Ecological Monitoring for Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements

• The BCT will continue to deliver targeted training and information sessions to build capacity among the Accredited Assessor and ecological consulting community in EMM implementation. 
• The BCT has put in place a range of procedures and processes which are enacted when a BSA commences active management – including a site visit with the landholder and Accredited Assessor – to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of monitoring and management requirements. 
• BCT staff will use annual site visits to evaluate and quality assure both management action implementation and EMM data collection.

The BAM and the EMM are designed for specific and different purposes.  BAM provides an assessment to compare different sites and biodiversity assets, and to quantify biodiversity value using a consistent metric for losses and gains. EMM has been designed to track state and change in different biodiversity attributes over time, including comparison with controls. 

The supplementary measures included in the EMM have been added specifically to strengthen the program’s ability to detect change over time, by reducing subjectivity and inter-observer variation (e.g. point-intercept cover assessment), and increasing precision (e.g. tree stem counts). 

No. The EMM control plot network design is based on plot groups stratified by bioregion, vegetation class and condition category (Poor, Moderate, Good). Each group has a target number of plots, derived from a power analysis, which then act as matched controls for all monitoring plots established within the same stratification group at BCT agreement sites. For more detail see the EMM Operational Manual (Section 7 and Appendix 3).

The use of galvanised star pickets is a good option to ensure their longevity in the field, however, the EMM deliberately does not prescribe a particular type of plot marker, due to the different considerations required by different sites. For example, in many scenarios, the risk of losing markers due to being pushed over by stock or stolen, is more significant than risk of corrosion. Also, some landholders prefer star pickets not be used at all, due to safety concerns. Assessors should determine the most appropriate method for marking plots, taking into account the landholder’s wishes as well as likely longevity.

The BCT continues to review and evaluate EMM methods, sampling design and focal questions to enable continuous improvement in terms of both data quality and cost-effectiveness. Any method or design feature for which the utility does not justify the cost, will be removed. 

A proper assessment of methods will not be possible until the program has matured to the point where biodiversity change over time can be analysed using repeat survey data from a large sample of sites. The current settings represent a considered balance of cost and scientific rigour, and at this stage, any simplification is likely to result in reduced precision, accuracy and power to detect change. 

The BCT’s biodiversity data collection toolkit has been designed to capture all contextual information relevant to interpretation of EMM data. If there are particular conditions (e.g. timing, climatic) relevant to a particular survey, this information can and will be captured, and made available to inform both data analysis and planning for re-survey (e.g. to ensure appropriate environmental conditions are accounted for, and the timing/seasonality of resurvey is consistent, respectively).

The EMM Operational Manual (Section 2.2; p. 7-15) details the process and considerations for developing a bespoke site monitoring plan, based on characteristics of the site which should be documented in the BSSAR (e.g. vegetation zone size, starting vegetation condition, management intensity, management type). Any questions or concerns about the requirements for designing monitoring applicable to the BSA Management Plan should be directed to the BOS Help Desk. 

Yes. BSAs established since approximately 2021 will require collection of baseline monitoring data in Year 1 of active management, unless the active management period commences within two (2) years of collection of the vegetation integrity plots supporting the original BAM assessment, in which case these data can be used instead. BCT should already have access to these data if they were submitted via BOAMS as part of the original BSA application.

For BSAs established before 2021, the original BAM assessment plots are assumed to represent the baseline EMM data set for the site and will be collated by the BCT.

The EMM Operational Manual provides guidance to develop monitoring actions for the BSA Management Plan with sufficient detail (e.g. plot densities, required additional measures) to allow an assessor to quote on the proposed work. Therefore, in developing the monitoring actions and associated TFD, assessors should apply similar estimates and assumptions (such as site location and access issues that may affect the number of plots that can be completed per day) as they would when quoting for similar works.

BCT assessment of a sample of TFDs from approved BSAs suggests that, on average, EMM implementation is likely to add approximately 5% to a TFD. It is expected that these costs will vary, depending on various factors specific to each site, with threatened species monitoring, in particular, likely to be highly variable. There are various ways in which monitoring costs can be reduced while remaining consistent with EMM principles, for example:

• Reducing vegetation integrity plot densities at larger sites by removing sampling requirements for vegetation zones representing a small proportion of the subject land;
• removing additional plot measures (e.g. soil surface condition, tree stem density and/or point-intercept cover assessment); 
• using technology (e.g. passive acoustic detectors) to more cost-effectively monitor some threatened fauna species;
• reducing the frequency of threatened species monitoring (e.g. from 3-yearly to 5-yearly); and/or
• reducing the sampling intensity for monitoring threatened flora populations.

