Land use and planning utilizes varied natural resource datasets obtained from diverse sources; national, state, regional, local and site levels. The Australia Government plays a major role in coordinating the collection, compilation, analysis and publication of nationally consistent environmental datasets. These national compilations have proven critical to supporting informed land use decision making at national, state and regional levels. This Australia Government role, acknowledges that the state and territory governments under the Australian constitution are responsible for day-to-day land use and land management. Coordinating the efficient national collection, compilation and supply of agreed data for different purposes involves developing agreed environmental guidelines and standards as well as legal instruments. The Australian Government and its agencies also perform a major role as a broker in the establishment, development and maintenance of mutual benefit partnerships between collaborating land management and research institutions. Good examples of efficient and effective coordinating arrangements are usually supported through publicly funded NRM programs which enable the data owner /supplier to add value to existing data infrastructure programs to meet an agreed national data standard.

1. National coordination of consistent NRM
data and information to inform land use
policies and planning
Richard Thackway
Land Use Symposium 2015
Crawford School, ANU
29-30 June 2015

2. Outline
• Examples of successful data and information based on
coordination/ collaboration
• What characterises good national coordination
• Case study
• Lessons
• Conclusions

3. Examples of successful data and information
based on coordination/ collaboration
• Many exemplars
– Australian Land use
– Interim Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation For Australia (IBRA)
– National Wilderness Inventory (NWI)
– National Vegetation Information system (NVIS)
– Vegetation Assets States and Transitions (VAST)
– National Invasive Species datasets (WONS)
– Aquatic Ecosystems (ANAE)
– Many others datasets including those associated with:
• climate, water, soils, fauna, flora, birds, forests, ground cover …

4. National NRM data and info for land use
policy and planning has a history
• Datasets and info were:
– Collected for different purposes using different methods
– Inconsistent and incompatible
– Stored using different standards
– Disparate and patchy
– Lack of seamlessness across jurisdictions because of:
• thematic detail, spatial and temporal issues
• Much effort and resources have gone into making the above
datasets exemplars i.e.:
– Trustworthy and authoritative
– Transparent in development and maintenance
– Rigorous and repeatable
– Consistent across state borders
– Reliable & accurate within constraints
– Joint ownership of data and info products
National
coordination

5. What do good policy and land use planners need:
consistent, fit for purpose data & info
Characteristics of good underpinning cooperation /collaboration:
1. Addresses a well defined problem /key question
2. Agreed conceptual model / framework/ information hierarchy
3. Effective leadership /champion/ sponsor
4. Unambiguous governance arrangements
5. Strong relevance to one of more policies and programs
6. Adequate resourcing (people & ~ $)
7. Sound technical, scientific and IT support
8. Interoperability / capacity to integrate
9. Published and peer reviewed
10. Custodian/s committed to continuous improvement - spatial & temporal
11. Continuum of levels of detail /processing /standards
12. Data and info products discoverable, reusable and accessible
13. Data and info products relevant to research & education
14. Data and info products relevant to planners and on-ground managers
15. Data and info products relevant to key client/s or partner/s

6. Case study:
National Reserve System Program
Bioregions or IBRA dataset

7. Problem statement
• In the 70s and 80s Australia had a minimal commitment to policy and
planning for a representative system of protected areas i.e.
– A national reserve system (NRS)
• 1996 new policy was approved to develop a NRS i.e.
– Based of ecosystems and NOT of the area of each jurisdictions protected
Drivers
• Initially to spend $80M in partnership with the states and territories
• Regularly report progress re type and extent of ecosystems protected
– Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative
• Reclassify all existing & new protected areas using a common typology
– E.g. IUCN I-VI

8. 1st approximation – a framework to build a NRS
http://media.wix.com/ugd/4f7b6e_81acc6f2469e4cd0ac18382860993b10.pdf
>10 years in
the making
A data
intensive and
quantitative
approach
1992
30 group Environmental Regionalisation
12 attributes

9. 12 environmental attributes classified
into 30 environmental groups

10. Hierarchy of levels of detail – Level 1 broad
Level 1
Super
Groups
Level 2
Groups

11. Level 2 Group 20
Climate profile Elevation range

12. Soils Levels 1 & 2
Super Groups

13. Land use
Vegetation cover
Level 2
Group 20

14. Strategic plan developed and put to the vote
~1993
• Goals, targets and objectives for the NRS
• Plan included priorities for investment over time
• BUT no ‘buy in’ from key stakeholders – the Environmental Regions
dataset was rejected by the Ministerial Council

15. What went wrong? 1st approx solution
Characteristics of good coordination – re Data and info products Evaluation
Addresses a well-defined problem /key question 
Agreed conceptual model / framework/ information hierarchy 
Effective leadership /champion/ sponsor 
Unambiguous governance arrangements 
Strong relevance to one of more policies and programs 
Adequate resourcing (people & ~ $) 
Sound technical, scientific and IT support 
Interoperability / capacity to integrate 
Published and peer reviewed 
Custodian/s committed to continuous improvement - spatial /temporal 
Continuum of levels of detail /processing /standards 
Discoverable, reusable and accessible 
Relevant to research & education 
Relevant to planners and on-ground managers 
Relevant to key client/s or partner/s 
Environmental Regions 30 groups

