Mapping and analysis of changes in the riparian landscape structure of the Lockyer Valley Catchment, Queensland, Australia

[Abstract]: A case study of the Lockyer Valley catchment in Queensland, Australia, was conducted to develop appropriate mapping and assessment techniques to quantify the nature and magnitude of riparian landscape structural changes within a catchment. The study employed digital image processing techniques to produce land cover maps from the 1973 and 1997 Landsat imagery. Fixed and variable width buffering of streams were implemented using a geographic information system (GIS) to estimate the riparian zone and to subsequently calculate the landscape patterns using the Patch Analyst (Grid) program (a FRAGSTATS interface). The nature of vegetation clearing was characterised based on land tenure, slope and stream order. Using the Pearson chi-square test and Cramer’s V statistic, the relationships between the vegetation clearing and land tenure were further assessed. The results show the significant decrease in woody vegetation areas mainly due to conversion to pasture. Riparian vegetation corridors have become more fragmented, isolated and of much smaller patches. Land tenure was found to be significantly associated with the vegetation clearing, although the strength of association was weak. The large proportion of deforested riparian zones within steep slopes or first-order streams raises serious questions about the catchment health and the longer term potential for land degradation by upland clearing. This study highlights the use of satellite imagery and geographic information systems in mapping and analysis of landscape structural change, as well as the identification of key issues related to sensor spatial resolution, stream buffering widths, and the quantification of land transformation processes

Twenty Years of Working Towards a Sustainable Southeast Asia: 1993 -- 2013

The Southeast Asia program first set about testing hypotheses applicable to each of the three ecosystem zones. On the forest margins, the hypothesis was that complex agroforests provided a superior alternative for small-scale farmers to either food-crop systems or monocultural plantations of perennials. As an alternative to slash and burn, complex agroforests increased production sustainability, increased biodiversity, reduced production risks and increased returns to labour compared to continuous food crops or monocultural plantations. The second hypothesis stated that rehabilitating Imperata grasslands with small-scale agroforestry systems would be superior to plantation reforestation in terms of production, equitability and participation. For hilly farmlands, the team hypothesised that there were several pathways to sustainable farming. Among these, contour hedgerow systems initiated through natural vegetative strips provided distinct advantages as a superior, least-cost foundation upon which to build agroforestry-based, conservation farming

Combining process-based models for future biomass assessment at landscape scale

International audienceWe need an integrated assessment of the bioenergy production at landscape scale for at least three main reasons: (1) it is predictable that we will soon have landscapes dedicated to bioenergy productions; (2) a number of “win–win” solutions combining several dedicated energy crops have been suggested for a better use of local climate, soil mosaic and production systems and (3) “well-to-wheels” analyses for the entire bioenergy production chain urge us to optimize the life cycle of bioenergies at large scales. In this context, we argue that the new generation of landscape models allows in silico experiments to estimate bioenergy distributions (in space and time) that are helpful for this integrated assessment of the bioenergy production. The main objective of this paper was to develop a detailed modeling methodology for this purpose. We aimed at illustrating and discussing the use of mechanistic models and their possible association to simulate future distributions of fuel biomass. We applied two separated landscape models dedicated to human-driven agricultural and climate-driven forested neighboring patches. These models were combined in the same theoretical (i.e. virtual) landscape for present as well as future scenarios by associating realistic agricultural production scenarios and B2-IPCC climate scenarios depending on the bioenergy type (crop or forest) concerned in each landscape patch. We then estimated esthetical impacts of our simulations by using 3D visualizations and a quantitative “depth” index to rank them. Results first showed that the transport cost at landscape scale was not correlated to the total biomass production, mainly due to landscape configuration constraints. Secondly, averaged index values of the four simulations were conditioned by agricultural practices, while temporal trends were conditioned by gradual climate changes. Thirdly, the most realistic simulated landscape combining intensive agricultural practices and climate change with atmospheric CO2 concentration increase corresponded to the lowest and unwanted bioenergy conversion inefficiency (the biomass production ratio over 100 years divided by the averaged transport cost) and to the most open landscape. Managing land use and land cover changes at landscape scale is probably one of the most powerful ways to mitigate negative (or magnify positive) effects of climate and human decisions on overall biomass productions

Scientific knowledge and scientific uncertainty in bushfire and flood risk mitigation: literature review

