evaluating the significance of cat
predation. Some context is required to justify and understand the proposed study design:
(i) a range of studies in temperate, arid and semi-arid Australia have used predator-proof fencing to
demonstrate the impacts of feral predators (cats and foxes) on Australian native mammals (and
other components of biodiversity) and show that these predators are driving decline of these
native species, however to date no comparable studies have been completed in northern
Australia (where foxes are absent, and hence total predation pressure may be less significant);
(ii) management to reduce or eliminate feral predators (especially cats) is expensive and difficult, so – to
justify such expense - it is necessary to be sure that it is the most critical issue to address;
(iii) many stakeholders find it hard to appreciate that feral cats could be doing such damage, given that
cats have been in the north Australian environment for at least a century, and that feral cats are
almost invisible in this environment;
(iv) to be effective, experimental predator-free sites need to be predator-proofed – this requires effective
(and expensive) fencing (with relevant designs now widely precedented);
(v) to be robust, experimental design should have replicates and controls (and replicates also reduce
risk of catastrophic losses of infrastructure (such as through cyclone damage);
(vi) experimental sites will work most effectively when they are large (because these will more relate to
the size of cat home ranges, and because the sample sizes of native mammals will be larger);
so
(vii) experimental design is a considered balance of cost, replication, and plot size.
The major experimental research will be conducted at Kakadu and Garig Gunak Barlu (Cobourg Peninsula)
National Parks in the Top End, and at AWC properties in the Kimberley, Top End and Cape York. At each of
the two National Parks, a small set of sites will be selected, matched for broad environmental similarity
(eucalypt open forest).
All sites will be baseline sampled (for native mammals and cats) before any experimental treatments. Sites
will then be randomly allocated to either exclosure-fencing, ongoing cat-baiting or control (untreated)
treatments, with two replicates each of these treatments for both Parks, one exposed to regular fire and one
protected from fire. Sites will be either 500 m x 500 m or 1km x 1km, dependent upon final assessment of
fence-construction budgets. Cats will be removed from within the cat exclosure fenced area, using a
combination of trapping and cat-hunting dogs. All sites will then be sampled at two-monthly intervals over a
three year period using conventional mammal-survey techniques. (Where possible other taxa will also be
surveyed (e.g. reptiles) to assess other potential collateral benefits.) Dependent upon the outcome of
consultations, at least one set of the Kakadu sites will be “seeded” with experimental translocation of brushtailed rabbit-rats (from Cobourg Peninsula).
This species is thought to have become extinct in Kakadu within the last five years. This design will allow
analysis to assess the relative benefits on native mammals of predator exclusion, and of control through
baiting. Subsequent consideration will use cost-benefit analysis to assess the consequences and
effectiveness of a range of predator management options. It also tests the importance and required extent
(eg exclusion by fencing vs reduction by baiting) of predator control when reintroducing species that are now
regionally extinct.
On the AWC properties, we will measure the response of fauna to landscape-scale experimental
manipulation of fire and introduced herbivores, and examine whether and how key threats interact to impact
on native mammals. At Wongalara (central Arnhem Land) and Piccaninny Plains (Cape York), introduced
herbivores (buffalo, cattle, horses, donkeys) will be removed from specially constructed fenced areas of
100,000 ha and 20,000 ha respectively; introduced herbivores have already been cleared from a third site of
40,000 ha at Mornington (Kimberley). We will construct a long-term (ie. 10+ years fire history based on
medium resolution satellite imagery for each property.
At each property, permanent fauna sampling sites will be established in areas with/without introduced
herbivores, and with frequent /infrequent fire histories. Fire will then be applied or excluded experimentally
on an annual basis to tease apart whether the effect of key threats (introduced herbivores, fire history and
recent fire events) act in an additive, interactive, or synergistic way on native mammals and other fauna. The
Page 91 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
density and behaviour of cats in relation to the presence of introduced herbivores and the dispersion of burnt
and unburnt habitats will be examined in detail at one property (Mornington; funded separately).
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
The short-term outcome sought is to undertake pivotal research that will crisply define the relative
contributions of putative threatening factors contributing to the decline of native mammal species in northern
Australia. An accompanying short-term outcome is the involvement of managers and land-owners in this
research program, to provide for a more pervasive understanding of the problem and its solution.
The medium-term outcome sought for the project is to provide managers and landholders with information
and strategies to more effectively conserve biodiversity, and to work with managers to implement enhanced
management.
The long-term outcome sought for the project is to make a significant contribution to reversing the declining
trend of the north Australian mammal fauna, and hence to the conservation of biodiversity in northern
Australia.
6.
Key Expected Outputs
Key expected outputs include the establishment of demonstration sites for mammal conservation; key
contributions to the delivery and implementation of recovery plans for threatened mammal species and
(where appropriate) to threat abatement plans and Parks plans of management; scientific papers; technical
and other reports to landholders and managers; and enhanced knowledge and capacity for landholders and
managers.
7.
Expected Benefits
The focal benefit is to provide greater conservation security (protection from extinction) for the declining
mammal fauna of northern Australia. However, more pervasive benefits include: consolidating the World
Heritage values of Kakadu NP; providing mechanisms for Indigenous ranger groups to demonstrate
conservation delivery on Indigenous Protected Areas; improving the cost-effectiveness of management
actions for conservation across all tenures; contributing to significant progress in a range of international,
national and State/Territory strategies (including Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and the
Northern Territory Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan).
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Lack of initial and ongoing
support for project from
landholders
Proposed management strategy
The consequences here could be serious, if our favored experimental
sites are not approved by landholders. The likelihood has been
minimised by extensive consultation to date with key landholders (e.g.
Kakadu Board), and such consultation will continue as a high priority at
project commencement. The project aims to have a highly collaborative
nature, so landholder involvement is critical. A fallback position would be
to rely on AWC properties, which are spread between the Kimberley, Top
End and Cape York Peninsula, and for which the landholder is already a
partner in this project.
Ethics and other permits
The consequence here could be serious, because no wildlife project can
delays
legally proceed without ethics approvals. There is only a low probability
of permit application denials or hold-ups, given that the methods we will
use are standard, and our agencies’ responsibilities or involvement in
permit approvals.
Technical issues with
The consequences here could be serious, as problems with design or
equipment (fence design,
ongoing maintenance may severely compromise the study. The
adequacy and maintenance) likelihood will be minimised by peer-review of experimental design, and
recruiting project staff with previous experience in comparable field
studies. Furthermore, existing senior project staff have had considerable
experience in related studies in this region and elsewhere, so bring a
high level of competence to research design and implementation.
Page 92 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Possible risks
Budget blow-outs
Experimental response time
longer than program
duration
Recruitment issues
Experimental results are
impractical to implement on
broad-scale
Weather/cyclones
Inconclusive results
Project team logistics
constraints
9.
Proposed management strategy
The budget is fixed, so blow-out will not be tolerated; and expenditure will
be regularly and carefully scrutinised by Hub administrative staff. If
necessary, additional (non-NERP) funding may be sought to bolster,
extend or complement this study.
The consequences here could be serious, as results may be inconclusive
at study’s end. This risk is one that should be recognised by both Hub
staff and program managers: it is a reality that ecological responses may
take longer than the duration of funding investments, even of the
unusually long duration of the NERP program. Albeit recognising the
risk, the study is designed as carefully as possible to conclude and show
results within the NERP timeframe. This includes incorporating an
experimental translocation into the project design, which is very likely to
generate a result within the life of the project. Where possible, additional
(non-NERP) funding may be sought to continue the study beyond its
current scheduled life.
A range of new fixed-term staff positions are essential for this project.
Recruitment of quality staff often presents challenges in northern
Australia, especially for non-permanent positions. To reduce risks of
employment delays, recruitment processes will be commenced as soon
as possible after project funding is received.
This project seeks to apply findings from localised research to broadscale management. This will always be a challenge. The risk will be
minimised by ongoing involvement of management staff in the project,
use of an adaptive management framework, and by incorporating explicit
consideration of management application within the project design.
All field-based projects in northern Australia run risks to their orderly
progress from episodes of extreme weather. In this project, extreme
weather could result in lack of access to study sites for scheduled regular
sampling, damage or destruction to experimental infrastructure
(exclosure fencing), and danger to field staff. We will minimise this
unavoidable risk by application of highest standard OHS protocols,
regular monitoring of condition of infrastructure (especially after
inclement weather) and careful siting of study plots to minimise logistical
challenges.
This project is necessary because the previous body of research in this
area has not definitively demonstrated the relative contribution of
alternative possible threatening processes. It is a risk that this project will
also fail to be conclusive. This risk has been minimised by careful study
design to explicitly delineate the contribution of predation by feral cats. In
addition to the field-based studies, a range of sensitivity analyses will be
used to review all relevant studies to best define causal links.
The projects three senior staff live in Darwin, Mornington (central
Kimberley) and Christmas Island. This geographic segregation may
impair the efficiency of project operation. The risk will be minimised by
weekly email updates, monthly teleconferences, and at least annual faceto-face meetings.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
This project directly addresses the NERP goal “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”. It will apply high quality
research to one of Australia’s major biodiversity conservation challenges, where progress is currently
particularly hampered by information deficiencies and disjunctions between disparate landholders,
researchers, managers and policy-makers. It will integrate this research tightly with end-users through
evidence-based management, planning and policy.
More specifically, the project will address the following NERP national-level Policy Questions for Research:
1. Values: understanding the major drivers for maintaining biodiversity. This project focuses
explicitly on this question.
Page 93 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
2. Ecosystems: understanding ecosystem function/monitoring ecosystem health. This project
considers ecosystem function and addresses the monitoring of ecosystem health, particularly
through the lens of one of the most “unhealthy” of ecosystem components.
3. Threats: maintaining/building resilience for future changing threats. This project specifically
addresses the impacts and relative severity of threats, and seeks to identify cost-effective responses
to those threats.
4. Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems. Sustainable use of biodiversity is not a key focus
in this project, but the identification of major threats to biodiversity, and of mechanisms to address
those threats, will help maintain biodiversity more generally, including those aspects of biodiversity
that are subject to sustainable use.
5. Biodiversity markets. This project may help identify management mechanisms to maintain
biodiversity in extensive landscapes. This can contribute to premium biodiversity outcomes for
carbon and other markets.
We will also directly address many priority issues of the National Biodiversity Strategy, including the targets
increase in the number if Australians who participate in biodiversity conservation actions, increase in
employment and participation by Indigenous people in biodiversity conservation, doubling of the value of
complementary markets for ecosystem services, increase in habitat managed primarily for biodiversity
conservation, establishment of four continental-scale linkages, reduction in impacts of invasive species on
threatened species and ecological communities, nationally agreed science and knowledge priorities for
biodiversity conservation are guiding research activities, all jurisdictions will review legislation, policies and
programs and establish a national long-term biodiversity monitoring and reporting system.
10.
Policies and Programs
Major portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 Management of Kakadu National Park
 Natural and Indigenous Heritage
 Working on Country (WOC)
Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA)
 Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy
Minor portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 EPBC Strategic Assessments
 Indigenous Fire Management in Northern Australia project
 Oceanic island terrestrial biodiversity (OK, maybe not)
 Parks Australia – Climate Change Response
 Regional NRM planning and governance
 National Reserve System
 concept of resilience
 Development of predictive models
 Stewardship Program
 Species Mapping
11.
DSEWPaC End Users
The project addresses a range of DSEWPaC interests and responsibilities, including biodiversity
conservation within the Parks Australia estate (Peter Cochrane), research and science management (Parks
& Biodiversity Science - Judy West), the listing and management of threatened species (Recovery Planning
– Peter Latch, Species Information – Kynan Gowland, Species Listing – Michael Deering), the management
of feral species (Environmental Biosecurity Section - Joanne Nathan), the implementation of conservation
policy (Biodiversity Conservation – Charlie Zammit), and conservation planning and management on
Indigenous lands (Parks & Protected Areas Program – Bruce Rose), indigenous programs (Indigenous
Policy Branch – Bruce Edwards), Caring for our Country Northern Australia interests (Qld, NT and WA state
teams) and species mapping (ERIN - Kate Sandford Read-Head and Jeff Tranter).
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
The project has close linkages with several other projects in the North Australian Hub, particularly Projects
4.2 (feral cat management on Indigenous lands) and 5.2 (integrated monitoring and assessment to support
adaptive management and planning). These may complement this project through the development (or
trialing) of cost-effective broad-scale cat management options, and the measurement of efficacy of proposed
management responses.
Page 94 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
The project will also relate to biodiversity conservation issues in other Hubs, particularly in relation to
optimisation of management considered within the NERP Environmental Decision and NERP Landscape
and Policy Hubs. These associations can be fruitfully developed, but the achievement of this project’s
objectives will not be dependent upon such liaison.
13.
Year 1
Activities and Milestones









