Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vegetation Matters: Managing Vegetation for Sustainable Ecosystem Services
Richard Thackway
Policy Choices for Salinity Mitigation: Bridging the Disciplinary Divides 1-2 February 2007
Outline• Current national NRM policy and program settings• Vegetation Matters - a project commissioned by the Aust
Government (DAFF)• Purpose to inform discussions on the usefulness of the
ecosystem services concept at a national scale• Key findings of Veg Matters
• Other related BRS activities
Current national NRM Programs
• National M&E Framework for NRM
– Standards & Targets - National natural resource outcomes - Multiple NRM Outcomes - NAP and NHT (‘regional model’)
Actually these policies & programs came before NM&EF
Why a multiple outcomes ES approach
• A new framework– Promoting an integrated multiple services/ benefits approach – Characterising the full range of services/ benefits– Clarity about the role(s) of biodiversity – Different value perspectives – Tools for selecting, trading-off and procuring subsets of ES
• Setting targets and measuring progress– What mix of services is needed/ wanted?– Non-linear & discontinuous change across gradients and time– Spatial scales– Simple and clear measurement and reporting
Scope of Veg Matters• why title ‘veg matters’• why vegetation and not soils & water • multiple rather than single ES• all vegetation (exotic and native)• all land uses (extensive and intensive) and management practices• all tenures (public, private and Aboriginal lands);• premise - veg management interventions should be based on:
– a clear appreciation of needs, values and priorities– based on a sound science (environmental/social/economics)– a capacity to measure, monitor and report trends at two board
scales- on-ground & landscape
Key vegetation-related ES covered by Veg Matters
• wildlife habitat• biodiversity• carbon sequestration • protection of soils from erosion• maintenance of water quality • cultural services• production values of foods, fibres and building materials on which human
life depends.
Key question – Veg Matters
“What knowledge is needed about vegetation and/or ways for describing vegetation that will help us to appropriately adjust the way it is used and managed to obtain and maintain a wide range of ecosystem services”?
Assumptions of veg-based ES approach
• purposeful management of vegetation is a practical means to achieve many desired ES outcomes
• ecological function varies in different ecosystems, over time and is strongly influenced by land management practices
• land management practices ‘operate’ to change the mix of ES associated with veg types and their condition states
• existing info and tools are adequate although patchy in coverage and transferability
Colour = type
Region
Landscapes (integrated mosaic of ecosystems)
Width = magnitude
Ecosystem service/s
Assumption - we can aggregate and procure ES from ecosystems, landscapes and regions
Ecosystems
Need for clear definitions
• Biosphere• Ecosystem Function• Ecosystem Process• Ecosystem Services• Flows• Landscape• Landscape Function• Mosaics• Vegetation condition states
Ecosystem Structure and FunctionVegetation use and management
Ecosystem Processes
Soil
Carbon
Hydrology/water
Energy
Indicators of sustainable use & management of e.g. extent, use, value,
condition
Sustainable maintenance and delivery of agreed
ecosystem services
Monitoring and evaluation and adaptive management
What are ES?
Need to use agreed international definitions – Millennium Assessment1. regulating services
that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, air and water quality
2. supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling
3. provisioning or production services such as food, water, timber, and fibre
4. cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits
Relationships between ecosystem elements of landscapes, land parcels and land use
Landscape
Land parcels
Land use classes
Dai
ry
Frui
t and
gra
pes
Veg
etab
les
Gra
zing
Cro
ps
Inte
nsiv
e an
imal
s
Fore
stry
Food
pro
cess
ing
Hou
sing
Wat
er p
rodu
ctio
n
Rec
reat
ion
Cul
ture
/ bio
dive
rs
Pollination
Life-fulfillment
Climate regulation
Pest control
Genetic resources
Habitat regeneration
Shade and shelter
Soil health
Healthy waterways
Water filtration
River regulation
Waste absorption
SE
RV
ICE
SLAND-USES
CSIRO (Binning et al, 2000)
Monitoring and Reporting Ecosystem Services
Time1 2 3 4 5 6
Com
pone
nt
scor
es
10
0
2
4
6
8
Value of production
Carbon sequestration
Biodiversity conservation
Water quality
Water quantity
Reporting unit = catchment Target for biodiversity
Surface and groundwater availability
Genetic and biochemical resources
Provision of fresh water
Soil health
Biodiversity
Surface and Groundwater
quality
Social well being & community health
Life fulfilment
Amenity
Science and education resources
Food production
Fibre production
Assessing and reporting ES at a landscape scale for t1
Ideal
Management goal for acceptable condition
Marginal
Unstainable
Condition states
Key findings – Veg Matters
• Improved recognition of ES values• Better understanding of public and private values• Access to tools to assess & manage trade-offs / synergies between ES• A common language• ES and Biodiversity• Clearer definitions e.g. ES = MBI, ES = EMS• Ecological function is poorly understood
Key findings - clear benefits from:
• explicit recognition of the range and value of ES provided by vegetation (type and condition states)
• development of a ecosystems services framework• explicit implementation of a application of the ES concept in all NRM
initiatives – incl. water & salinity• adoption of landscapes (mosaics of ecosystems) as the spatial planning
unit in future programs
Key findings – must clarify which ‘space’ people are working in ‘policy cycle’
Adaptive management cycle
1 Characterise
2 Prioritise
3 Implement program/s
4 On ground management
5 Regional resource condition
5
4 3
2
1
Key science-based Inputs:•Understanding of ecological function•land management practices •veg types•desired condition states
Key findings – flexibility in decision making
• A national ES framework needs to balance competing social, economic and environmental calls on ecosystem services – and recognise need to
• repeat and/or adjust one or more steps in the policy cycle to deliver the desired outcomes
• move up/down scales national, regional and local• stakeholders want tools to inform them of costs and benefits (i.e.
environmental, economic and social) of potential projects
Where to from here?