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Scientific Diversity, Scientific Uncertainty and Risk Mitigation Policy and Planning (RMPP) project aims to investigate the diversity and uncertainty of bushfire and flood science, and its contribution to risk mitigation policy and planning. The project investigates how policy makers, practitioners, courts, inquiries and the community differentiate, understand and use scientific knowledge in relation to bushfire and flood risk. It uses qualitative social science methods and case studies to analyse how diverse types of knowledge are ordered and judged as salient, credible and authoritative, and the pragmatic meaning this holds for emergency management across the PPRR spectrum. This research report is the second literature review of the RMPP project and was written before any of the case studies had been completed. It synthesises approximately 250 academic sources on bushfire and flood risk science, including research on hazard modelling, prescribed burning, hydrological engineering, development planning, meteorology, climatology and evacuation planning. The report also incorporates theoretical insights from the fields of risk studies and science and technology studies (STS), as well as indicative research regarding the public understandings of science, risk communication and deliberative planning. This report outlines the key scientific practices (methods and knowledge) and scientific uncertainties in bushfire and flood risk mitigation in Australia. Scientific uncertainties are those ‘known unknowns’ and ‘unknown unknowns’ that emerge from the development and utilisation of scientific knowledge. Risk mitigation involves those processes through which agencies attempt to limit the vulnerability of assets and values to a given hazard. The focus of this report is the uncertainties encountered and managed by risk mitigation professionals in regards to these two hazards, though literature regarding natural sciences and the scientific method more generally are also included where appropriate. It is important to note that while this report excludes professional experience and local knowledge from its consideration of uncertainties and knowledge, these are also very important aspects of risk mitigation which will be addressed in the RMPP project’s case studies. Key findings of this report include: Risk and scientific knowledge are both constructed categories, indicating that attempts to understand any individual instance of risk or scientific knowledge should be understood in light of the social, political, economic, and ecological context in which they emerge. Uncertainty is a necessary element of scientific methods, and as such risk mitigation practitioners and researchers alike should seek to ‘embrace uncertainty’ (Moore et al., 2005) as part of navigating bushfire and flood risk mitigation

10 best bet innovations for adaptation in agriculture: A supplement to the UNFCCC NAP Technical Guidelines

Faced with the triple challenges of achieving food security, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and reducing emissions, agriculture has been prioritized by countries as a sector for climate action. The national process of formulating and implementing National Adaptation Plans, which gives effect to the ambitions set out in the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions of countries, is a key instrument that will not only facilitate access to resources, but also advance best practice and implementation of proven and effective adaptation actions. In order to support countries in the elaboration of their National Adaptation Plans, this paper aims to tap into agricultural research for development conducted by CGIAR Centers and research programs, to identify best bet innovations for adaptation in agriculture, which can help achieve food security under a changing climate, while also delivering co-benefits for environmental sustainability, nutrition and livelihoods

Climate Services for Resilient Development (CSRD) Partnership’s work in Latin America

The Climate Services for Resilient Development (CSRD) Partnership is a private-public collaboration led by USAID, which aims to increase resilience to climate change in developing countries through the development and dissemination of climate services. The partnership began with initial projects in three countries: Colombia, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh. The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) was the lead organization for the Colombian CSRD efforts – which then expanded to encompass work in the whole Latin American region

Networked buffering: a basic mechanism for distributed robustness in complex adaptive systems

A generic mechanism - networked buffering - is proposed for the generation of robust traits in complex systems. It requires two basic conditions to be satisfied: 1) agents are versatile enough to perform more than one single functional role within a system and 2) agents are degenerate, i.e. there exists partial overlap in the functional capabilities of agents. Given these prerequisites, degenerate systems can readily produce a distributed systemic response to local perturbations. Reciprocally, excess resources related to a single function can indirectly support multiple unrelated functions within a degenerate system. In models of genome:proteome mappings for which localized decision-making and modularity of genetic functions are assumed, we verify that such distributed compensatory effects cause enhanced robustness of system traits. The conditions needed for networked buffering to occur are neither demanding nor rare, supporting the conjecture that degeneracy may fundamentally underpin distributed robustness within several biotic and abiotic systems. For instance, networked buffering offers new insights into systems engineering and planning activities that occur under high uncertainty. It may also help explain recent developments in understanding the origins of resilience within complex ecosystems. \ud \u

