Published name
1. Is the biodiversity assessment instrument an appropriate means of achieving consistency in how methods describe biodiversity ?
No, there is a need for standard - to enable potential buyers to compare some aspects of projects under different methods and assess biodiversity and its change. The BIA needs to be less complex and focus on key measures e.g. condition of vegetation at a site e.g. Simplified STM ratings Very High, High, Medium, Low-medium and low and more intuitive so that land managers, including First Nations and industry understand.
2. Does the biodiversity assessment instrument assist in ensuring that methods comply with the biodiversity integrity standards?
As noted previously a simpler set of measures/guidelines including STM ratings and key indicators are required so that NR and in particular BAI doesn't become just the domain of experts and the well connected. This will enable greater scrutiny and comparison by a broader range of stakeholders.
4. Do you have any feedback on the First Nations knowledge, values and data section of the biodiversity assessment instrument?
First Nations decision making at the project/on-ground level is vital, including the need or data sovereignty. Again clarification of a simpler set of measures/guidelines which TOs and land managers base decisions on would engage communities. The covram app (mentioned in the EKS survey) is currently being used by 6 mobs in NSW, WA, Victoria and Queensland to assess site condition and develop monitoring. These groups own the data and can share as they see fit.
5. Do you have any feedback on the measuring and assessing change in biodiversity aspects of the biodiversity assessment instrument, including:
At a site level it is essential to rate the condition state of the vegetation and then determine the key indicator descriptors to assess condition change e. g. Regeneration success of most palatable grass, trees or shrubs in grazing landscapes. These can be simply monitored for change and the most appropriate management actions applied.
6. Do you have any feedback on the consistency and transparency aspects of the biodiversity assessment instrument, including:
Less complexity more thoughtful simplicity
7. Is the proposed Replanting Native Forest and Woodland Ecosystems method consistent with the biodiversity assessment instrument?
No because of the complexity and the apparent need for experts in the process will severely limit the scale and the efficiency of projects. The success of the NR market will be reliant on having many informed land managers and investors being involved thereby enabling cheaper and better outcomes, which are relatively simple to monitor and to apply adapting management to improve the likelihood of success.
8. Do you have any other comments on the biodiversity assessment instrument?
Covram has developed simple monitoring method that incorporated status reporting of management actions as well as changes in condition state
Covram includes ability to record active management actions required to be undertaken to protect/enhance biodiversity
Covram envisages having very large data set (10,000s) of evidence-based sites not necessarily for NR activities, from which willing land managers may want to engage
Covram has the highest standards of data security and is managed/owned by the project manager. Sharing and/or exporting of the data would be up to them. Note this is particularly important to the TOs for maintaining their data sovereignty
check out the covram mobile and web app :)