These adjustments may be applied, in consultation with DCCEEW, if standard application of EMM monitoring design results in the associated TFD items adding significantly more than 5% to the TFD.
All biodiversity monitoring design involves trade-offs between cost and scientific rigour. When monitoring intensity is reduced using any of the approaches outlined above, this represents a compromise, which should be avoided if/where it is economically viable to do so. Therefore, for those sites where the EMM can be applied as intended, that is the preferred approach. 

The BCT’s Survey123 mobile data collection toolkit is currently designed to support the EMM and is only being supplied to third parties for EMM data collection. DCCEEW is currently investing in improvements to data systems supporting the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, which may include the development of mobile data collection tools to be made available by the Department to Accredited Assessors in the future, but none are available for this purpose right now. Accredited Assessors should be aware that BSA applications must be accompanied by all plot data as both field data sheets and in Excel format, as required by Table 24 of the BAM. 

The BSA Management Plan, and monitoring actions within, should provide sufficient information to guide implementation of ecological monitoring without requiring review or approval from the BCT. In cases where an assessor recommends changes to the Management Plan, these changes should be discussed with the BCT prior to implementation, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and best practice.

To reduce administrative barriers to contractors delivering EMM, for botanists with relevant expertise and experience (of which there are many), BAM accreditation is not required. Plant identification is likely to be the most important area of expertise influencing data quality, and this is not something which is evaluated or instructed as part of the BAM accreditation process. The BCT will conduct quality assurance (see Question 1) and evaluate the approach in its initial stages, with a view to making changes to EMM delivery requirements if necessary to maintain quality standards. 

There are currently no plans to establish a new accreditation scheme specifically related to EMM. As EMM delivery for BSAs increases over the next 12 months, the BCT will continue to evaluate the current approach, with a view to adding a requirement for BAM accreditation if deemed necessary to maintain data quality standards. 

Yes. Given that biodiversity outcome monitoring under the EMM is not a compliance-related activity, agreement-holders may implement EMM on their own property if they have suitable expertise, with agreement from the BCT. 

The structure, composition and function of Threatened Ecological (vegetation) Communities (TECs) will be monitored using standard vegetation integrity survey plots, as per all other credit-generating PCTs. The prescribed sampling regime outlined in the EMM for all native vegetation, is equally appropriate for TECs.

The explicit requirement under the EMM is that each threatened species generating species credits on the subject land requires a targeted monitoring program, therefore, the BSSAR and Management Plan will determine threatened species monitoring requirements. 

Any other species detected on site may be monitored, at the discretion of the landholder, but this is not a requirement of the EMM. The cost of monitoring these species should only be included in the TFD if it does not add significantly to the overall cost of EMM actions, otherwise it would be borne separately by the landholder. Addition of recently described or listed species to the Management Plan, generating additional species credits, would require a BSA variation.

The explicit objective of all threatened fauna monitoring under the EMM is to detect presence or absence of the species on the subject land at regular intervals through time. Therefore, if the survey effort is sufficient to detect presence if and where the species is actually occupying a given site, the data (i.e. 0 or 1) are comparable and valid to aggregate among sites. For the objective here, a consistent survey method is not required (as opposed to [for example] if the data were being collected to determine species abundance, density or activity).

Yes. All species credit species generating credits on the subject land require a targeted monitoring program under the EMM. This will provide an important data set to inform program-level validation of important habitat mapping and policy settings related to expert reports.

While recording of incidental threatened species sightings is not a requirement of the EMM, such sightings should be recorded by assessors and reported into Bionet, consistent with the requirements of holding a scientific licence.

Submission of a BSA variation is at the discretion of the landholder, and landholders seeking to generate additional species credits via a variation will be required to demonstrate species occupancy and define species polygons as outlined in the BAM and relevant BAM survey guides. Also see answer to Question 17.