Year 2






Year 3




Year 4






obtain all necessary research and ethics approvals
complete consultations with landholders and other stakeholders to
ensure fruitful collaboration and to agree on main study sites
acquire all required equipment
recruit as required
complete and implement research design
establish experimental infrastructure (including exclosure fencing
in at least one site)
undertake pre-treatment (baseline) sampling
review progress and define forecast activities with formal meeting
with stakeholders
deliver awareness and progress reporting through Hub
communication channels, and other appropriate outlets
complete and implement research design (specifically including
exclosure fencing for all sites)
undertake year 1 of experimental sampling
deliver progress reporting through Hub communication channels,
and other appropriate outlets
through adaptive management process, refine existing
management guidelines
contribute to relevant recovery plans, plans of management, etc.
design a discrete body of work that addresses issue of disease as
a possible causal factor of mammal decline
continue sampling at established experimental sites
implement a discrete body of work that addresses issue of
disease as a possible causal factor of mammal decline
review study progress with relevant stakeholders and managers
assess cost-efficiency and effectiveness of a range of
management applications
compile progress reports and scientific publications
complete all fieldwork studies
complete series of stakeholder-targeted and scientific reports
prepare management and recovery plans for native mammals in
northern Australia
advise of policy and planning consequences, and contribute to
any required review
oversee review of project and management applications
Page 95 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 4
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Terrestrial Biodiversity Conservation
4.2
Feral cat management on Indigenous lands
Alaric Fisher
NT DNRETAS
Alaric Fisher, Alys Stevens
Project Completion Date:
July 2011
Total In-Kind Budget:
$278,291
December 2014
$282,517
Project Summary/ Description
This project will assess management options and measure outcomes from a trial control program designed
to reduce impacts of feral cats on terrestrial biodiversity in high conservation value areas, undertaken
collaboratively with Indigenous Ranger groups and traditional owners in the western Arnhem Land area.
Predation by feral cats is hypothesised to be a significant causal factor in the rapid and broad-scale decline
of many native mammal species in northwestern Australia, as well as a pressure on a broader suite of biota.
Even if research (such as undertaken in project 4.1 in this NERP hub) provides definitive evidence of the
relative importance of predation, land managers will face substantial difficulty in translating such evidence
into broadscale management of this threat. Not only are there currently few options for cost-effective
reduction in feral cat numbers at landscape scales, but the most aspects of the ecology of feral cats in
northern Australia are poorly understood – to the point where it is difficult to determine accurate estimates of
the density of animals or predict their distribution within the landscape.
This project explores the potential to implement strategic on-ground management of feral cats in the context
of indigenous land management. Particularly in areas with an established ranger program, an exciting
potential opportunity is provided by a relatively high density of resident managers with good knowledge of
country and well-developed observational skills. If appropriate techniques can be developed, incorporating
cat management into broader land management programs, particularly when targeted towards areas of high
biodiversity value and/or sensitivity to threat, may ultimately have significant conservation outcomes.
The project will build on existing relationships between scientists and land managers in two indigenous
protected areas in Arnhem Land. It will test and assess a variety of methods to monitor the density and
distribution of feral cats, and to reduce cat numbers within target areas. The project will also contribute to an
increased understanding of aspects of cat ecology in these ecosystems.
2.
Geographic Location
Warddeken and Djelk Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs), western and central Arnhem Land, Northern
Territory. Extension of the project to other areas will be considered, depending on community interest, and
additional funding from other sources.
3.
Problem Statement
A suite of native mammal species is currently undergoing rapid and broad-scale decline in northern
Australia, even in relatively well-resourced conservation reserves. Current hypotheses implicate predation
by feral cats as a major causal factor for this decline. Project 4.1 will test this hypothesis through controlled
experimentation, and other research efforts in northern Australia also seek to clarify the relative importance
of cat predation as a threatening process, and the mechanisms that determine the effectiveness of
predation.
Even if evidence of the impacts of cat predation is damning, there are significant barriers to implementing
cost-effective management to reduce impacts of cats at landscape scales. The ecology of cats in northern
Australia is poorly understood, there are limited control methods available, and in many areas there are very
sparse human resources to implement management.
The broad research question is:
 what are the most cost-effective, efficient and appropriate means for managing the impacts of
feral cats, to a level that allows recovery of affected biota?
Page 96 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
This project addresses this question particularly in the context of indigenous land management. The
hypothesis is that, even within the limitations of available control methods, this context may offer unique
opportunities for effective reduction in cat numbers within targeted areas, with collaborative development of
appropriate techniques.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
This project will involve a collaborative effort between scientists and indigenous rangers and community
members within Djelk and Wardekken Indigenous protected areas in western Arnhem Land. These IPAs
overlap the western Arnhem plateau – which is a biodiversity ‘hotspot’ and centre of endemism for terrestrial
vertebrates, as well as allowing a comparative approach in rugged sandstone plateau (Wardekken) and
lowland woodland (Djelk) environments.
The major components of the project include:
a) developing methods for monitoring feral cat distribution and abundance, including:
 observation during regular patrols by rangers (including incorporation of appropriate sequences
into Cybertracker);
 motion-sensing camera arrays
 tracking, both opportunistic and using sand-pads
 trial use of cat-detection dogs
b) improving understanding of ecology of feral cats within the study region, through:
 tracking via satellite or radio telemetry of captured, collared and released animals
 analysis of stomach contents of captured, and culled, animals
 collection and documentation of indigenous ecological knowledge related to feral cats
 tracking and opportunistic observation
c) trial of management techniques for feral cats including
 opportunistic and systematic hunting
 trapping and baiting
 trial use of cat-detection dogs
These components are interlinked and can largely be developed concurrently, although there will be a broad
shift from observation and monitoring activities to management activities over the life of the project. A key
aspect of the project is that the methodologies developed in all components will be appropriate for
application by indigenous rangers and community members, and that some flexibility of approach within an
action-learning context is required.
Some research activity will target a designated study area within each IPA, chosen to be representative of
major habitats supporting significant small mammals species. A variety of monitoring methods (developed
during year 1) will be used to develop indices of cat abundance within the study area (during year 2), prior to
the application of systematic management techniques (in years 2 and 3). Repeat monitoring (in years 3 and
4) will assess the efficacy of cat management, while comparison with known numbers of cats removed will
help validate population indices. Landscape-scale monitoring of small mammals (and other biota) before
and after cat management will test whether there is a short-term response top reduction in predator
pressure.
The project also has a significant community engagement and education aspect as (in addition to specific
communication products) it will lead certainly lead to considerable discussion in local communities about
feral cats and their significance in management of country.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
The short-term outcome sought is to develop and trail effective methods with which indigenous rangers and
community members may manage and monitor feral cat populations. An accompanying outcome is the
engagement and involvement of land managers in two IPAs with the research program, knowledge
exchange and the development of new management skills.
The medium-term outcome sought for the project is the incorporation of strategic feral cat management into
land management programs on indigenous lands broadly across northern Australia, and the application and
refinement of techniques explored in this project.
The long-term outcome sought for the project is to make a contribution to reversing the declining trend of the
north Australian mammal fauna, and more broadly to the conservation of biodiversity in northern Australia.
Page 97 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
6.
Key Expected Outputs
Key expected outputs include the documentation of effective cat management approaches and methods;
establishment of two demonstration sites for targeted cat management; associated communication material
in a broad variety of formats; enhanced knowledge and capacity of landholders and managers.
7.
Expected Benefits
The focal benefit is to provide greater conservation security (protection from extinction) for the declining
mammal fauna of northern Australia. However, more pervasive benefits include providing mechanisms for
Indigenous ranger groups to undertake conservation delivery on Indigenous Protected Areas; potentially
improving the cost-effectiveness of management actions for conservation across all tenures; and
contributing to significant progress in a range of international, national and State/Territory strategies.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Lack of initial and ongoing
support for project from
landholders
Ethics and other permits
delays
Budget blow-outs
Recruitment issues
Experimental results are
impractical to implement on
broad-scale
Logistics constraints
Weather/cyclones
Proposed management strategy
The consequences here could be serious, if study sites are not approved
by traditional owners, or there is a lack of interest from rangers or other
potential participants. However, the project builds on existing
relationships and extensive consultation (NRETAS has had a scientist
based within the two IPAs since early 2010), and there is strong interest
and support for the proposed project within the relevant communities.
The project aims to have a highly collaborative nature and is based on
ranger and community involvement in all aspects. Regular
communication of project activities and outcomes to the broader
community will assist in ensuring continuing interest and support.
The consequence here could be serious, because no wildlife project can
legally proceed without ethics approvals. There is only a low probability
of permit application denials or hold-ups, as proponents have previously
received ethics approval for a range of similar project s, and NRETAS
has involvement in permit approvals.
The budget is fixed, so blow-out will not be tolerated; and expenditure will
be regularly and carefully scrutinised by Hub administrative staff.
Additional (non-NERP) funding may be sought to bolster, extend or
complement this study.
The project will receive significant operational support through a new
part-time fixed-term position. Recruitment of staff often presents
challenges in northern Australia, especially for non-permanent positions.
To reduce risks of employment delays, recruitment processes will be
commenced as soon as possible after project funding is received. The
option of appointing a local community member into this position will also
be explored.
This project seeks to explicitly test approaches to feral cat management
within a landscape-scale on-ground context. Design of the study and
interpretation of the results will explicitly address the question at what
spatial scale management may be effectively imposed, and how target
areas should be selected.
Undertaking research work for extended periods in remote locations with
poor access provides many challenges. However, the project involves
working with well established ranger groups who are based within the
study region and routinely operate within this environment; the project
scientist have considerable experience in undertaking research in remote
localities; and NRETAS has explicit protocols for remote operation.
All field-based projects in northern Australia run risks to their orderly
progress from episodes of extreme weather. In this project, extreme
weather could result in lack of access to study sites for scheduled regular
sampling, disruption to monitoring equipment, traps, etc, and danger to
field staff. We will minimise this unavoidable risk by application of
highest standard OHS protocols, and (to the extent possible) siting of
study areas to minimise logistical challenges.
Page 98 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Possible risks
Inconclusive results
9.
Proposed management strategy
Feral cats are inherently difficult subjects for field research. There is a
risk that the project will have inconclusive, due to difficulties in observing
and monitoring cats; and in catching and culling cats. This risk will be
minimised by using a range of techniques (including novel methods such
as cat detection dogs) and an adaptive approach, and good
communication with other researchers in this field.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
This project directly addresses the NERP goal “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”. It will apply research in a
collaborative context with indigenous land managers to seek to address one of the most pervasive threats to
Australia’s terrestrial biodiversity.
More specifically, the project will address the following NERP national-level Policy Questions for
Research:
1. Values: understanding the major drivers for maintaining biodiversity. This project focuses explicitly on this
question. It also specifically addresses question 1.6: How can the management of biodiversity values of the
Indigenous estate by Indigenous custodians be improved upon, and what incentives/resources, information
and support are needed to achieve this?
2. Ecosystems: understanding ecosystem function/monitoring ecosystem health. This project seeks to
address the monitoring of ecosystem health, particularly several aspects of 2.1:
How can we improve our capacity to understand, monitor and evaluate ecosystem function/health,
including by using predictive models/tools, to ensure:
 key ecosystem functions can be understood and maintained through effective management
 threats to values, such as biodiversity or important ecosystem functions, can be detected
 trends can be monitored and tipping points/thresholds, that indicate species, population or
ecosystem collapse, can be predicted, and
 which management actions are effective and timely, can their success be measured over time,
and how can their relevance/effectiveness be evaluated as the environment changes (i.e. use of
adaptive management systems)?
3. Threats: maintaining/building resilience for future changing threats. This project specifically addresses
the possibility of a cost-effective response to an unusually intractable threat.
4. Biodiversity markets. This project aims to help identify management mechanisms to maintain biodiversity
in extensive landscapes. This can contribute to premium biodiversity outcomes for carbon and other
markets.
The project also addresses a number of priorities and outcomes in Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy, including those under 1.2. Increasing indigenous engagement; 2.1Protecting biodiversity; 2.3
Reducing threats to biodiversity; 3.1 Improving and sharing knowledge.
10.
Policies and Programs
Major portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 Working on Country (WOC)
 Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA)
 Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy
 Caring for our Country (Northern and remote Australia theme)
Minor portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 Management of Kakadu National Park
 EPBC Strategic Assessments
 Regional NRM planning and governance
 National Reserve System
 Concept of resilience
 Development of predictive models
 Stewardship Program
11.
DSEWPaC End Users
Page 99 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
The project addresses a range of DSEWPaC interests and responsibilities, including research and science
management (Parks & Biodiversity Science - Judy West), the listing and management of threatened species
(Recovery Planning – Peter Latch , Species Information – Kynan Gowland, Species Listing – Michael
Deering)), the management of feral species (Environmental Biosecurity Section - Joanne Nathan), the
implementation of conservation policy (Biodiversity Conservation – Charlie Zammit), conservation planning
and management on Indigenous lands (Parks & Protected Areas Program – Bruce Rose), indigenous
programs (Indigenous Policy Branch – Bruce Edwards), Caring for our Country Northern Australia interests
(Qld, NT and WA state teams) and biodiversity conservation within the Parks Australia estate (Peter
Cochrane)
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
Within the North Australian Hub, this project has a very close link to Projects 4.1 (Research and
management to reverse decline of native mammal fauna) and significant linkages to projects in Theme 2
(Indigenous NRM and Livelihoods) and Theme 5 (Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting), but is not
dependent on the outputs or outcomes of other projects.
13.
Year 1
Activities and Milestones














obtain all necessary research and ethics approvals;
consultations with traditional owners, rangers and community to complete project
design and agree on main study areas;
acquire all required equipment;
recruit as required;
design and implement cat monitoring protocols at 2 sites;
commence before-treatment biodiversity monitoring
capture cats and commence radio-tracking study
progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
review progress and refine year 2 schedule
refine cat monitoring protocols and continue sampling;
continue biodiversity monitoring
implement cat management techniques at two areas;
progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
review progress and refine year 3 schedule
Year 3





continue cat monitoring;
refine cat management protocols and continue implementation
complete documentation of relevant TEK
progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
review progress and refine year 4 schedule
Year 4


complete all fieldwork studies, including post-control biodiversity monitoring;
complete series of reports, management guidelines and other communication
products;
advise of policy and planning consequences, and contribute to any required
review;
review of project and management applications.
Year 2


