• Change text size
• Skip to content

Caring for our Country

Publications

• About us
• Contact us

Home

• What is Natural Resource Management (NRM)?
  • What's an NRM region?
  • What's an NRM plan?
  • Who manages NRM?
  • Policies, agreements and frameworks
• What can I do?
  • Building capacity
  • Engaging communities
  • For landholders
  • Find a facilitator
  • Indigenous communities and NRM
  • NRM discussion forum
  • Volunteer
  • Workshops and conferences
• Funding
  • Community Coastcare
  • Environmental Stewardship
  • National Reserve Systems
  • Open Grants
  • Threatened Species Network
  • Working on Country
  • The future of NRM funding
  • Principles and policies
  • A-Z list
• Funded projects
  • NSW
  • Vic
  • Qld
  • SA
  • WA
  • Tas
  • NT
  • ACT
• Data, maps and research
  • Atlases
  • Spatial data
  • Reporting tools
  • Managing data
• Monitoring and evaluation
  • Setting and reporting on targets
  • Measuring performance through indicators
  • National and regional evaluations
• Publications
  • Agreements
  • Annual reports
  • Books and reports
  • Brochures
  • Case studies
  • Fact sheets
  • Frameworks
  • Guidelines
  • Legislation
  • Links
  • Media releases
  • Newsletters
  • Policies
  • Strategies

PDF file

• Monitoring and reporting on natural resource management: users' guide (PDF - 86 KB)

Background

Integrated natural resource management plans developed by regional groups are the main building blocks of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP), and the extension of the Natural Heritage Trust. The Commonwealth and the States and Territories will invest in these plans once they have been accredited using criteria agreed by the Commonwealth and the States/Territories through the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council.

Criticisms of the first phase of the Trust included the difficulty in measuring the results of on-ground works undertaken and the lack of strategic and targeted investment.

Building on these and other lessons, one of the criteria for accreditation of a natural resource management plan is that it sets, or has commenced the process to set, targets for the resource condition outcomes that the plan aims to achieve. The plan (and its investment strategy) also needs to ensure that adequate provision is made for monitoring and evaluating progress in reaching these targets.

The National Standards and Targets Framework

The Standards and Targets Framework sets out the national outcomes that investment in natural resource management (through programs such as the NAP and the Trust) should work to achieve. There are eight essentially aspirational outcome statements:

• The impact of salinity on land and water resources is minimised, avoided or reduced.
• Biodiversity, and the extent, diversity and condition of native ecosystems are maintained or rehabilitated.
• Populations of significant species and ecological communities are maintained or rehabilitated.
• Ecosystem services and functions are maintained or rehabilitated.
• Surface and groundwater quality is maintained or enhanced.
• The impact of threatening processes on locations and systems critical for conservation of biodiversity, agricultural production, towns, infrastructure and cultural and social values, is avoided or minimised.
• Surface water and groundwater is securely allocated for sustainable production purposes and to support human uses and the environment, within the sustainable capacity of the water resource.
• Sustainable production systems are developed and management practices are in place, which maintain or rehabilitate biodiversity and ecosystem services, maintain or enhance resource quality, maintain productive capacity and prevent and manage degradation.

Matters for targets

As the outcomes are very broad, the Framework also identifies 10 matters for targets designed to help focus the natural resource planning and investment needed to deliver the outcomes. Regional bodies are required, in undertaking their natural resource management planning, to consider the matters for targets, and to set regional targets for those matters relevant to their region. They are not, of course, limited to this set of matters for targets.

If the plan identifies no significant natural resource management issues with regard to a particular matter listed under the Framework, it will need to state that the target is not applicable and explain why this is the case. The need to set a target should be considered again when the accredited plan is reviewed. The matters for targets are as follows:

• Land salinity
• Soil condition
• Native vegetation communities’ integrity
• Inland aquatic ecosystems integrity (rivers and other wetlands)
• Estuarine, coastal and marine habitats integrity
• Nutrients in aquatic environments
• Turbidity / suspended particulate matter in aquatic environments
• Surface water salinity in freshwater aquatic environments
• Significant native species and ecological communities
• Ecologically significant invasive species
• Critical assets identified and protected
• Water allocation plans developed and implemented
• Improved land and water management practices adopted

Different types of targets

Whereas many plans are likely to include a range of aspirational targets against these and other matters (visions statements or long term goals) they will also need to include specific, time-bound and measurable targets. Aspirational targets would sit in a 50+ year timeframe, guide regional planning and set a context for the measurable and achievable targets required under the Framework. Examples could include: regional extent of native vegetation to be increased to 30% cover with all vegetation in excellent condition; substantial decrease in average salinity in regional streams.

The measurable targets are likely to relate largely to resource condition. They will need to address the matters for targets set out in the Framework, and sit within a 10-20 year timeframe. These targets must be pragmatic and achievable, and should be developed iteratively, including through a benefit/cost analysis. Examples could include: average salinity of X ECs at specific end-of-valley site by year Y; X hectares of specific native vegetation type within region at year Y; X stream sites within region in specific river health category by year Y.