16. 2nd approximation: – a framework to build a NRS
IBRA 4 - 1995
http://media.wix.com/ugd/4f7b6e_99b934e660484fc4a10d81bbeca23f63.pdf
85 regions

17. Strategic plan developed and put to the vote
~1996
• Goals, targets and objectives for the NRS
• Plan included priorities for investment over time
• Complete ‘buy in’ from key stakeholders - the IBRA dataset was
endorsed by the Ministerial Council

18. Evaluation of IBRA version 4
Characteristics of good coordination – re Data and info products Evaluation
Addresses a well-defined problem /key question 
Agreed conceptual model / framework/ information hierarchy 
Effective leadership /champion/ sponsor 
Unambiguous governance arrangements 
Strong relevance to one of more policies and programs 
Adequate resourcing (people & ~ $) 
Sound technical, scientific and IT support 
Interoperability / capacity to integrate 
Published and peer reviewed 
Custodian/s committed to continuous improvement - spatial /temporal 
Continuum of levels of detail /processing /standards 
Discoverable, reusable and accessible 
Relevant to research & education 
Relevant to planners and on-ground managers 
Relevant to key client/s or partner/s 

19. Design and implement the NRS Program
• Land acquisition projects funded jointly with the States and
Territories
• Initially $80M
• Commitment to monitoring, evaluation and improvement
• Capacity to engage the wider community (public-private
partnerships)
– Private nature conservation reserves - covenants
– Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs)

20. Ministerial endorsement of Australian
guidelines for establishing the NRS
Commonwealth of Australia (1999). Australian Guidelines for Establishing
the National Reserve System. Environment Australia, Canberra.

21. Australia’s Strategy for the National Reserve System
2009-2030
Endorsed by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council
May 2009

22. Proportion of IBRA bioregions included in the National Reserve System 1995-2008
http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/643fb071-77c0-49e4-ab2f-220733beb30d/files/nrsstrat.pdf
http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/about-nrs/history

23. IBRA 7 -2012
http://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/ibra#ibra

24. Evaluation of IBRA versions 5-7
Characteristics of good coordination – re Data and info products Evaluation
Addresses a well-defined problem /key question 
Agreed conceptual model / framework/ information hierarchy 
Effective leadership /champion/ sponsor 
Unambiguous governance arrangements 
Strong relevance to one of more policies and programs 
Adequate resourcing (people & ~ $) 
Sound technical, scientific and IT support 
Interoperability / capacity to integrate 
Published and peer reviewed 
Custodian/s committed to continuous improvement - spatial /temporal 
Continuum of levels of detail /processing /standards 
Discoverable, reusable and accessible 
Relevant to research & education 
Relevant to planners and on-ground managers 
Relevant to key client/s or partner/s 

25. ‘Huston - we have a problem’
• Funding for the NRS ceased in 2013
• Total of $260M since 1996
– $ 80M 1995-2008
– $180M 2008-13

26. Evaluation of the need for IBRA version
8
Characteristics of good coordination – re Data and info products Evaluation
Addresses a well-defined problem /key question 
Agreed conceptual model / framework/ information hierarchy 
Effective leadership /champion/ sponsor  & 
Unambiguous governance arrangements  & 
Strong relevance to one of more policies and programs  & 
Adequate resourcing (people & ~ $) 
Sound technical, scientific and IT support 
Interoperability / capacity to integrate 
Published and peer reviewed 
Custodian/s committed to continuous improvement - spatial /temporal 
Continuum of levels of detail /processing /standards 
Discoverable, reusable and accessible 
Relevant to research & education 
Relevant to planners and on-ground managers 
Relevant to key client/s or partner/s  & 

27. Why has IBRA in particular been a successful
example of national coordination?
• Represents an meaningful environmental representation of the
landscape at various spatial scales
– Based on essential environmental measures
– Multiple and integrated spatial scales
• All governments variously use it to set priorities, plan investment and to
monitor, evaluate and improve biodiversity conservation - not just NRS
• Most governments use it as a framework for SoE reporting
• States and territories maintain it because gives them ‘skin in the game’
– Keep on improving i.e. interim and iterative
• Aust Govt support for its maintenance, access, discovery and promotion
– NB: reportedly one of the most downloaded NRM dataset from Dept Envt
since 2000

28. IBRA Spatial data viewer and metadata
http://www.aurichtprojects.com/maps/ibra/ and http://www.auricht.com/projects/ibra-7-update/

29. Key lessons
• Key players must continually revisit land use policies and planning to
ensure NRM data and info are fit for purpose and decision ready
• History shows that national coordination waxes and wanes
• Where there is a lack of national leadership in the coordination of NRM
data/ info land use policy and planning becomes haphazard & localised
• National info products (e.g. IBRA) can provide a sound baseline to evaluate
change and trend in underpinning essential environmental attributes

30. Conclusions
• National coordination of NRM data and info for use in land use policy and
planning requires systems-thinking
• Deciding what data, information and knowledge is important and fit for
different purposes requires ongoing coordination of communities of interest
Oliver McGee: Three Words That Make You An Influencer