Page 100 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 5
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting
5.1
Partnerships and tools to support biodiversity monitoring by
Indigenous land and sea managers
Rod Kennett
NAILSMA
Rod Kennett and additional researchers tba
Project Completion Date:
June 2011
Dec 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$799,133
$368,663
Project Summary/ Description
This project will develop monitoring tools that support community- based and scientifically- robust biodiversity
monitoring regimes for Indigenous land and sea managers, and partnerships that promote the development
of Indigenous livelihoods based on caring for country.
2.
Geographic Location
Case study locations to be determined in consultation with Traditional Owners on Indigenous land across
northern Australia.
3.
Problem Statement
The growing workforce of Indigenous rangers across north Australia and the expanding area of land under
active Indigenous management present an unprecedented opportunity to manage and monitor biodiversity
across coastal and terrestrial landscapes in remote and regional North Australia. The rapid uptake of field
survey methods such as the use of CyberTracker software coupled with highly durable Personal Digital
Assistants (PDAs) equipped with built-in GPS, camera, and voice recording technology by Indigenous land
and sea managers engaged NAILSMA’s I-Tracker network, highlights the need for a coordinated response
from the research community to support a growing and increasingly skilled Indigenous environmental
workforce.
Such a response is needed to ensure scientifically robust methods are available to Indigenous rangers and
organisations and to capitalise on the range of new biodiversity monitoring regimes made possible by these
recent technological advances. Research partnerships provide opportunities for Indigenous land and sea
managers to access specialist equipment and training and to develop innovative approaches to monitor
environmental values and indicators identified through existing community-based environmental planning
exercises.
4.
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
The project will undertake participatory action research to create a suite of new biodiversity monitoring tools
and methods by:

Identifying and adapting existing science-based monitoring regimes to suit Indigenous land and
sea management;

Identifying and exploring the application of new monitoring technologies, to Indigenous land and
sea management;

Establishing best practice models of research partnerships that facilitate cross-cultural
understandings of biodiversity management;

Creating audiovisual and other training tools that support the uptake of new monitoring methods
by Indigenous ranger groups across North Australia;

Trialling methods to calculate costs per effort of biodiversity monitoring regimes; and

Assisting Indigenous land and sea managers to develop research and monitoring frameworks
that build on existing land and sea management plans and incorporate new tools and learnings in
biodiversity conservation
Page 101 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
The project builds on existing biodiversity monitoring activities under NAILSMA’s major project areas
(Fire/Carbon, Water and Saltwater Country management) and the I-Tracker program. It will create new
research partnerships that extend the biodiversity monitoring tools available to Indigenous rangers while
ensuring local capacity building through skills transfer and workshop and field based training. Locally based
research projects will work towards ‘handover’ phase when monitoring tools are adopted by local ranger
groups and tools and learnings will be shared across North Australia using established networks and
communication tools of NAILSMA and partnering research organisations.
The project has 5 phases
1. Scoping and case study identification phase
o audit of researcher and community capacity and interest
o preliminary identification of case study areas
o initial community visits
2. Planning and Knowledge Sharing Forum
o monitoring techniques and biodiversity information showcase
o development of workplans, research agreements including communication and data
ownership, and case study location
3. Operational Phase
o field work including on-ground community visits and field research as per agreed work
plans and schedules
4. Feedback and evaluation phase
o forum for feedback, knowledge sharing and evaluation
o write up of cases studies
o finalising research and monitoring tools including new I-Tracker applications and field
manuals
5. Outreach Phase
o incorporation of monitoring and training tools into NAILSMA I-Tracker Strategic Plan and
training delivery
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
Short term :Creation of new tools and development of new research and monitoring skills for Indigenous
land and sea managers. Greater awareness amongst Indigenous land and sea managers of research based
approaches to environmental management. Greater awareness amongst non-Indigenous scientists of
Traditional Ecological Knowledge and culturally based approaches to research and NCRM.
Medium Term outcomes: Scientifically robust and standardised datasets that support local and regional
analyses of biodiversity distribution and abundance and other ecological parameters. Monitoring tools that
can be made more readily available across north Australia.
Longer term outcomes: Improved understanding of tropical ecosystems and better informed decision
making by Indigenous and non-Indigenous land owners and management authorities. Improved capacity of
Indigenous land and sea managers to participate and create NCRM based livelihoods such fee-for-service
opportunities, carbon economy and biodiversity credits.
6.
Key Expected Outputs



7.
A suite of I-Tracker biodiversity monitoring tools to support data collection and monitoring activities
by Indigenous rangers.
Training tools and delivery to support the uptake and effective use of I-Tracker biodiversity
monitoring tools.
Case studies documenting and evaluating the process of developing and trialling the new
biodiversity monitoring tools.
Expected Benefits


Scientifically robust and culturally appropriate monitoring and research tools to support biodiversity
monitoring across north Australia.
Standardised data collection and data sets to support state of environment type reporting.
Page 102 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan


8.
Up skilling of Indigenous rangers to participate in and create livelihood opportunities based on
natural and cultural resource management in remote and regional Australia.
Effective partnerships between researchers and Indigenous land and sea managers.
Key Risks Assessment
NAILSMA has used the risk assessment method as required under CFOC funding as it allows for
assessment of likelihood and consequences and because this project will be managed internally by
NAILSMA as part of a broader CFOC funded program.
Consequences for longer-term
outcomes if assumption wrong
5 insignificant)
1-5 (1 extreme,
being
of assumption
Likelihood
wrong 1-5 (1 rare, 5 almost
certain)
Assumptions
Key Evidence to support this
Non-Indigenous
organisations
(including
government,
researchers and
NGOs) will continue to
seek genuine
engagement and
understanding of IEK
and IEK principles.
IEK is recognised by
non-Indigenous land
and sea managers in
northern Australia as a
legitimate body of
knowledge and
practice. IEK is
increasingly
incorporated into and
directs contemporary
management planning
and research
initiatives for saltwater
country in north
Australia.
Participating
Indigenous
organisations,
communities and
ranger groups remain
committed to goals of
the project during and
beyond the funding
timeframe
3
1
Traditional owners have continually demonstrated their deep and
intimate cultural connection with, and knowledge of, their land and
sea country. Integrating cultural and natural resource
management approaches (and Indigenous and Western
knowledge systems) is widely viewed as leading to more holistic
and appropriate management outcomes. The adoption of
protocols for Indigenous engagement and recognition of IEK are
becoming more common practice in the policies and initiatives of
non-Indigenous organisations
3
1
Traditional owners have continually demonstrated their deep and
intimate cultural connection with, and knowledge of, their land and
sea country. IEK is incorporated into an array of contemporary
saltwater country management plan by Indigenous communities.
Integrating cultural and natural resource management approaches
(and Indigenous and Western knowledge systems) is widely
viewed as leading to more holistic and appropriate management
outcomes. The adoption of protocols for Indigenous engagement
and recognition of IEK are becoming more common practice in
the policies and initiatives of non-Indigenous organisations
1
1
Indigenous
communities will
continue to support
2
2
SPN builds on the highly successful NAILSMA Dugong & Marine
Turtle Project in which Indigenous communities demonstrated
high levels of commitment and innovation to ensure project
outcomes were delivered. The project was regarded as
exceeding all expectations by the AG performance story
assessment and Indigenous community involvement in SPN is
consistent with customary rights, roles and responsibilities of
Indigenous people. SPN is embedded within NAILSMA.
NAILSMA is supported by major Indigenous bodies and has
robust and sustainable governance arrangements.
Indigenous peoples’ aspirations to actively manage their land and
sea country and associated resources are well documented and
are increasingly acknowledged in national and state legislation,
Page 103 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
existing rangers and
develop new ranger
programs as
necessary
Indigenous ranger
groups will continue to
receive funding for
their core operations
and activities
policies and programs. The number of Indigenous ranger groups
in operation in northern Australia continues to grow.
3
1
Collecting data will
lead to improved
awareness of threats
to saltwater country
Networking,
information exchanges
and cross-regional
forums will lead to
better collaborative
and cross-regional
decision-making
Indigenous
communities and
researchers will
continue to seek
collaborative
partnerships
Indigenous
communities will be
willing to share
information with
government and
researchers
1
3
1
3
1
4
2
3
Indigenous
communities are
willing to remain
engaged in relevant
government initiatives
That I-tracker will be
adopted and
maintained as a
standard operating
tool by Indigenous
rangers
1
3
2
2
The merits of Indigenous community-based management of
natural resources and areas with high biodiversity value are well
documented. Increasingly, national and state legislation, policies
and programs recognise the importance of supporting Indigenous
management of natural resources. Funding for cultural and natural
resource management projects is available to Indigenous
organisations through a range of government and some nongovernment initiatives. Long-term funding for building the
institutional capacity of Indigenous ranger units on a sustainable
basis is more difficult to secure through current programs in
Australia.
Baseline data collection and monitoring activities will support
earlier identification of potential threats and environmental
pressures.
Ranger exchanges conducted under the former Dugong & Turtle
Management project have resulted in information transfer and
improved collaborative decision-making. Indigenous cultural
practice provides an underpinning belief system in the need for
shared decision-making about resource use. The need for shared
decision-making across northern Australia contributed to the
formation of NAILSMA.
Previous research conducted over the course of the NAILSMA
Dugong & Marine Turtle Project has been of a collaborative
nature. These research projects have been well supported and
directed by Indigenous communities to ensure research outcomes
address local priorities, and methodologies are respectful of
cultural protocols.
Indigenous communities have continuously expressed willingness
to engage in government initiatives such as bioregional marine
planning, dugong wildlife conservation plan and threatened
species recovery plans. A significant amount of data collected in
collaboration with researchers and government has already been
published. Indigenous communities have repeatedly expressed
willingness to share information provided that appropriate
Intellectual Property and data ownership agreements exist. This
is standard practice for any collaborative arrangements between
government, industry, and researchers or non-Indigenous
communities. However, culturally insensitive and inflammatory
media coverage of issues has previously affected Indigenous
willingness to engage.
Indigenous communities have been receptive to government
efforts to support traditional owner aspirations for land and sea
management and the level of uptake of programs and initiatives
(such as WoC and IPA) has been high across northern Australia.
Rapid uptake and strong endorsement of I-tracker by groups
involved in the trial. Significant interest from a wide range of
government initiatives and programs (including WoC, IPA, CfoC,
AQIS, Customs, Fisheries, CSIRO, etc). I-tracker is linked to an
international network of users across 70 countries and over 200
similar programs. Strong support from research community to
work with Indigenous rangers to develop I-tracker based
monitoring tools. However, our experience is that growing demand
for I-tracker is likely to exceed capacity of the project. Success of
I-tracker in the longer term will be dependent on securing
resources and a commitment from government agencies and
investors.
Page 104 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
That access to
internet technology
and information
management systems
will continue to be
made available to
Indigenous
communities.
9.
3
3
The Australian Government and State governments are
committed to improving and expanding telecommunications
capabilities in remote Australia (e.g. Networking the Nation).
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
This project addresses the Environment Policy questions:




10.
Question 2. Ecosystems: understanding ecosystem function/monitoring ecosystem health
Question 3. Threats: maintaining/building resilience for future changing threats
Question 4. Sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems
Question 5. Biodiversity markets
Policies and Programs
Objective of
Policy/Program
Natural and
Indigenous
Heritage
Caring for our
Country –
(Northern and
Remote Australia
theme)
Indigenous
Protected Areas
Working on
Country
Develop a better
understanding of
the marine
biodiversity and
Current key sources of known research/information available on the
Policy/Program
Branch overall responsibility is to develop and implement the Australian
Government's policies, programs and legislation to identify, protect,
conserve and celebrate Australia's natural and Indigenous heritage values;
and to strengthen the integrity of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention.
Caring for our Country is a public investment program that aims to achieve
an environment that is healthy, better protected, well-managed, resilient
and provides essential ecosystem services in a changing climate.
Under the Northern and Remote Australia National Priority Area for
investment Caring for our Country recognises (Outcomes 2008-2013)
that “The unique environmental, social and economic challenges faced by
northern and remote Australia require a tailored approach to sustainable
natural resources use and environmental protection”.
Indigenous Protected Areas aims to:
 Support Indigenous land owners to develop, declare and manage
Indigenous Protected Areas on their lands as part of Australia's
National Reserve System.
 Support Indigenous interests to develop cooperative management
arrangements with Government agencies managing protected areas
 Support the integration of Indigenous ecological and cultural knowledge
with contemporary protected area management practices.
Working on Country aims to:
 Support Indigenous aspirations in caring for country
 Protect, conserve and manage Australia's environment and heritage
values contribute to Closing the Gap targets by providing a career
pathway and opportunity for Indigenous people to enter into real jobs in
the land and sea management sector
 Provide nationally accredited training for Indigenous people in land and
sea management, in partnership with industry and others.
 Indigenous Protected Areas aims to:
 Support Indigenous land owners to develop, declare and manage
Indigenous Protected Areas on their lands as part of Australia's
National Reserve System
 Support Indigenous interests to develop cooperative management
arrangements with Government agencies managing protected areas
 Support the integration of Indigenous ecological and cultural knowledge
with contemporary protected area management practices.
The marine bioregional planning process identified a number of key
ecological features and processes that are important for maintaining
biodiversity in the North and North-west marine regions and the Coral Sea.
However, our understanding of these features is based on a relatively low
Page 105 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
major drivers for
maintaining
biodiversity in the
North and Northwest Marine
Regions and Coral
Sea.
Design practical
and cost effective
monitoring,
evaluation and
reporting of marine
ecosystem health
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
Northern Australia
Water Futures
Assessment
(NAWFA)
11.
level of data (i.e. compared to other marine regions, such as the Southwest and East marine regions). Developing a better understanding of key
ecological features and the processes that are important for maintaining
biodiversity in these regions will significantly improve the Division’s capacity
to administer biodiversity conservation programs in these regions and
evaluate marine ecosystem health at the national-scale.
The marine environment reporting framework will enable the Marine
Division to monitor, evaluate and report on marine ecosystem health at
national scale. National indicators of marine ecosystem health are being
identified and there will be a requirement to develop cost effective and
robust monitoring programs and evaluation procedures to report marine
ecosystem health at a national-scale. There is also a need to identify and
periodically acquire national data priorities to evaluate marine ecosystem
health at a national-scale. This information will inform state of the
environment reporting and underpin adaptive management approaches in
the implementation of marine bioregional plans, the Commonwealth marine
reserve estate, and development of a more integrated oceans management
policy. It will also inform the Marine Division’s response to climate change
and marine species conservation and will help put more emphasis on a
preventive approach of managing ecosystems as a whole.
There is a need to assess and build on the knowledge base that supports
existing reserves and the declaration of the new Commonwealth marine
reserve estate to further inform management arrangements of the estate.
Understanding the effectiveness of State and Commonwealth marine
protected area networks for achieving conservation outcomes is needed to
inform consistent and/or complimentary management arrangements and
ease administrative and regulatory burden for reserve users and the
Department. There is also a need to evaluate the effectiveness of
management arrangements such as zoning and approval conditions and
evaluate the level of community support for the estate. This information will
inform continuing management of the Commonwealth marine reserve
estate and off-reserve implementation of marine bioregional plans.
To provide the science needed to inform the development and protection of
Northern Australia’s water resources, so that development is ecologically,
culturally and economically sustainable
DSEWPaC End Users
Parks & Protected Areas Program Assistant Secretary Mr Bruce Rose (A/g)
Parks & Biodiversity Science Assistant Secretary Ms Judy West
Tropical Marine Conservation Assistant Secretary Ms Lara Musgrave
Indigenous Policy Assistant Secretary Mr Bruce Edwards
Biodiversity Conservation Assistant Secretary Dr Charlie Zammit
ERIN Director Ms Kate Sandford Read-Head and Mr Jeff Tranter
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
Activities and outcomes of this project complement work proposed under all the themes of the North
Australian Biodiversity Hub. The Indigenous estate comprises a significant portion of the biodiverse
landscapes in which the themes will operate and as active landholders and environmental managers,
Indigenous people will play a key role in developing or implementing NERP research outcomes. Building the
capacity of Indigenous rangers to plan, participate in and lead biodiversity monitoring programs will make an
essential contribution to the success of the NABH.
The project complements and value adds to a range of existing initiatives
 Caring for our Country – especially IPA and WOC
 Arafura Timor Sea Expert Forum (Tripartite MOU with Australia, Indonesia, Timor Leste) Priority
Area 4 – Assisting sustainable and/or alternative livelihoods for coastal, traditional and Indigenous
communities
 GBRMPA Indigenous Partnerships Program
Page 106 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
13.
Year 1
Activities and Milestones





Year 2




Year 3






Identification of research partners, case study locations and research
focus
Planning and Knowledge Sharing Forum (Indigenous and non-Indigenous
participants)
Scoping of data collection requirements and research methods
Project Work Plan developed and research agreements drafted
Draft I-Tracker application and linked research/monitoring techniques
training manual completed
Preliminary field visits undertaken
Field Activities undertaken
Trial of I-tracker application and research/monitoring techniques training
manual
Case study scope and focus agreed
Final field work completed
Draft case studies completed
Final revised I-Tracker application and research/monitoring techniques
training manual and related training tools completed
Completion of final draft case studies
Project Feedback and Knowledge Sharing Forum
I-Tracker application and linked research/monitoring techniques training
manual incorporated into the wider I-Tracker training and support
framework
Page 107 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 5
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Biodiversity Monitoring and Reporting
5.2
Terrestrial biodiversity monitoring
Alaric Fisher
NT DNRETAS
Alaric Fisher, Sarah Legge
Project Completion Date:
July 2011
Total In-Kind Budget:
$603,912
December 2014
$817,902
Project Summary/ Description
Monitoring is an essential step within the adaptive management process; monitoring is also important in the
assessment of outcomes from investment in land management and biodiversity conservation, and guides
future decisions. The design of robust monitoring programs that produce useful and timely outputs seems
conceptually simple but in reality faces many bars to successful implementation. There are particular
challenges in monitoring and reporting biodiversity indicators and conservation outcomes across the broad
landscapes in northern Australia, where population densities are low. Land managers have diverse value
systems and management objectives, and there is great variation in technical capacity and levels of
resourcing.
This project will provide the terrestrial biodiversity Theme within a set of linked projects addressing
biodiversity monitoring and assessment, with strong linkages to the adaptive management frameworks
developed in Theme 2, and considering key threats to biodiversity investigated in Themes 3 & 4. The project
will develop and, through an action research approach, test the viability of monitoring and reporting
frameworks for a range of example conservation and land management contexts, including Indigenous
Protected Areas, other indigenous lands, the government-managed park estate, and private conservation
land. The project includes a significant focus on enhancing Indigenous engagement in monitoring through
development and refinement of appropriate approaches and tools.
The project will also investigate a number of issues relevant to enhancing the successful uptake by
managers of biodiversity monitoring, including:
 the viability of new technological approaches to biodiversity monitoring (such as motion-sensing
cameras and acoustic listening posts);
 the validity and transferability of proposed surrogates (indicators) for biodiversity in a range of
ecosystems;
 decision support systems for prioritising monitoring effort in relation to values and objectives for
conservation management;
 collation and meta-analysis of existing biodiversity monitoring data from disparate sources across
northern Australia, to examine broad-scale and long-term trends; and
 application of novel analytical methods to existing monitoring data (which is often patchy in quality
and spatial and temporal coverage) to maximise information output.
2.
Geographic Location
Kakadu National Park; selected Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) including Djelk and Wardekken, but also
dependent on the focus of work under Project 2.1; selected NT reserves (eg. Garig Gunag Barlu, Litchfield,
Nitmiluk); Fish River Station (NT); Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC) properties, including
Mornington/Marion Downs, Charnley River (WA), Wongalara, Pungalina-Seven Emu (NT), Piccaninny Plains
(Qld).
3.
Problem Statement
The overarching question is how to design and implement biodiversity monitoring programs that costeffectively provide the information required by conservation land managers in northern Australia, in the
context of a diversity of value systems, management objectives and capacity levels. Subsidiary questions
addressed by this project (and the theme more broadly) include:
 What are the monitoring needs of different conservation managers, and how do these vary according
to value systems and management objectives?
 What monitoring frameworks can most effectively address these needs?
Page 108 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan




4.
How can new technologies be best applied to improve useful outputs from monitoring?
Within the context of diverse value systems, management objectives and capacities, what tools will
help managers effectively undertake useful monitoring?
What surrogates and indicators are most meaningful at what scales to inform good conservation
management decisions?
How can monitoring data from diverse programs across multiple conservation lands be integrated to
provide broad-scale and relatively long-term assessment of trends, and how can apparent trends be
robustly related to environmental and management factors?
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
The project will undertake activities in a number of locations that represent much of the range of value
systems, management objectives and conservation systems in northern Australia. Research activities will be
variably applied across locations depending on context, and in many cases the development and trial
implementation of monitoring frameworks will provide the vehicle for addressing research questions relating
to methodology, technological applications and appropriate tools. Research activities will specifically seek to
address objectives for monitoring identified by the managers of the conservation estate across northern
Australia and during participatory planning processes with other hub projects.
Project activities will include:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
vi)
Input into the development of integrated monitoring and reporting framework for the Alligator Rivers
regions, including Kakadu National Park.
Development of a monitoring framework for assessing outcomes from conservation management by
indigenous rangers in Djelk and Wardekken IPA. In particular, this will focus on a case study
where TOs and rangers within Djelk IPA are seeking to implement a carefully managed fire
regime at a medium scale for specific cultural and environmental outcomes. Within this context,
research will use a “two toolbox” approach to trial the utility of a range of indicators (eg. selected
mammal species and bush tucker plants) and monitoring tools (eg. camera traps, Cybertracker)
to assess and report on conservation outcomes.
Development of a monitoring framework for assessing conservation outcomes at Fish River Station.
This property has recently been acquired by the Indigenous Land Corporation, with support from
the National Reserve System program and The Nature Conservancy, and will be managed to
achieve a variety of specific biodiversity outcomes in addition to the cultural and environmental
goals of traditional owners. This presents significant challenges in developing a monitoring
framework that addresses multiple values and objectives, provides robust reporting of
conservation and cultural outcomes and can be implemented cost-effectively with capacity
constraints. This project will work collaboratively to develop a biodiversity monitoring framework
in an action learning context, and use this as research site to test the applications of new
technologies, development of appropriate recording and reporting tools, and the validity of
selected surrogates for reporting on biodiversity outcomes.
Research on AWC properties will address a number of questions about appropriate methodologies
and monitoring frameworks in the context of conservation areas with relatively high scientific
capacity and uptake of adaptive management approaches, including:
 assessing the utility of using new technologies versus ‘standard’ techniques
 testing the potential for developing a surrogate-based monitoring system that can be used to
generate useful management feedback information at the site (property) level, whilst
conforming to a generalised framework closely enough that data can be aggregated for
multiple sites to examine overall trends
 finding the balance, in any monitoring system, between selecting surrogates that are
meaningful (for informing property-scale management) and satisfying requirements to report
on threatened species, which can be quite poor surrogates (due to low population sizes,
intractable ecologies, etc)
Support for other hub projects with a terrestrial biodiversity component. Project staff will provide input
relating to terrestrial biodiversity monitoring to Project 2.1 (notably in relation to assisting
indigenous landholders to develop adaptive management frameworks, M&E and reporting
systems), and Project 5.1 (notably the development of monitoring methods and tools to support
indigenous land managers).
Improving the effectiveness of monitoring for threatened and other high conservation value species.
Apart from legislative obligations for their protection, threatened species often have prominence
in the description of key values and conservation management objectives. However, monitoring
and reporting for threatened species is generally piecemeal. Using selected reserves in
northern Australia as examples, and in collaboration with reserve managers, we will develop a
Page 109 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
vii)
viii)
ix)
x)
5.
decision support system that will rationalise and prioritise monitoring and reporting for significant
species within the context of values, threats and resources.
Testing the application of new technologies for more effective and cost-effective monitoring. There
is considerable scope for the increased application of “high-tech” monitoring tools, including
motion-sensing cameras and acoustic listening posts, particularly where these reduce
requirements for a high input from skilled personnel and/or increase the spatial, temporal and
taxonomic coverage of monitoring. Additionally, such tools may help promote broader
community engagement with monitoring and have potential for uptake by indigenous managers.
However, there has been little testing in most northern Australian ecosystems of their utility (eg.
what species can or can’t they effectively monitor) and the most effective protocols for their use.
This project will systematically test the use of these tools in several trial monitoring frameworks,
and document protocols for the deployment of the tools and processing, storage and
interpretation of data.
Examining the validity and generalisability of proposed surrogates for biodiversity in a range of
ecosystems and at a range of scales. Data from prior, existing and trial monitoring programs will
be used to examine the nexus between landscape-scale indicators (which have good spatial
coverage but poor local resolution) and site-based and biotic indicators (for which the reverse
applies); as well as to examine cross-taxonomic surrogacy.
Maximising management information value from long-term monitoring data, which will involve trialling
novel analytical methods, and approaches to link monitoring data to environmental and
management factors;
Collation and meta-analysis of existing biodiversity monitoring data from disparate sources across
northern Australia, to examine broad-scale and long-term trends, and provide a comparison of
conservation outcomes amongst tenures and management systems.
Key Expected Outcomes
The short-term outcomes include increase understanding amongst land managers of biodiversity monitoring
methods, and increased capacity to use appropriate monitoring tools.
The medium-term outcomes include the development of explicit and informed adaptive management
frameworks for a variety of conservation lands, that incorporate well-planned biodiversity monitoring
programs appropriate to the users and objectives; and that these monitoring programs make a real
contribution to ongoing management planning.
The long-term outcome is ultimately good conservation outcomes from management of a broad array of
lands in northern Australia, backed by robust and cost-effective systems to assess and report these
outcomes.
6.
Key Expected Outputs
Key expected outputs include a range of well-defined approaches, methodologies and tools for terrestrial
biodiversity monitoring that are appropriate to a variety of value systems, management objectives and
capacity levels; communication products suitable for the diversity of conservation land managers in northern
Australia; technical reports and scientific papers.
7.
Expected Benefits
The expected benefits are more informed and better targeted and prioritised conservation management
actions; more informed and therefore effective investment in conservation action in diverse contexts in
northern Australia; and robust reporting on conservation outcomes. This benefit partly arises from providing
tools and systems that encourage land manager involvement in planning, carrying out, and using data from
monitoring.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Proposed management strategy
Page 110 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Possible risks
Lack of support for and
involvement with project
from land managers
Ethics and other permits
delays
Budget blow-outs
Recruitment issues
Research results are
impractical to implement on
broad-scale
Logistics constraints
9.
Proposed management strategy
This risk will be reduced by the involvement of land owners and
managers in participatory planning for development of adaptive
management frameworks, and the highly collaborative nature and action
learning focus of most activities. Senior project staff are also embedded
within some of the land management agencies involved in the project,
and the project builds on existing relationships and extensive
consultation with Parks Australia North staff, and traditional owners and
indigenous rangers within Djelk and Wardekken IPAs.
There is only a low probability of permit application denials or hold-ups,
as proponents have previously received ethics approval for a range of
similar project s, and NRETAS has involvement in permit approvals.
The budget is fixed, so blow-out will not be tolerated; and expenditure will
be regularly and carefully scrutinised by Hub administrative staff.
Additional (non-NERP) funding may be sought to bolster, extend or
complement this study.
The project will receive significant operational support through a new
fixed-term position. Recruitment of staff often presents challenges in
northern Australia, especially for non-permanent positions. To reduce
risks of employment delays, recruitment processes will be commenced
as soon as possible after project funding is received.
This project seeks to explicitly test approaches to and tools for monitoring
that are relevant and appropriate to a range of land managers within a
variety of conservation management contexts...
Undertaking research work for extended periods in remote locations with
poor access provides many challenges. However, the project staff and
the land managers with which they will be working have extensive
experience of operating within this environment.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
This project directly addresses the NERP goal “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” – in particularly, the
capacity to use information from monitoring to enhance adaptive management.
More specifically, the project will address the following NERP national-level Policy Questions for
Research:
1. Values: understanding the major drivers for maintaining biodiversity. Effective monitoring is one tool to
help understand the relationship between environmental drivers and biodiversity trends. The research
specifically addresses question 1.6: How can the management of biodiversity values of the Indigenous
estate by Indigenous custodians be improved upon, and what incentives/resources, information and support
are needed to achieve this?
2. Ecosystems: understanding ecosystem function/monitoring ecosystem health. This project addresses the
monitoring of ecosystem health, particularly several aspects of 2.1:
How can we improve our capacity to understand, monitor and evaluate ecosystem function/health,
including by using predictive models/tools, to ensure:
 key ecosystem functions can be understood and maintained through effective management
 threats to values, such as biodiversity or important ecosystem functions, can be detected
 trends can be monitored and tipping points/thresholds, that indicate species, population or
ecosystem collapse, can be predicted, and
 which management actions are effective and timely, can their success be measured over time,
and how can their relevance/effectiveness be evaluated as the environment changes (i.e. use of
adaptive management systems)?
3. Threats: maintaining/building resilience for future changing threats. Effective biodiversity monitoring
systems are an important aspect of assessing the outcomes of threat management, and priorities for further
action.
5. Biodiversity markets. Developing biodiversity markets will require the capacity to robustly demonstrate
that biodiversity values are being maintained or improved.
Page 111 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
The project also addresses a number of priorities and outcomes in Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy, including those under 1.2. Increasing indigenous engagement; 2.1Protecting biodiversity; 2.3
Reducing threats to biodiversity; 3.1 Improving and sharing knowledge and 3.3 Implementing robust national
monitoring, reporting and evaluation.
10.
Policies and Programs
Major portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 Working on Country (WOC)
 Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA)
 Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy
 Caring for our Country (Northern and remote Australia theme)
 Management of Kakadu National Park
 National Reserve System
 Stewardship Program
 Environmental Biosecurity and Threat Abatement Planning
Minor portfolio, policy and program linkage:
 Regional NRM planning and governance
 Development of predictive models
11.
DSEWPaC End Users
The project addresses a range of DSEWPaC interests and responsibilities, including research and science
management (Parks & Biodiversity Science - Judy West), the listing and management of threatened species
(Recovery Planning – Peter Latch, Species Information – Kynan Gowland, Species Listing – Michael
Deering), the implementation of conservation policy (Biodiversity Conservation – Charlie Zammit and
National Reserve System (NRS) - Tim Bond), conservation planning and management on Indigenous lands
(Parks & Protected Areas Program – Bruce Rose), indigenous programs (Indigenous Policy Branch – Bruce
Edwards), biodiversity conservation within the Parks Australia estate (Peter Cochrane),Threat Abatement
Planning (Damian McRae, Environmental Biosecurity Section) and species mapping (Ms Kate Sandford
Read-Head and Jeff Tranter, ERIN).
12.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
This project will provide the terrestrial biodiversity content within a set of linked projects addressing
biodiversity monitoring and assessment (Theme 5), with strong linkages to the adaptive management
frameworks developed in Theme 2, and considering key threats to biodiversity investigated in Themes 3 & 4.
In particular the project will provide support & scientific expertise to Projects 2.1 and 5.1.
Links to biodiversity conservation issues in other Hubs will be explored, particularly in relation to optimisation
of management considered within the NERP Environmental Decision and NERP Landscape and Policy
Hubs.
13.
Year 1
Activities and Milestones








Year 2




obtain all necessary research and ethics approvals;
consultation with land managers and other hub researchers to complete project
design and agree on main study areas;
acquire all required equipment;
recruit as required;
planning for Djelk activity completed and fieldwork commenced
planning for Fish River activity completed and fieldwork commenced
experimental design for ‘new technology’ trials finalised and implemented at multiple
locations
experimental design for ‘surrogacy’ assessment finalised and input to sampling
design at multiple properties
initiate collaboration with projects 2.1, 5.1
progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
review progress and refine year 2 schedule
continue implementation trials of monitoring methods at Djelk and Fish River
Page 112 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan

Year 3










Year 4







locations
continued sampling for technology trials and surrogacy assessment at multiple
locations
Commence compilation of monitoring data for meta-analysis
continue collaboration with projects 2.1, 5.1
targeted workshops to develop DSS for HCV species monitoring
progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
review progress and refine year 3 schedule
continue implementation trials of monitoring methods at Djelk and Fish River
locations
continued sampling for technology trials and surrogacy assessment at multiple
locations
Analysis of monitoring data for meta-analysis
continue collaboration with projects 2.1, 5.1
workshops to integrate learnings from multiple activities, develop improved analytical
approaches, and commence final analyses and reporting
progress reporting; and other appropriate communication products
review progress and refine year 4 schedule
finalise sampling at all trials
finalise analyses for each activity; workshops to integrate learnings
complete series of reports, protocols for monitoring and other communication
products;
advise of policy and planning consequences, and contribute to any required review;
review of project and management applications.
Page 113 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 5
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Biodiversity monitoring and reporting
5.3
Remote sensing methods to map and monitor the condition of
coastal habitats and other surrogates for biodiversity
Thomas Schroeder
CSIRO
Thomas Schroeder, Vittorio Brando, Janett Anstee, Hannelie Botha,
Matthew Dunbabin
Project Completion Date:
July 2011
June 2014
Total In-Kind Budget:
$248,948
$172,897
Project Summary/Description.
There is a paucity of biological data across the remote and inaccessible northern Australian coastline that
currently constrains bioregional planning processes, development approvals and, ultimately, the
conservation of biodiversity. Habitat availability and biophysical factors such as water depth, light availability
and turbidity are important determinants of coastal and marine biological communities and may be used as
effective surrogates of biodiversity. The natural resource management of the Alligator Rivers Region
encompassing Kakadu National Park relies on long-term monitoring of key biophysical parameters in the
wetlands and adjacent seas where often little is known about biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Areas
that are potential transitional or habitat refugia in the face of climate change should be identified and
mapped. Remote sensing provides a cost-effective monitoring and assessment tool in this data-sparse
region and enables detection of change in habitat extent and composition as well as trends in coastal water
quality.
The variability and optical complexity of coastal and inland waters has limited the understanding of the
region’s water quality. However, new physics-based inversion algorithms have been developed that allow for
accurate retrieval of water quality in optically complex waters. Furthermore, recent advances in satellite
sensor technology now offer improved spectral and spatial detail, improving quantitative water quality
assessment and habitat identification and distribution at very high spatial resolution.
Specifically this project aims to:
(1) Map the extent and type of vegetation of the South Alligator Rivers floodplain from multispectral very high
spatial resolution satellite imagery;
(2) Assess seasonal connectivity between catchments and coastal receiving waters by mapping freshwater
plumes entering the Van Diemen Gulf;
(3) Provide information on seasonal light-attenuation variability of the Van Diemen’s Gulf which may be used
as surrogates in biodiversity assessments;
(4) Analyse the inter-annual variability of water quality in the Van Diemen’s Gulf region.
2.
Geographic Location
South Alligator Rivers floodplain, Van Diemen Gulf.
3.
Problem Statement





