1. Evaluating natural and cultural integrity in Queensland’s protected areas Fiona Leverington Chris Mitchell

2. Queensland is committed to maintaining for future generations a Parks system which:  protects and conserves comprehensive, adequate and representative samples of the State’s natural and cultural values;  inspires and encourages the community to engage with, understand, appreciate, and conserve parks, nature and cultural heritage; and  is recognised and supported by the community as an important part of Queensland’s social, cultural and economic life. System commitment

3. What is natural integrity? Integrity is the condition of an ecosystem where biological diversity and ecosystem processes are optimal and are likely to persist. It is a characteristic of whole, sound and entire functioning ecosystems as well as their components. Natural resource management on parks consists of the activities aimed at maintaining or restoring natural integrity.

4. Cultural integrity Is a characteristic of parks where cultural values are kept intact and ‘alive’. These values include living culture like the ties between people and the land but also– material culture

5. Can we answer any of these basic questions about our management? What is the state of our parks and forests? Are we managing them effectively? What are the emerging threats? What can we do better? For most of our protected areas we have no idea!

6. A framework for measuring management effectiveness of protected areas (WCPA)

7. Measures inputs, processes and some outputs Gives us information about whether we have the right standards and tools for management Can be fairly rapidly conducted state-wide It does not tell us if our parks and forests are doing OK! QPWS – 2 major approaches 1.Rapid assessment

10. 2.Integrity evaluation Looks at the OUTCOMES of management – I.e. are our parks doing the conservation job they are supposed to do? Tells us where we are doing Ok and where we are in trouble Flags threats from local and global sources

11. Together Rapid assessment and integrity evaluation give us a rich picture of our management effectiveness

12. Four themes for evaluating natural integrity 1.Biodiversity at ecosystem, species, population and genetic levels

13. 2. Ecosystem processes/ functions: The values and desired conditions of the park in relation to ‘ecosystem services’ such as providing clean water, climate control, erosion protection etc.

14. 3.Other park values such as aesthetic beauty, cultural links to nature and presentation opportunities

16. 4. Threats and opportunities, impacts and responses such as fire, pest plants and animals, visitor numbers, new corridors Pest plants – buffel grass Pest animals - pigs Tourism impacts

17. Desirable framework for monitoring GOALINDICATORSNOTES CONDITION (note these are broad indicators only and more specific indicators need to be defined) Biodiversity Maintenance of diversity at landscape/ subregional level Progress to C.A.R. system -( % of regional ecosystems represented in parks) Progress to an integrated subregional conservation strategy Existing SOE indicator. Measured statewide. Maintenance of diversity at ecosystem level Extent and condition of key ecosystems identified for each park Satellite imagery with ground truthing - Status of threatened ecosystemsSatellite imagery with ground truthing - Spatial change of RE boundariesSatellite imagery with ground truthing -

18. GOALINDICATORSNOTES Biodiversity Biodiversity at species and genetic level Park-specific taxa and genetic diversity measurements -eg presence/abundance data on all species at a range of sites where possible For presentation in park NIS Ecological processes Catchment protection and water quality protection Standard indicators for water quality of selected systems Extent of modification of waterways in park Use EPA standard systems for monitoring Other values as defined for individual park As defined in NIS Other values Cultural and scenic values relating to landscape and biodiversity As defined in NIS for individual parkMay also be common indicators at subregional level.

19. GOALINDICATORSNOTES THREATS AND POTENTIAL Internal fragmentation Extent of internal fragmentation e.g. roads, powerlines. Develop A-E condition and change rating Connectivity of park with surrounding landscape Percentage of boundary properties clearedComplex indicators for connectivity are also available Grazing impact % of bare ground proportion of annual and perennial grasses Standard reporting from Q-graze Impacts of visitors and park operations Measure against limits of acceptable change. Indicators include extent of bare ground, erosion, nutrient levels, disturbance/ feeding of animals/ Develop A-E condition and change rating Impacts of pest species Abundance and impact of pest animalsNeed consistent monitoring and reporting mechanisms Abundance and impact of pest plantsNeed consistent monitoring and reporting mechanisms Others Park specific (could include diseases, pollution, disturbance by park operations or other activities )

20. GOALINDICATORSNOTES MANAGEMENT RESPONSES - Indigenous and community involvement in management Qualitative report for each park Control of pests Effectiveness of pest animal and plant control programs (% reduction of impacted area of pest plants; estimated reduction in pest animal numbers) - Level of control effort and process reported in rapid assessment Rehabilitation of degraded systems % of denuded/ degraded land successfully replanted I nterpretive opportunities offered Qualitative report on activities Use as benchmark for landscape monitoring - Extent to which parks in region are links to broader landscape management -. Improved conservation practices in area Fire management - Adherence to adaptive fire plans - fuel loads - timing - species response - Fire plans and fire management are protecting resources Park-specific reporting only. Statewide process reporting (rapid assessment)

21. How can we have standard indicators for biodiversity? Across so many different ecosystem types?

22. Evaluating change over time – What is normal cyclical change? What is serious damage to the system? When are we seeing real climate change?

23. How do we report on ecosystem processes like catchment protection or healthy waterways? Money for lots of new, internal park monitoring programs? Not likely!

24. A solution Use the statewide framework for broad evaluation categories Work towards defining and measuring system-wide indicators or regular measures in cooperation with others For now, focus on specific values for each park and observe how they are protected over time Use good data where we have it – but recorded subjective reports are better than nothing!!

25. Natural integrity statements provide a framework for monitoring, including and integrating that which is already occurring. facilitate reporting at park and statewide level about the extent to which the integrity and the values of the Parks system, and of individual parks, are being maintained Now more qualitative and specific to each park – potential for more standardisation of measures

27. Then estimate current status Monitoring results/ studies/ papers where they exist Observations of rangers, scientists and others Recorded in one-day discussion session Both qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective information is recorded Emphasis on recording KNOWN information and opinions

29. Excel sheets prepared with staff in one-day workshops list the current status of the park’s values

30. Discussion groups identifies level threats and potential improvements to the park Note: summarise and refer to more detailed data where it exists Threats and responses

31. Cultural integrity

33. Comparisons over time Designed for future or retrospective comparisons

37. Values-based evaluation The first step is listing the major values of the park or forest, and the desired condition of those values Values are individual but fit into the statewide framework Very simple and basic - can be derived from management plans where they exist

39. Outputs Excel spreadsheet will have all the information in one place Hyperlinked or included documents e.g. species lists (snapshot), maps, monitoring report, photos can all be put on one CD CDs or hard copies can be distributed to park and district staff Excel sheets have some quantitative measures designed to be ‘rolled up’ (e.g. threat level) Word reports

40. Word summaries are being prepared to provide a simple ‘State of the parks’ report.

42. Benefits Helps with ecosystem-based adaptive management Stimulates reflection, discussion and immediate improvement Integrates scientific, traditional, community and staff knowledge Integrates natural and cultural evaluation Incurs little cost Is locally-based and relevant to field staff Also yields results at system level

43. And maybe it will make a difference!