• establish long term multi-stage monitoring framework to better understand linkages between ES, ecological function & responses of vegetation (type & condition states) to management practices
• regularly collect minimum data sets (spatial & temporal) about +/- changes and trends in ES as a result of policy settings & program investments
• long term and short term reporting• need for simpler rather than simple tools e.g. indices or an index
• NB: MCA and state and transition models are gaining traction among stakeholders
Reporting & communications • for consistency will require coordination • may be too great a burden for local land managers • will require the development of agreed tools for assessment at different
temporal and spatial scales• will require necessary improvements in collation, analysis and delivery of
existing information held in distributed info systems
Where to from here?
Other BRS activities
• Developing a typology for describing and mapping land managementpractices and their impact on vegetation type and condition states
• Assisting in the design of tools to assess the condition states of vegetation• Compiling vegetation condition state datasets at various scales• Compiling land use datasets• MCA tools and assessments
Step 1.2a
Describe and map which vegetation type/s are to be targeted
Describe and map current condition states for each native veg type using a benchmark for each vegetation type (i.e. veg community) e.g. VAST where condition states strongly influenced by land management practices
Develop scenarios (i.e. spatial and temporal) that describe & map selected ecosystem services and their trade-offs in bioregions based on vegetation types, condition states, veg functional attributes – where land management practices are the ‘driver’ of change
Step 1.2b
Step 1.3
Develop relationships between veg type and condition states, vegetation functional attributes, land management practices, & ecosystem services –relevant to ecological functional land units e.g. bioregions
Step 1.1
Use tools to efficiently target ecosystem services/environmental outcomes based on procuring changes in land management practices that focus on veg types, condition states and vegetation functional attributes
Steps 2-5
Native Non-native Non-vega
b
What information do we need & have to inform key decision points in the earlier Policy Cycle (Steps 1-5)?
Describe and map key vegetation functional attributes for each veg type that are correlated with land management practices and the desired mix of ecosystem services e.g. regeneration, life cycle, age class, strata, foliage cover, biomass, rooting depth, height
Step 1.2c
Step 1.2
Select which set/s of ecosystem services are required
Vegetation States Assets and Transitions (VAST) framework
VIVIVIIIIII0
Native vegetationcover
Non-native vegetationcover
Condition states
Increasing vegetation modification
Transitions = trend
Vegetation thresholds
Ass
ets
National Assessment (Model + GIS + Expert interpretation) Tells us condition states – in a
management context
North West Victoria (Model + GIS + Expert interpretation)
Vic DSE: Newell & Parkes et al
BRS: Forest and Vegetation Sciences
Inputs/steps: Vegetation condition model + land use + expert interpretation
p142-02
p142-18
p143
Tracking progress - poplar box woodlands (Central Qld) - sites
• VAST I• Freehold no grazing• Multiple strata, some emergents• Biomass ~120 t/ha • FPC ~ 52%, Max height ~ 24m• Spp OverS 3-5, MidS 5+, GroundS 5-10• Regen - good
• VAST II• Freehold - grazing • Two strata• Biomass ~68 t/ha • FPC ~ 25%, Max height ~ 17m• Spp OverS 3, MidS 1, GroundS ~1-4• Regen – Low-Moderate
• VAST III• Freehold - heavy grazing - mechanical
thinning• Single, low height strata • Biomass ~42 t/ha • FPC ~ 20%, Max height ~ 13m• Spp OverS 3, MidS 0, GroundS ~1-4• Regen – very low, bare ground
Proposed accounting for ES using condition states of veg types
0 I II III IV V VI
Carbon sequestration
Biodiversity Conservation
Water -nutrient mitigation
Food & fibre production
Recreation
Salinity mitigation
Ecos
yste
m g
ood s
an d
se r
vice
s
Conclusion
• There is increasing support for a multiple ES framework for NRM • Veg Matters (i.e. sustainable veg management for multiple ES benefits)
has stimulated considerable debate among stakeholders• Support for developing decision support tools that integrate land
management practices that ‘operate’ to change the mix of ES associated with veg types and their condition states
Acknowledgements
• Veg Matters Writing Team (Richard Thackway, Graham Yapp, Joe Walker, Roger Hnatiuk ,Jann Williams, Thilak Mallawaarachchi, Ian Byron and Cynthia Maher)
• The development of the VAST framework was funded by the Natural Heritage Trust and the Bureau of Rural Sciences
• Many people across Australia have contributed to the ideas expressed in this presentation