4.
What is the actual extent and type of vegetation of the South Alligator Rivers floodplain?
Has the vegetation extent changed compared to historic base-line data?
Can the proposed vegetation mapping applied on operational basis?
What is the accuracy of remotely sensed water quality in the Van Diemen Gulf region?
Can trends in coastal water quality be observed and associated with climate variability?
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
State-of the art physics-based inversion methods will be applied to derive the proposed remote sensing
products from spectral satellite measurements.
Page 114 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Previous research of CSIRO Land and Water (CLW) has demonstrated that standard remote sensing
algorithms frequently fail to provide accurate water quality information in optically complex coastal waters
around Australia. In order to derive reliable water quality information CLW has developed a sophisticated
coupled inversion algorithm for atmospheric correction and in-water retrieval (ANN-LMI), which processes
MODIS satellite data in two steps. First, an atmospheric correction algorithm based on inverse modelling of
radiative transfer simulations and artificial neural network (ANN) inversion, will derive the spectral remote
sensing reflectance at mean sea level on a pixel-by-pixel basis. Second, the inherent optical properties (IOP)
and the concentrations of optically active constituents will be retrieved from atmospherically corrected
spectra by applying a Linear-Matrix-Inversion (LMI) algorithm. The second algorithm requires
parameterisation with optical data to be collected in the project region during dedicated field campaigns.
Additional methods have been developed that derive light availability at sea bed and fresh water extent but
require adoption to the Van Diemen’s Gulf region.
Vegetation maps at the community level will be produced from very high spatial resolution satellite imagery.
To ensure a standardised approach a physics-based atmospheric correction will be followed by an object
oriented image analysis incorporating additional geophysical information such as DEMs and other GIS layers
(such as inundation extents and historical vegetation survey data). A spectral classification will then be
performed based on a current spectral library. Gaps in the current spectral library will be identified and
augmented with in situ measurement undertaken during the course of the project. Refinement of the
community level vegetation maps will be based on the species spectral separability and sensor resolution.
Validation will be based on available detailed vegetation surveys and targeted survey sites as well as local
knowledge.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes




6.
South Alligator floodplain vegetation extent and type mapped and change assessed against historic
base-line data.
Seasonal variability and trends in coastal water quality, light attenuation and freshwater extent
assessed for the Van Diemen’s Gulf region and associated time series made available for future
climate change and modelling studies.
Other NERP NABH projects supported.
DSEWPaC research requirements and policies addressed.
Key Expected Outputs.
The project will generate and make public available a series of remotely sensed and in-situ measured
outputs that may help improve tools for adaptive planning, management and conservation of biodiversity in
the Alligator Rivers Region (ARR). Specifically the outputs in the coastal zone will cover a time period of
more than ten years [2002-2013] of daily remotely sensed information and may help to detect change with
respect to climate variability such as El Niño/La Niña cycles.
Major outputs are:



7.
A validated very high spatial resolution vegetation map of the South Alligator Rivers floodplain.
A 10+ year time series of water quality, light availability at sea bed and freshwater extent in the Van
Diemen Gulf region.
A data base of inherent optical properties (absorption and scattering) collected during dedicated field
campaigns for water quality modelling and application to remotely sensed imagery.
Expected Benefits
The developed methodologies and tools applied in this project may be used in a future operational
biodiversity assessment and monitoring programs of the State. Possibilities for an operational
implementation will be explored in close collaboration with DSEWPaC end users.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Some sources of satellite
data may become
unavailable due to satellite
failure
Proposed management strategy
MODIS is at the end of its designed lifetime, consequently data from
alternative satellites may not provide similar amount of spatial and
spectral information effecting classification accuracy. This would likely
reduce the scope of the project.
Page 115 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Possible risks
Remote sensing algorithms
may fail in the general
optically complex
atmospheric and coastal
water conditions of the
project region
9.
Proposed management strategy
Due to insufficient and unrepresentative characterization of in-situ
measured optical data, consequently products will have lower accuracy.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
The following research questions compiled in the National Environmental Research Program guidelines will
be addressed by this study:
Question2: “Ecosystems: understanding ecosystem functioning/monitoring ecosystem health.” In addition
under question 2 the guidelines state: “... Models and tools are needed to predict the impact of management
options, and to monitor the success of action. ...”
 This research directly addresses this need in providing methodologies that enable operational
monitoring of coastal water quality and changes habitat extent.
Question 2.4: “In environments such as marine areas, where comparatively little is known about biodiversity
and ecosystem processes, what can we do to strengthen and validate the use of surrogates for identifying
biodiversity for protection?”
 This research directly addresses this knowledge gap in providing remotely sensed products (such as
light availability at seabed) that may be used as surrogate for biodiversity prediction in combination
with additional bio-physical parameters (such as habitat information).
10.
Policies and Programs
A response on how the initial projects (3.4, 3.5, 5.2 and 5.3 (this project)) relate to or meet the needs of the
policies and programs of Parks Australia was received from the Parks Operations and Tourism Branch,
Parks Australia (H. Schoefield, B. Brown, S. Kerin and J. West). They state that: “The proposed projects
relate to Parks Australia’s work in climate change, science and research and monitoring and assessment of
ecosystems within parks” and further that: “The projects contribute to both the objectives of the Management
Plan and the actions of the climate change strategy.”
Information was provided that the Kakadu National Park Climate Change Strategy contains the following
actions (policies) which specifically relate to the project 3.4 and 5.3 (this project):



11.
Optimise access to existing baseline information through improved data sharing between
organisations and the digitising and cataloguing of scientific information on a web-based information
portal
Work with partners to develop a high resolution Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the park.
Work with partners to develop spatial information systems that assist in predictive modelling of
climate change impacts on the distribution and abundance of vulnerable species and communities
(including invasive species) under different scenarios
DSEWPaC End Users





12.
Renee Bartolo, Supervising Scientist, Director;
Stephen Oxley, Marine, First Assistant Secretary;
Mark Flanigan, Land and Coasts, First Assistant Secretary
Judy West, Parks & Biodiversity Science Branch
Kate Sandford Read-Head and Jeff Tranter, ERIN.
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
This project has strong links to support other proposed NERP NABH projects in the region with information
on remotely sensed habitat and other bio-physical parameters to enhance biodiversity conservation
outcomes in the ARR (e.g. 3.1 River to landscape connections and biodiversity (Bunn); 3.2 Managing threats
to floodplain biodiversity and cultural values (Bayliss, Setterfield); 3.4 Predicting patterns and processes of
biodiversity in estuarine and coastal environments: Assessing climate change impacts (Parry, Williams).
Page 116 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
There will be close collaboration with the Spatial Sciences unit of ERISS, which focuses their remote sensing
capability mostly on the Magela Creek floodplain, downstream of the Ranger uranium mine site.
13.
Activities and Milestones
The work load of the project is organized into the following three work packages:



Year 1
Work package 1: Data acquisition, collection and dissemination
Work package 2: Remote sensing algorithm adaption, application and validation
Work package 3: Data analysis and interpretation
Activities
Work package 1: Data acquisition, collection and dissemination
 Activity 1 [Month 01 – Month 06]
Create an inventory of ERISS’s current publically available high spatial resolution satellite
imagery to be used for habitat mapping of the South Alligator Rivers floodplain. Liaise with
ERISS, other project partners and stakeholders to acquire WorldView-2 satellite imagery
of the 2012 “pre-burnt” South Alligator Rivers floodplain.

Activity 2 [Month 01 – Month 06]
Generate a data pool of relevant historic water quality and vegetation baseline data for
algorithm validation and to assess change over time. Liaise with ERISS to obtain data and
contacts.

Activity 3 [Month 06 – Month 12]
Liaise with AIMS, ERISS and other relevant project partners to organize and conduct
fieldwork to collect in-situ data for algorithm validation and parameterization.
Work package 2: Remote sensing algorithm adaption, application and validation

Activity 1 [Month 02 – Month 08]
Perform atmospheric corrections on ALOS satellite data with suitable radiometric and
atmospheric quality and map the extent of plant community distribution in the South
Alligator floodplain.
Work package 3: Data analysis and interpretation

Activity 1 [Month 06 – Month 12]
Access performance of different atmospheric correction algorithms above turbid water in
the Van Diemen Gulf region to be used for water quality mapping in year two.

Activity 2 [Month 06 – Month 12]
Analyse change of mangrove extent and floodplain vegetation types of processed
WorldView-2 data compared to historic baseline data.
Milestones
 Milestone 1 [Due end of month 06]
Create an inventory of ERISS owned publically available high spatial resolution satellite
data created and compile a data pool with relevant in-situ water quality and habitat baseline reference data.

Milestone 2 [Due end of month 12]
Vegetation map of the South Alligator Rivers floodplain produced from ALOS satellite data
at ~10 m2 spatial resolution and made available to other project partners.

Year 2
Milestone 3 [Due end of month 12]
Progress report to NERP Theme Leader.
Activities
Work package 1: Data acquisition, collection and dissemination
Page 117 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan

Activity 1 [Month 01 – Month 12]
Depending on operating budget - liaise with AIMS, ERISS and other relevant project
partners to organize and conduct a second field campaign to collect in-situ data for
algorithm validation and parameterization.

Activity 2 [Month 01 – Month 12]
Engage with traditional owners to feedback on remote sensing activities and to obtain
information on cultural sensitive areas.
Work package 2: Remote sensing algorithm adaption, application and validation

Activity 1 [Month 01 – Month 12]
Generate an improved vegetation map of the South Alligator floodplain at ~2 m 2
spatial resolution based on WorldView-2 data acquired in year one.

Activity 2 [Month 01 – Month 06]
Process and analyse field data collected under Activity 3 of WP1 and parameterize
water quality algorithm. Timing of this activity depends on completion date for Activity
3 WP 1 as fieldwork component requires alignment across several projects.

Activity 3 [Month 04 – Month 08]
Apply water quality inversion to MODIS-Aqua data covering the Van Diemen Gulf to
generate water quality products such as chlorophyll-a, total suspended matter and
coloured dissolved organic matter, light attenuation and sea surface temperature
maps. At this stage of the project the daily MODIS data set will cover a period of 10
years [2002-2012]. Aggregate daily MODIS water quality information data into
monthly and seasonal products.


Activity 4 [Month 04 – Month 12]
Validate habitat and water quality mapping depending on available in-situ data.
Activity 5 [Month 06 – Month 12]
Assess seasonal freshwater extent into the Van Diemen’s Gulf and calculate
percentage of photosynthetic available radiation at seabed from MODIS satellite data
at 1 km2 spatial resolution.
Work package 3: Data analysis and interpretation

Activity 1 [Month 06 – Month 12]
Analyse change of floodplain vegetation extent mapped from ALOS satellite data
produced in year one compared to historic baseline data.
Milestones
 Milestone 1 [Due end of month 06]
Data from 1st field work fully analyzed and incorporated into water quality algorithm.

Milestone 2 [Due end of month 12]
Ten year MODIS time series of water quality, light availability and freshwater extent
produced for the Van Diemen Gulf region covering the period [2002-2012].

Milestone 3 [Due end of month 12]
Improved vegetation map produced from WorldView-2 data.

Milestone 4 [Due end of month 12]
Progress report to NERP Theme Leader.
Page 118 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Year 3
Activities
Work package 1: Data acquisition, collection and dissemination

Activity 1 [Month 01 – Month 12]
Engage with traditional owners to feedback on remote sensing activities.

Activity 2 [Month 06 – Month 12]
Make public available MODIS time series of water quality, light availability at seabed, and
freshwater extent through NERP and IMOS portals; habitat maps in consultation with
stakeholder and ERISS.
Work package 2: Remote sensing algorithm adaption, application and validation

Activity 1 [Month 01 – Month 06]
Assess feasibility of water quality mapping of the Alligator Rivers using WorldView-2
based on selected imagery of suitable radiometric and atmospheric quality.

Activity 2 [Month 01 – Month 06]
Extent MODIS time series data to 2013

Activity 3 [Month 01 – Month 06]
Extent habitat and water quality validation depending on availability of in-situ data from
second field campaign.
Work package 3: Data analysis and interpretation

Activity 1 [Month 01 – Month 12]
Analyse inter-annual variability of MODIS time series products and correlate with
Southern Oscillation Index.

Activity 2 [Month 01 – Month 12]
Analyse seasonal variability of freshwater extent into the Van Diemen’s Gulf and
connectivity of catchments.

Activity 3 [Month 01 – Month 06]
Sensitivity analysis of vegetation mapping using the different spatial and spectral
resolutions of ALOS and WorldView-2.
Milestones
 Milestone 1 [Due end of month 06]
Accuracy of habitat mapping of the South Alligator floodplain assessed.

Milestone 2 [Due end of month 12]
Remote sensing and in-situ data made public available through NERP or IMOS portal.