Regional bodies are also required to set short-term targets (1-5 years), relating mainly to management actions or capacity-building. These targets must contribute to progress towards the longer-term resource condition targets. Only three matters for management targets are identified under the Framework, as the relevant management solutions to reversing resource degradation are likely to vary substantially between regions. Examples include: X hectares of recharge zones within region to be revegetated by year Y; X km of riparian zone to be fenced and managed, X% of farms within region with whole farm plans or X% of agricultural land under perennial vegetation by year Y.

The National NRM Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

To measure progress against the targets, a suite of related indicators has been developed under the National NRM Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. Once a region has identified the matters for targets relevant to its activities, it will be able to draw on the list of indicators to see which ones it should use, and how to use them.

The indicators that have been developed so far (this is a work in progress) fall into three categories: resource condition, management action and social and economic. The first two are relevant for monitoring regional investments. The socio-economic indicators, which are largely supported by national data collection processes, provide contextual information for regional planning. Regions do not need to set social and economic targets.

The indicators are presented as ‘headings’ as they may, over time, include more than one indicator, or a number of complementary ways of measuring the same outcome.

Headings for resource condition indicators

• Area of land threatened by shallow or rising water tables
• Soil condition
• Native vegetation extent and distribution
• Native vegetation condition
• River condition
• Wetland ecosystem extent and distribution
• Wetland ecosystem condition
• Estuarine, coastal and marine habitat extent and distribution
• Estuarine, coastal and marine habitat condition
• Nitrogen in aquatic environments
• Phosphorus in aquatic environments
• Turbidity / suspended solids
• In-stream salinity
• Selected significant native species and ecological communities extent and conservation status
• Selected ecologically significant invasive species extent and impact

Headings for management action indicators
Only some matters for management actions are identified here because management actions to reverse resource degradation are likely to vary for each region.

• Critical assets register
• Water Allocation Plan
• Adoption of improved management practice

Indicators of improved management practice may be specific to a region but more broadly relevant indicators might include: the extent of revegetation (native or non-native), revegetation of riparian zones, or changes in land use such as the establishment of perennial vegetation.

Headings for socio-economic indicators
Information for these indicators will be provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the Agricultural Bureau of Resource Economics (ABARE) and will provide context to help with regional planning.

• Effectiveness of information networks
• Youth net migration
• Index of Economic Diversity
• Median income and income distribution
• Farm cash income
• Farm family off-farm income
• Farm debt-equity ratio
• Education
• Age and experience
• Population growth

A range of relevant technical groups, such as the Executive Steering Committee for Australian Vegetation Information (ESCAVI), is reviewing the indicator headings and providing advice on the monitoring methods required for these indicators.

Setting regional targets

Baselines
Setting targets requires the identification of a baseline - the level against which progress will be measured. Regional bodies will need to draw together baseline data for those matters for targets they have identified as relevant to their region. Ideally, baselines should be quantified as fully as possible, and should relate to trends going back over several years rather than a single point-in-time measurement. While initially more challenging, this will make it easier and faster to identify any change.

In cases where no reliable baseline data is available, and regions are unable to set specific achievable targets at the time their plans are put forward for accreditation, the Standards and Targets Framework sets out the requirements for establishing baselines. It notes that for accreditation, a regional plan will need to contain:

1. management action targets, which will result in progress towards the minimum set of matters identified for regional targets;
2. resource condition targets which have been agreed by relevant jurisdictions, through other processes, including MDBC end-of-valley salinity targets;
3. commitment to the early establishment of monitoring systems to collect/analyse baseline and trend information, to enable setting of resource condition targets against those matters from the minimum set of matters that are relevant to the region;
4. proposals and a timetable for setting targets; and
5. a commitment to have in place, within three years of signing of the relevant Bilateral Agreement(s), the minimum set of regional resource condition targets, or have demonstrated significant progress towards their establishment.

Existing monitoring
As part of identifying baseline data, it will be important to establish what monitoring already exists in that region and to assess whether the current level of monitoring will be sufficient for future needs or whether it will be necessary to invest in additional monitoring. Existing monitoring uses methods must be consistent with those set out for each of the National Monitoring and Evaluation Framework indicators if they are to be used.

Additional monitoring
Regional bodies will need to decide, after taking appropriate scientific advice, the extent and nature of any additional monitoring that is required. They will need to decide the amount to be spent on monitoring in order to measure progress against a particular target, establish the acceptable risk to achieve it, and make provision for that monitoring in their investment plans. The monitoring will enable the region to evaluate the impact of its investment strategy on natural resource management outcomes and progressively adapt its strategy accordingly. The data from monitoring will also be used to aggregate to broader scales, to describe the progress being made on NRM issues throughout the country.

Data management and reporting
Monitoring data need to be available to all stakeholders. To avoid having to report the same data several times, it should be stored in a way that meets the ANZLIC standards and provides access to those who will need it. This should minimise the resources required for reporting by ensuring that the annual reports from each regional group will provide details that can be collated into various program specific reports at State/Territory and Commonwealth levels. The National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA) is responsible for coordinating consistent data collection, management and assessment. Further guidance will be provided by the NLWRA to help set up data management systems.