Climate-ready conservation objectives: a scoping study

AbstractAnticipated future climate change is very likely to have a wide range of different types of ecological impact on biodiversity across the whole of Australia. There is a high degree of confidence that these changes will be significant, affecting almost all species, ecosystems and landscapes. However, because of the complexity of ecological systems and the multiple ways climate change will affect them, the details of the future change are less certain for any given species or location. The nature of the changes means that the multiple ways biodiversity is experienced, used and valued by society will be affected in different ways. The likely changes present a significant challenge to any societal aspiration to preserve biodiversity in its current state, for example, to maintain a species in its current abundance and distribution. Preserving biodiversity ‘as is’ may have been feasible in a stationary climate (one that is variable but not changing), but this will not be possible with the widespread, pervasive and large ecological changes anticipated under significant levels of climate change. This makes the impacts of climate change quite unlike other threats to biodiversity, and they challenge, fundamentally, what it actually means to conserve biodiversity under climate change: what should the objectives of biodiversity conservation be under climate change? And what are the barriers to recalibrating conservation objectives?Based on key insights from the scientific literature on climate change and biodiversity, the project developed three adaptation propositions about managing biodiversity:Conservation strategies accommodate large amounts of ecological change and the likelihood of significant climate change–induced loss in biodiversity. Strategies remain relevant and feasible under a range of possible future trajectories of ecological change.Strategies seek to conserve the multiple different dimensions of biodiversity that are experienced and valued by society. Together these propositions summarise the challenge of future climate change for biodiversity conservation, and define a new way of framing conservation we called the ‘climate ready’ approach. In the near term, conservation strategies may be able to include some consideration of these propositions. However, under significant levels of climate change many of the current approaches to conservation will become increasingly difficult and ineffective (e.g. maintaining community types in their current locations). This challenge is fundamentally different from that posed by other threats to biodiversity, and the climate-ready approach is akin to a paradigm shift in conservation.The project used a review of 26 conservation strategy documents (spanning scales from international to local) and four case studies with conservation agencies to test and refine the climate-ready approach. The project found the approach to be robust and highly relevant; in the majority of situations, if adopted, it would lead to significant changes in the objectives and priorities of conservation. There were also many ‘green shoots’ of elements of the new approach in existing conservation practice. However, the project found there are currently substantial barriers to fully adopting a climate-ready approach. These include the need for: further development of ecological characterisation of ecosystem health and human activities in landscapesmuch better understanding of how society values different aspects of biodiversity, including ecosystems and landscapesdevelopment of policy tools to codify and implement new ecologically robust and socially endorsed objectives.  Anticipated future climate change is very likely to have a wide range of different types of ecological impact on biodiversity across the whole of Australia. There is a high degree of confidence that these changes will be significant, affecting almost all species, ecosystems and landscapes. However, because of the complexity of ecological systems and the multiple ways climate change will affect them, the details of the future change are less certain for any given species or location. The nature of the changes means that the multiple ways biodiversity is experienced, used and valued by society will be affected in different ways. The likely changes present a significant challenge to any societal aspiration to preserve biodiversity in its current state, for example, to maintain a species in its current abundance and distribution. Preserving biodiversity ‘as is’ may have been feasible in a stationary climate (one that is variable but not changing), but this will not be possible with the widespread, pervasive and large ecological changes anticipated under significant levels of climate change. This makes the impacts of climate change quite unlike other threats to biodiversity, and they challenge, fundamentally, what it actually means to conserve biodiversity under climate change: what should the objectives of biodiversity conservation be under climate change? And what are the barriers to recalibrating conservation objectives?Based on key insights from the scientific literature on climate change and biodiversity, the project developed three adaptation propositions about managing biodiversity:Conservation strategies accommodate large amounts of ecological change and the likelihood of significant climate change–induced loss in biodiversity. Strategies remain relevant and feasible under a range of possible future trajectories of ecological change.Strategies seek to conserve the multiple different dimensions of biodiversity that are experienced and valued by society. Together these propositions summarise the challenge of future climate change for biodiversity conservation, and define a new way of framing conservation we called the ‘climate ready’ approach. In the near term, conservation strategies may be able to include some consideration of these propositions. However, under significant levels of climate change many of the current approaches to conservation will become increasingly difficult and ineffective (e.g. maintaining community types in their current locations). This challenge is fundamentally different from that posed by other threats to biodiversity, and the climate-ready approach is akin to a paradigm shift in conservation.The project used a review of 26 conservation strategy documents (spanning scales from international to local) and four case studies with conservation agencies to test and refine the climate-ready approach. The project found the approach to be robust and highly relevant; in the majority of situations, if adopted, it would lead to significant changes in the objectives and priorities of conservation. There were also many ‘green shoots’ of elements of the new approach in existing conservation practice. However, the project found there are currently substantial barriers to fully adopting a climate-ready approach. These include the need for: further development of ecological characterisation of ecosystem health and human activities in landscapesmuch better understanding of how society values different aspects of biodiversity, including ecosystems and landscapesdevelopment of policy tools to codify and implement new ecologically robust and socially endorsed objectives. Please cite this report as: Dunlop M, Parris, H, Ryan, P, Kroon, F 2013 Climate-ready conservation objectives: a scoping study, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast, pp. 102