Milestone 3 [Due end of month 12]
Final report to NERP Theme Leader.
Page 119 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
Theme: 5
Project Number:
Project Title:
Project Leader:
Lead Organisation:
Key Researchers:
Project Start Date:
Total NERP Cash Budget:
1.
Biodiversity monitoring and reporting
5.4
Understanding the role of salinity on Kakadu’s floodplain sedimentary
biota: natural changes in estuarine environments and the potential
effects of salt-water intrusion in adjacent flood-plains.
Anthony Chariton, Wealth from Oceans, CSIRO
CSIRO
David Parry (AIMS), Karen Gibb (CDU)
Project Completion Date:
Sept 2011
Sept 2013
Total In-Kind Budget:
$443,725
$572,373
Project Summary/ Description
Benthic communities (biota which reside within or on top of the sediment), are a critical component of aquatic
ecosystems. They influence the physical and chemical condition of the sediment and sediment-water
interface; and are an important food source for fish and wading-birds. As a result, the ecological condition of
freshwater and estuarine environments is often determined by examining benthic community diversity and
composition. For practicalities, examination is generally restricted to larger organism (> 0.5 cm),
macroinvertebrates, this includes caddis-flies, polychaete worms, bivalves and crustaceans.
Benthic community composition can be influenced by many environmental variables, e.g. water quality, grain
size, depth etc. Understanding how organisms respond to natural variability is critical for identifying those
responses which are not indicative of the natural functioning of the system. Salinity can dictate the
composition and abundance of benthic organisms by placing physiological limitations upon organisms. In
general, environments which contain a stable, marine-like salinity generally contain a more diverse and even
faunal composition, whilst more dynamic or brackish systems generally contain a less diverse fauna. In
Kakadu NP, there is no information regarding the estuarine sedimentary biota of the Alligator Rivers, and
consequently, monitoring the response of the system to natural disturbances, as well as pulsed and
sustained anthropogenic changes, e.g. a contamination incident and climate change, respectively, is
currently not possible. In Kakadu, changes in salinity of water bodies are not restricted to the estuarine
components of the rivers, with concern growing regarding the issue of salt-water intrusion into the freshwater
flood plains adjacent to the estuaries.
In this study we will use a cutting-edge molecular approach (ecogenomics) to provide background ecological
information on Alligator River Region’s estuarine sedimentary biota, increasing our understanding of how this
system responds over time. In addition, an adjunct sampling program will be initiated to examine the
potential effect of salt-water intrusion on flood-plains, and to assess the viability of using ecogenomics to
monitor the ecological impact of salt-water intrusion. It is envisaged that this ecological information produced
from this study will provide the basis for developing routine programs for monitoring the ecological condition
of the estuaries and the potential saltwater-intruded environments, thereby, enabling downstream decisions
to be made using robust ecological information.
What is ecogenomics and why use it? As previously indicated, macrobenthic organisms are traditionally
used to examine and monitor the health of estuarine and coastal sedimentary systems, yet this approach
has some severe limitations. It is costly, labor intensive, requires regionally-specific taxonomic expertise,
requires a large number of sample replicates, and it is impractical to include juvenile and cryptic taxa.
Importantly, macrobenthic samples usually comprise only a small fraction of the total diversity (often < 40
taxa), which are then used to make assumptions about total ecosystem health. Furthermore, such studies
negate the importance of prokaryotic systems, including their role in ecosystem functioning.
Recent advances in high throughput DNA sequencing (also called next generation sequencing (NGS)
provides an opportunity to measure and understand biological complexity and ecosystem function at
previously unattainable levels of resolution, potentially covering all of life: an area of research termed
‘ecogenomics’. Ecogenomic studies examining both prokaryotes and eukaryotes have recently demonstrated
the potential of this approach to examine the biological condition of environments using 1,000s of genes
encompassing a wide-breadth of life, rather than a small number of traditionally targeted macrofauna.
Next-generation sequencing can be used to read exceedingly large volumes of DNA strands simultaneously.
Unlike traditional sequencing techniques which sequence each gene individually and therefore require
cloning prior to sequencing, NGS enables complex mixtures of genes to be examined simultaneously,
reducing the biases, costs and associated resource needs. In addition, NGS enables individual samples or
Page 120 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
replicates to be bar-coded with a unique tag enabling multiple samples to be analysed in a single-run
(multiplexing). As a result, this approach is highly suited to the complex experimental designs frequently
used in environmental monitoring and assessment programs.
The ecogenomic approach involves the following steps: 1) extraction of DNA from the sample; 2)
amplification of a targeted gene, e.g. 16S rRNA for prokaryotes and 18S rRNA for eukaryotes; 3) barcoding
of samples, enabling the pooling of samples with post hoc analysis used to assign each gene to its sample of
origin; 4) high throughput sequencing; 5) bioinformatics, to clean up the data and compare the results to
online repositories; 6) taxonomic assignment of sequences; and 7) downstream statistical analysis.
The proposed study will be undertaken in Kakadu National Park. As reflected by its World Heritage listing,
Kakadu is an iconic region of high conservation value because of both its ecological and heritage assets.
While much of the region is considered relatively pristine, the estuarine components of the National Park are
potentially at risk in both the short and long term from mining and climate change, respectively. To provide
suitable strategies to deal with these impacts, an understanding of the natural structural and functional
attributes of the system is required.
The dynamics of the Alligator Rivers Region, both seasonal and tidal, provide a challenging environment for
ecological monitoring due to the expected high spatio-temporal distribution of biota. With this expected level
of diversity, traditional macrobenthic biodiversity assessment would be a significant underestimate of total
biodiversity, which would preclude the development of a robust monitoring program. By utilising
ecogenomics, a more complete picture of the system’s biodiversity can be obtained. This information can be
used to understand how specific assemblages influence the ecosystem function (e.g. biogeochemical
cycling), and respond to natural stressors, and can identify candidate taxonomic groups suited for long-term
monitoring programs.
In addition, the opportunity to perform the research in a relatively pristine environment enables the testing of
fundamental ecological models and theories under conditions where the influence of anthropogenic covariables is minimal. This information may not only assist in future ecogenomic research, but also, have
broader significance to community ecology in general.
This project aims to use ecogenomics to provide background information for the development of an
ecological monitoring program for the Alligator Rivers Region encompassing Kakadu National Park, which
can be used as a baseline to compare more developed catchments and coastal areas across northern
Australia. The project will use high-throughput sequencing to examine the eukaryotic components of these
systems, from their freshwater interfaces to their coastal fringes. By incorporating chemical, hydrological and
physico-chemical variables, the data will be used to identify potential ‘ecogenomic signatures’, or
environmental variable-specific ecogenomic responses (e.g. nutrients, water temperature), aiding future
monitoring programs.
Specifically, the project aims to:
1) Provide a comprehensive inventory of sedimentary eukaryotic biota in the Alligator Rivers Region
across freshwater and estuarine habitats.
2) Compare flood-plain soil/sediment communities exposed or have the potential to be exposed to saltwater intrusion.
3) Identify key relationships between ecogenomic patterns and physico-chemical measurements.
4) Identify key taxonomic groups for long-term monitoring programs.
5) Use meta-analysis to identify region specific patterns and patterns which are indicative of Australian
estuarine systems in general, as compared to Sydney Harbour and SE Queensland.
While the project’s aims and milestones are based on eukaryotic diversity, additional samples will be
collected and stored for downstream DNA and RNA analysis, enabling additional biotic structure
(fungi/bacteria) and functional microbial ecology analysis to be obtained if opportunities should arise.
2.
Geographic Location
The site will comprise the estuarine components of the Alligator Rivers Region, Kakadu, NT.
3.
Problem Statement


How rich is the sedimentary eukaryotic diversity of the Alligator Rivers?
How does experimental design influence estimates of biotic richness and representativeness of
assemblages?
Page 121 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan






4.
What eukaryotic taxonomic groups are represented within the region’s sediments?
How does richness and composition change within and among estuaries?
Does salinity influence biotic composition in a predictive manner?
What are the differences between wet and dry season biotic patterns?
What are the ecogenomic characteristics of sediments in adjacent freshwater areas formally and
potentially affected by salt-water intrusion?
Is ecogenomics are suitable tool for the long-term monitoring of the region, and if so, what factors
require consideration?
Project Methods/ Approaches/ Design
The underpinning approach of the study is to use ecogenomic data derived from the pyrosequencing of 18S
rDNA to examine sedimentary eukaryotic biota along three estuarine gradients during both a wet and dry
season. This information will then be used to: (i) provide an extensive overview of the region’s sedimentary
biota; (ii) examine within and among estuary variability; examine the role of salinity and season on biotic
composition; and (iii) indentify any potential predictive patterns which may assist in the long-term monitoring
of the region’s estuarine systems.
Site selection
Two estuaries will be sampled within the Alligator Rivers Region (South and East Alligator Rivers), with a
number of sites sampled along the salinity gradients of each estuary between the freshwater and coastal
interfaces. Sites will be selected by the salinity regime, but also, additional criteria, e.g. water depth and
surrounding vegetation, will be also used to reduce the influence of confounding variables.
Moreover, sites will harmonized with the other monitoring projects operating within these estuarine systems,
specifically, (i) Targeted surveys for estuarine biodiversity in the Alligator Rivers Region; (ii) Predicting
patterns and processes of biodiversity in estuarine and coastal environments of the Alligator Rivers Region
using eco-hydrological models: assessing future climate change impacts; and (iii) Remote sensing methods
to map and monitor the condition of coastal habitats and other surrogates of biodiversity.
Sediment collection
Sediments will be collected using a Van Veen grab sampler. Surficial sediment (100 mL to 0-2 cm depth) will
be obtained from each grab, with each sample partitioned into three samples: (i) 30 mL of DNA extraction; (ii)
30 mL for RNA, with the samples fixed using RNA later; and (iii) 40 mL of grain size and total organic carbon
analysis, N and P analysis, and metal analysis (U and Pb). Immediately upon collection, the DNA/RNA
samples will be frozen in the field using dry-ice.
DNA extraction and amplification
DNA extraction, clean-up and amplification will be performed using the protocols described in Chariton et al.
(2010). Some modification to this protocol will be performed to enable the DNA to be extracted from 10 g
sediment sample and to increase the target region of the gene encoding the 18S ribosomal RNA to 400- 500
base pairs. Proposed 18S primers will be validated using a number of in silico techniques to maximise the
taxonomic breadth and resolution of PCR products. Once amplified, samples will be bar-coded using a
combination of custom designed forward and reverse 454 fusion primers with MID adaptors. This doublemultiplexed approach enables each sequence to be assigned to its biological replicate of origin. Cleaned-up
amplicon samples will be pyrosequenced using Roche 454 FLX Titanium. All 454 runs will include reference
genes as means of measuring the quality of each pyrosequencing run.
Bioinformatics and analysis
Bioinformatics will be performed using CSIRO’s 454 ecogenomic pipeline (paper in preparation), with the
data (including environmental measurements and GPS information) retained with a custom designed
Microsoft Trident system which is currently under development. This interface will enable all the sequencing
runs to be compared, filtered and queried against a range of variables, e.g. salinity. Furthermore, the Kakadu
data will be compared to other ecogenomic data sets obtained from around Australia, e.g. SE Queensland,
the MDB and Sydney Harbour.
A range of statistical approaches will be performed on the completed data sets to provide an insight into the
region’s sedimentary diversity, understanding how diversity and composition is influenced by salinity, season
and other variables, and identify key patterns ‘ecogenomic signatures’ which are indicative of certain
conditions, providing a priori information for future studies. To aid visualization for potential end-users and
Page 122 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
interested parties, the bioinformatic package GenGIS will be used to combine digital map data with the
ecogenomic data derived from the study region.
Dissemination
Information obtained from this project will be disseminated using a variety of approaches, including:
publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at local and international conferences, and targeted
seminars and meetings with potential end-users of both the data and the approach in general.
5.
Key Expected Outcomes
Short-term: Whilst much of Kakadu’s megafauna has been well-studied, little to nothing is known about the
region’s aquatic macro, meio and microfauna, with these groups being crucial for maintaining the productivity
of the region’s aquatic ecosystems. In order to understand the biotic integrity of the region, some prior
knowledge on sedimentary ecology is required. It is expected the ecogenomic project will provide
fundamental baseline ecological data which can be used to both increase our understanding of Kakadu’s
estuaries, and provide information, albeit temporally limited, on how biota respond to natural changes in
salinity and rainfall.
Medium-term: Traditional approaches for examining the sedimentary health of estuaries are predominately
derived for the enumeration of macrobenthic invertebrates. However, this approach is not only costly, time
consuming and expensive, it provides a very limited view of the system’s total diversity. Consequently,
decisions regarding the integrity of environments are being made using relatively poor and costly
information.
It is anticipated that the project will provide managers and researchers with a more comprehensive view of
the biota and how it changes across space and time. Such information is not only important for
understanding the dynamics of the system, but also, for monitoring and assessing the potential impacts of a
range of activities, e.g. tourism, contamination and natural catastrophes. Whilst the concept of ecogenomic
monitoring is relatively new, environmental agencies and research groups in Australia, Europe and North
America are currently investigating the potential benefits of this approach, with the view of adopting such
approaches for the routine monitoring of freshwater and marine environments. It is hoped that the Kakadu
project will not only provide pertinent regionally relevant information, but also, demonstrate the advantages
of ecogenomic monitoring, educate potential users, modify the way environments are assessed, and
ultimately, provide managers with better tools for down-stream decision making.
Long-term: If deemed suitable, an ecogenomic monitoring program would be significantly cheaper, quicker
and more ecologically relevant than current approaches used for the environmental monitoring of estuaries.
Routine ecogenomic monitoring programs could potentially be used to monitor the effects of tourism, assess
the overall biotic integrity of waterways, including potential changes in the composition of run-off in the East
Alligator River, provide information regarding food-web dynamics in cases where pronounced shifts in the
abundances of aquatic fauna have been observed (booms or declines of key megafauna), and monitor the
effects of climate change (including sea-rise) on the region’s biota.
As the project is being performed in a relatively pristine environment, there is the benefit of examining
ecological processes under relatively natural conditions. This information may have some longer-term
benefits of broad significance to ecology theory and for the monitoring of coastal environments, enabling the
effects of climate change to be partitioned from other confounding factors observed along the coast, e.g.
nitrification, contamination and environmental degradation. Furthermore, the baseline data may prove critical
for monitoring the potential impacts of unforseen events, e.g. the ecological ramifications of an invasive
aquatic organism or disease out-break.
6.
Key Expected Outputs