In this scenario, monitoring for presence of the species generating staged release credits will be required to target the two (or more) credit-generating areas with separate surveys (i.e. the area generating credits at establishment and the area/s for which credit release will be staged), each designed to determine presence/absence independently. Credits relating to the staged release area/s will be released when the target species is positively detected within that area (i.e. occupancy of the staged-release area cannot be inferred based on detecting the species in adjacent zones).

Given that the EMM requires the collection of primary floristic data (e.g. species richness, cover and abundance), these data may be analysed using various vegetation condition benchmarks, depending on the question being answered. The primary purpose of the EMM and the key questions it is designed to answer, relate to evaluating state and change in biodiversity attributes over time at BCT agreement sites compared to controls (as opposed to snapshot assessment of sites for the purposes of comparison with other sites), for which benchmarks are often not necessary. Variation in environmental conditions at the time of survey can be accounted for by including the relevant environmental variables as explanatory factors in a statistical model.

There is no requirement for consultants engaged by landholders to report EMM data, analyses or interpretation back to those landholders. The BCT assumes responsibility for all analysis, evaluation and reporting of EMM data to BSA landholders via a regular Biodiversity Outcomes Report designed to complement and inform the 5-year management plan review process. This does not affect the separate and pre-existing obligations on landholders for annual reporting (including on management action implementation and performance measures). The text on Page 24, paragraph 1 of the EMM Operational Manual has now been amended for clarity.

Ongoing evaluation and adaptive improvement of BSA Management Plans will be facilitated via the 5-year management plan review process. As part of this process, a proposed Biodiversity Outcomes Report will be provided to landholders and contractors they engage, documenting state and change in biodiversity attributes on the subject land over the period of active management, and evaluating those outcomes against biodiversity gain predictions for the site calculated using the BAM.

Yes, the proposed biodiversity outcomes report for landholders will be designed with a landholder audience, with the aim to provide a transparent and readily interpretable picture of state and change in biodiversity value on the subject land. It is likely that any analyses used will be relatively simple and exploratory in nature (rather than using statistical tests), with sufficient information to inform an evaluation of management effectiveness as part of the 5-year management plan review.

If monitoring data show that the site is not on track to meet ecological outcome targets related to biodiversity gain predicted by the BAM, the 5-year management plan review process (including a BSA variation if appropriate) will be used to facilitate adaptive improvement to the BSA Management Plan in response. This process will involve a discussion between landholder, BCT and the contracted ecologist, to interpret the monitoring data and determine the most appropriate response, noting that poor biodiversity outcomes could be driven by various factors, many outside of the landholder’s control (e.g. drought).

Ecological monitoring under the EMM is not a compliance activity.

Reporting on the implementation of management actions and progress against performance measures, forms part of the annual reporting requirements for all landholders (or contractors acting on their behalf) and is independent of EMM delivery. The BCT will analyse these data on management inputs (e.g. pest and weed control activity), interpret in the context of biodiversity outcomes, and evaluate management effectiveness as part of the BCT’s reporting function (see Question 23).

Work related to this is currently underway. Given that the first BSAs to commence active management (and therefore require baseline data collection) were in 2019, the first 5-year resurvey datasets are only now due to be collected in 2024. Therefore, it will likely be another 1-2 years before the first insights about biodiversity gain may be derived from analysis of a meaningful sample size of BSA sites.

All benefits and impacts on biodiversity should be considered when making decisions with respect to fencing. Given the highly specific nature of any given site, these considerations should be discussed during a pre-submission meeting with DCCEEW. Fencing configurations can be further refined during the BAM review phase of a BSA application. Further information on fencing within BCT agreements can be found in the BCT’s Essential Conservation Fencing Infrastructure guidelines.

Yes. The Ecological Monitoring for BSAs fact sheet includes a link to the webpage maintained by the Ecological Consultants Association of NSW, which provides details for Certified and Practicing ecological consultants.

The BCT will communicate plans for any future EMM training and/or information sessions through as many channels as possible, including the BAM Accredited Assessor mailing list, BOS Updates, social media and via professional peak bodies (e.g. Ecological Consultants Association of NSW, Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand).

As of 30 June 2024, there were 187 Biobanking Agreements and 132 Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements established.