Return to published responses
Ian Davidson

Published name

Ian Davidson

1. Are there any specific approaches applied in the method that you agree with?

No

1.a Why or why not?

The actions recommended are clearly aimed at carbon sequestration and including biodiversity is fraught because plantations are typically less biodiverse than intact or recovering sites. At the least the aim is to do no harm and this can only occur if the project has a vegetation condition rating prior to any action to above for example planting trees in native grasslands

2. Are there any specific approaches applied in the method that you do not agree with?

Yes

2.a Why or why not?

The scale is too small i.e. 0.2 ha. This is the local Landcare type activity. A minimum should be at least 5ha for efficiency, otherwise NR is likely funding farm aesthetic improvement.
Also there is no mention of direct seeding, although its success is well known particularly at the larger scale. Success of this method may take a couple of years for the right conditions climate conditions but over 5-10 year time frame this method is far more successful.

2.b What do you think would be a better approach in the areas that you do not agree with?

An initial rapid assessment be applied by land managers interested in NR market to identify the condition state of the site(s) and for them to derive a suite of management recommendations based on the rating. They can then, in consultation with AG consider best option and plan accordingly.
The method would be more useful environmentally if it was coupled with other restoration options, e.g. managed restoration through judicious grazing, burning etc. where it would be applied in the more degraded parts of the overall restoration activities.

3.a Cleared Land (section 5.3)

again initial site condition assessment to determine condition state. for example paddocks with scattered tree/shrub cover with a more or less native grass understorey can have high likelihood of restoration other than simply tree planting

3.b Certificate Issuance (section 16)

The likely condition state of a site is going to be related to its initial condition state. Weedy sites are likely to remain weedy sites, especially the groundlayer. Woody vegetation including weeds is relatively easy to measure and change, however weedy groundlayers are more difficult and complex. For example in temperate Australia annual pasture grasses may dominate in the cooler months and disappear in the hotter months. when do you monitor?

3. c Monitoring (section 13)

Cost effective monitoring requires a simple but robust method that uses key indicators to measure success. The commonly used detailed measuring of transects is fraught because they tend to tell you a lot about a little! Simply each transect is independent meaning that they should not be extrapolated. It is far better to characterize a sites conditions and select valid indicators to monitor using photo points and data capture

4. This method has been designed so it can be ‘stacked’ with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme’s Reforestation by Environmental or Mallee Plantings FullCAM method.

The Committee would be interested in feedback on how well the method would facilitate stacking.

see above - you can't extrapolate Transects, however you can reasonably characterise a sites condition state and monitor change

5. Is the proposed method consistent with the biodiversity assessment instrument?

In general this method is not a biodiversity positive activity unless it is part of a suite of restoration activities

6. Do you have any other feedback on the method?

We have developed the Covram tool for land managers, including TOs
It has a 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. We currently have over 1600 sites and nearly 500 users registered.
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 :)