Baseline information and an increased understanding of the region’s sedimentary biota.
Knowledge of how communities are modified along natural salinity gradients.
An annotated on-line ecogenomic database which will be made freely available.
Deposition of the data into GenBank, an on-line repository.
Comprehensive ecological data which compliments other projects being performed by the Hub, e.g.
surrogate measurements of biodiversity could be ground-truthed using ecogenomic data.
The fundamental components (e.g. design and potential indictor taxa) for developing cutting-edge
and comprehensive routine biomonitoring for the region.
Pertinent information on the skills and information required to develop ecogenomic monitoring
programs for other key regions in Australia, e.g. GBR, N.W Shelf and the Koorong.
Page 123 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
7.
Expected Benefits
Efforts to conserve, manage and restore ecosystems are constrained by limited resources, lack of indicators
and robust, reproducible monitoring techniques. Ecogenomics provides an opportunity to overcome these
limitations. The technique is applicable to a broad range of aquatic and terrestrial environments. The
exponential growth in GenBank voucher sequence data, new bioinformatics tools, and the consistent
decrease in sequencing costs is likely to render comprehensive biodiversity assessment by pyrosequencing
more broadly available. The adoption of this approach has the potential to dramatically change the way
ecological assessments are undertaken.
8.
Key Risks Assessment
Possible risks
Difficulty enlisting a suitable
Post Doctoral scientist (due
to the unique skill set
required
It may rain earlier than
expected caused by
unseasonable weather
Loss of skilled staff due to
illness or departure
Changes in the software
and chemistry used for the
pyrosequencing may result
in a loss of data or a
reduction in quality.
Inability to provide predictive
patterns in the response of
biota to salinity due to
unforseen spatial variability
in the distribution of
biodiversity
Samples may be
damaged/lost, due to
couriers/airlines misplacing
them
9.
Proposed management strategy
May delay the start of the project, there is time available to complete the
project in the program timeframe.
May delay access to sampling sites, there is time available to complete
the project in the program timeframe.
Delay whilst a suitable replacement is found or a new member can be
trained
Results may not fully meet the original project objectives.
Results may not fully meet the original project objectives.
The system will need to be resampled, there is time available to complete
the project in the program timeframe.
Research Questions (Environment Portfolio)
How can we improve our capacity to understand, monitor and evaluate ecosystem function/health, including
by using predictive models/tools, to ensure:
 key ecosystem functions can be understood and maintained through effective management
 threats to values, such as biodiversity or important ecosystem functions, can be detected
 trends can be monitored and tipping points/thresholds, that indicate species, population or
ecosystem collapse, can be predicted, and which management actions are effective and timely,
can their success be measured over time, and how can their relevance/effectiveness be
evaluated as the environment changes (i.e. use of adaptive management systems)?
As ecogenomics can potentially provide information on the presence/absence of all organisms, regardless of
their size and morphology, the approach provides considerable promise as a new tool for the monitoring and
evaluation of ecosystems. The inclusion of a wide-breadth of organisms greatly increases our capacity to
understand how communities respond to both natural and anthropogenic stressors, including the tippingpoint and resistance of various biotic groups, e.g. soil communities to hyper-drought (Baldwin et al., in
review). This information may also assist in partitioning the effects of different stressors, e.g. contaminants,
climate change and salinity, providing a more comprehensive view of a system’s biotic integrity, ultimately
leading to more robust tools for down-stream decision making.
What are the advantages and disadvantages for biodiversity of an ecosystem management approach? How
can emerging genetic technologies and analysis of past management practices assist our understanding of
ecosystems?
Page 124 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
To date, environmental decisions have been made by examining the trajectories of a minute fraction of
system’s diversity, this is despite the fact that certain groups of organisms (e.g. meio and micro) are often
more sensitive to environmental change than frequently monitored groups such as macrofauna.
Ecogenomics, challenges previous notions of biodiversity, and whilst the management of a system cannot
solely be founded in structural based ecological measures such as biodiversity, ecogenomic information
greatly increases the quality of structural ecological information. Whilst other ‘omic’ approaches such as
transcriptomics and metagenomics provide potentially rich and complementary functional information, their
application to broad-scale routine monitoring programs is still technically unfeasible.
In coastal areas, how can catchment and near-shore management be improved to better protect coastal
ecosystems? How can we characterise and quantify threats to marine species posed by coastal
development?
As previously indicated, ecogenomics can provide a previously unattainable view of biotic diversity,
producing this information with a turn-over time similar to that chemical analysis techniques such GC-MS.
However, to exploit this information in regards to monitoring the effects of urbanization and the impact of
invasive species, a strong understanding of how coastal communities change naturally over space and time,
and to range of interacting press and pulse perturbations is required. This can only be achieved by sampling
at appropriate temporal and spatial scales, and providing this information in manner which it can be used for
comparative and meta-analysis.
However, it is viewed that the findings of the current study will provide the basis for developing routine
ecogenomic monitoring programs based on current technologies. The ecological information obtained from
this study may not only prove useful for the management of the Alligator Rivers Region, but also, provide
base-line information which could be used to monitoring the impacts of urbanization and industrial
development along Australia’s northern coast.
10.
Policies and Programs












EPBC Strategic Assessments
Natural and Indigenous Heritage
Management of Kakadu National Park
Concept of resilience
National Reserve System
Development of predictive models
Parks and Biodiversity Science Policy
Marine Biological Planning to: develop a better understanding of the marine biodiversity and major
drivers for maintaining biodiversity in the North and North-west Marine Regions and Coral Sea; and
understand the ecological features and processes that influence the landscape-scale dispersal and
recruitment of marine life that is necessary to maintain the biodiversity and productivity of marine
ecosystems.
Design practical and cost effective monitoring, evaluation and reporting of marine ecosystem health
Understand the characteristics of marine ecosystems and biodiversity that help make them resilient
to impacts of environmental change and human activities.
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
ecosystems
As ecogenomics is applicable to any environmental system, the information obtained from this project from a
design and implementation perspective would also be applicable to:
 Antarctic science strategic plan 2011-12 to 2020-21
 The long-term protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of the Great Barrier Reef.
 Marine research to inform marine conservation management and marine protected area planning in
the Indian Ocean Territories (IOT)
 Parks Australia – Climate Change Response
 Stewardship Program
 Concept of resilience
 Terrestrial NARP
Page 125 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
11.
DSEWPaC End Users






12.
Cameron Colebatch, Paul Marsh - Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment, Aquatic
Ecosystems Policy Section, Aquatic Systems Health Branch
Martin Wardrop - Conservation Policy Section, Land and Coasts Division
Hilary Schofield, Belinda Brown, Sarah Kerin, Judy West - Parks Operations and Tourism Branch,
Parks Australia
Margaret Considine, Carolyn Cameron – Strategic Assessment Branch, Environment Assessment
and Compliance Division
Kynan Gowland (Species Information), Peter Latch (Recovery Planning) – Wildlife Branch, Heritage
and Wildlife Division.
Protecting Antarctica. Advancement of Australia’s strategic, scientific, environmental and economic
interests in the Antarctic by protecting, administering and researching the region
Links and Dependencies to other Hubs and Projects
To maximise the impact of the project, the ecogenomic project will be aligned with the other NABH themes
which examine biological diversity, either directly or via surrogates in the Alligator Rivers Region. These
include:
 Targeted surveys for estuarine biodiversity in the Alligator Rivers Region encompassing Kakadu
National Park;

Predicting patterns and processes of biodiversity in estuarine and coastal environments of the
Alligator Rivers Region using ecohydrological models: assessing future climate change impacts; and
 Remote sensing methods to map and monitor the condition of coastal habitats and other surrogates
of biodiversity.
The information potential obtained from this study reflects the goals of the Hub by firstly, contributing to a
research priority of the Environmental Portfolio, that is, providing fundamental ecological data for a World
Heritage region. Secondly, the research is both world-class and innovative. To our knowledge, this is first
ecogenomic monitoring program to be designed for a national park, with the approach providing a previously
unattainable view of the system’s sedimentary ecology. Furthermore, the underpinning approach would be
transferable to other systems, e.g. Antarctica, the GBR and MDB. Thirdly, it is envisaged that the information
obtained from this study will provide the foundations for monitoring programs which could be used to
routinely examine the ecological condition of the region’s estuaries, monitor potential concerns from upstream activities (e.g. Ranger Mine), and provide managers with the tools for monitoring the potential
impacts of salt-water intrusion and their remedial activities. Finally, the project is designed to be efficient by
effective integrating the project into the other regionally relevant projects.
Collectively, the project would enable the biodiversity and ecological integrity of these systems to be
examined using a range of approaches, encompassing different levels of resolution. It is envisaged that the
integrated outcomes would not only increase our understanding of the region’s biodiversity, but also, provide
base-line information on the coupling of benthic-pelagic ecosystems; supply crucial information of the links
between biodiversity and hydrology, and develop tools for monitoring and predicting biological responses
across this spatially complex and dynamic environment. The collective knowledge of this information is not
only essential for increasing our knowledge of the region’s ecology, but also, for understanding and
responding to the potential impacts of climate change and monitoring the potential impacts of anthropogenic
activities.
CSIRO Wealth from Oceans (ORCA) Ecogenomic Monitoring of SE Queensland Program. Since early 2010,
CSIRO researchers having been using ecogenomics to examine the eukaryotic diversity and nutrient cycling
in five S.E Queensland estuaries. The study examines how catchment health influences biotic composition,
as well as the responses of biota to salinity gradients and rainfall events. The information derived from this
continuing project can be integrated into the Hub project for meta-analysis using the CSIRO’s Microsoft
Trident Workflow. It is envisaged that this information will assist indentify patterns which are both region
specific and more broadly indicative of estuarine systems.
University of Guelph/Environment Canada Biomonitoring 2.0: A high-throughput genomics approach for
comprehensive biological assessment of environmental change. Anthony Chariton is currently a collaborator
on this project which is using ecogenomics to examine the biological diversity of Buffalo National Park,
Canada's largest national park, which is also both a World Heritage and a Ramsar site. Both projects will be
aligned to enable the transfer of information regarding primer design, sampling protocols and bioinformatics.
It is believed that providing a standardized approach to ecogenomics, a greater understanding of the
technique, including both its pros and cons, can be established. Furthermore, it is envisaged that
Page 126 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan
standardization will not only enable scientist to examine some fundamental ecological questions across
markedly different environments, but also, assist in the adoption of ecogenomics as routine monitoring and
assessment tool. It should be noted that the projects are independent, and consequently the Hub project will
not be affected if Biomonitoring 2.0 is prematurely finished or modified.
13.
Year 1
Activities and Milestones



Year 2






Completion of initial design phase, including harmonization with other monitoring
projects working within the study region.
Primer design, including in silico comparisons of various loci.
Pilot study: examine the sample distribution of benthic eukaryotics within and among
estuaries. Examine the effects of performing single or pooled PCR replicates on the
quality and the pyrosequenced data. Completion of ‘wet season’ sampling run using
the information derived from the pilot study.
Pyrosequencing, bioinformatics and analysis of ‘wet season’ data
Completion of ‘dry season’ sampling run.
Pyrosequencing, bioinformatics and analysis of ‘dry season’ data
Completion of all statistical analysis, including a summary of the eukaryotic biota of
the region, comparisons between wet and dry season data sets, examination of how
biota change along salinity gradients, results ‘indicator ‘ analysis of the region’s
biotic components.
Completion of a formal report.
Preparation of material for dissemination via journal publications, meetings with
potential end-users and conference presentations.
Page 127 of 127
Northern Australia Hub –Final Multi-Year Research Plan