The outlook for Australia’s land environment is determined by its current state, the pressures affecting it, its resilience to these pressures, and our effectiveness in managing the pressures and facilitating landscape resilience. These areas have all been discussed in this report, but are also co-dependent on pressures and responses discussed in the Drivers report, and in linked themes, including Biodiversity, Inland water, Atmosphere and the Built environment.

Concerted efforts will need to be made in several areas to ensure that the land is able to continue to provide us with the resources and services that we rely on. Many of these issues have been highlighted in previous SoE reports, but continue to pose very real risks in the medium term.

Climate change is discussed in the Atmosphere report and is raised in all other themes, but potentially has some specific impacts on the land environment. This is currently focusing attention on possible management actions that may help reduce climate change impacts, increase system resilience or allow us to adapt to the consequences. For example, modelling suggests that many native species will not be able to survive in their current locations as the climate changes (Costion et al. 2015, Reside et al. 2016). As a consequence, some species are likely to face extinction, while others may move across the landscape, assuming that sufficient connectivity exists to facilitate this movement. Novel combinations of native species will occur as current range boundaries extend or shrink; in some of these novel communities, exotic species may actually enhance resilience, bridging gaps in plant and animal lifecycles (Aizen et al. 2008). Climate change will also affect the distributions of diseases, pests and weeds. Although some of these will become less threatening, new incursions are likely, and species and diseases that are currently constrained to particular areas or habitats may have the potential to extend their range or impact. In agriculture, drought will remain the dominant climatic challenge, but heat stress will increase. Some regions will see the mix of potential agricultural options change, and much land that is currently only marginally viable for agricultural enterprises will have to undergo a complete change in management or become nonviable (Howden et al. 2014).

Climate change is also altering the timing and duration of fire weather. Indications are that bushfires are likely to become even more threatening to life, property and the environment as extreme weather conditions become more frequent. The challenge of managing bushfires for the often conflicting demands of environmental purposes, or to protect infrastructure and housing, or to maximise carbon sequestration, will thus become more acute.

Ongoing clearing of native vegetation, particularly of regrowth now that most remnant old-growth vegetation is protected, means that legacy issues of historical vegetation clearance are not being addressed. As well, clearing means that the consequences of poor connectivity are maintained or exacerbated—for example, increased habitat for weeds and pest species, declines in native species, and reduced landscape resilience. Land clearing in coastal catchments is likely to increase erosion and sediment run-off, which is of particular concern for the Great Barrier Reef.

Other land management activities, such as mining, horticulture and cropping, are responsible for most of the nutrients, sediments and pesticides entering water bodies and ultimately the sea (Bartley et al. 2012). Modelling of current best-practice management suggests that contaminant loads in run-off are decreasing, but that they are still sufficiently high that they continue to have damaging impacts offshore, such as on the Great Barrier Reef (Brodie et al. 2013), and inland, such as in the Murray–Darling system (Holland et al. 2015).

One potential solution is to objectively assess the risks and benefits associated with more marginal land, and take the least viable land out of production, instead focusing on increasing production efficiencies on the best land. Similarly, a medium-term view might also consider those coastal areas most susceptible to flooding through sea level change, and whether managed retreat, rehabilitation of protective native vegetation buffers and enhanced protection for more elevated areas might make economic and environmental sense. There are already some instances of reclaimed saltmarsh, identified as unproductive agricultural land, being zoned for urban development; this could lead to trouble in the future because sea level rise will potentially inundate these areas.

Conflicting demands for land are likely to continue, with mining and the resources sector, farming and forestry systems, urban and infrastructure development, and land for offsets, set-aside land and buffers competing for space with the conservation estate and protection of natural systems. Each of these uses can make positive and negative contributions to the economic, social, cultural and environmental development of Australia. Although land use is often dealt with at a local level, national and even international perspectives are also relevant and often highly pertinent (Hajkowicz et al. 2012). Spatial land-use planning may help us understand and resolve these conflicts for efficient landscape management (Bryan et al. 2016). However, climate change may exacerbate this competition, as our demands change, as use of some land for agriculture or forestry becomes less feasible, and as competing demand for other primary production sectors—such as plantings for carbon offsets and carbon sequestration—expand.

Urban expansion competes for land space, affects a range of environmental processes and services, and requires substantial investment to deal with provisioning and waste services, and infrastructure maintenance. Huge steps have been made in reducing the waste stream and increasing recycling, but there are still some very large challenges to overcome in further reducing the waste stream, and developing in-country recycling capability. Continued population movement from rural and regional areas to capital cities and large metropolitan areas exacerbates these challenges, and also denudes rural areas of people, reducing community viability and resilience.

Concerns about global food security and the consequences for Australia, where most agricultural production is for export, are likely to grow (Qureshi et al. 2013). This will have consequences for expansion and intensification (Hochman et al. 2013) of the agriculture sector. The current interest in developing northern Australia is the latest in several attempts over 170 years (Cook 2009). It has broad political and community support, and for the first time is also engaging Indigenous communities in the debate in a meaningful way (Box LAN15). Consequently, it is vital for environmental scientists with relevant contextual experience to engage in the process to ensure that any development is truly sustainable, and any consequences of development are minimised. This aspiration may prove challenging after iterative declines in research funding across northern Australia, especially for research into the management of the tropical savannas and more southern arid landscape, risks of degradation to the long-term resource base, and consequent loss of ecological function and economic potential. Governments and industries are investing in assessments of soil suitability, water availability, crop improvements and infrastructure upgrades, which are likely to significantly increase the chances of success.

Affecting both the natural environment and managed agricultural and silvicultural environments, invasive species have potentially transformative effects. Establishment of a new disease, pest or pathogen that has the potential to significantly affect an agricultural industry, or cause major change in ecological function or environmental processes, could have major consequences. Hypothetical examples include a nationwide incursion of an exotic fruit fly that devastates a number of fruit and vegetable crops, a nationwide outbreak of a disease such as foot-and-mouth disease or clinical bluetongue, or the emergence of a highly virulent pathogen that affects native vegetation (Simpson & Srinivasan 2014). Advances in the use of biocontrol, and the integration of biocontrol and chemical control approaches are in part stimulated by the ongoing emergence of pesticide tolerance, but also by environmental considerations. New biocontrol agents (such as rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus) may be able to reduce the impact and costs associated with control of major pests. Developments in synthetic biology, through either transgenic approaches or selecting favourable natural alleles, offer conceptual solutions that may be currently unacceptable to regulators or the general public. An example is the use of ‘daughterless’ technologies to change the sex ratio of the progeny of invasive rodents and help drive them to extinction (Campbell et al. 2015).

Increasingly strong collaborative, national initiatives aim to combat invasive species, understand the national forest resource, protect our critical biodiversity, and target investments that will have national benefits. These approaches should ensure that decisions are taken at an appropriate scale to deal with increasingly national problems. Ongoing investment, consultation and monitoring at regional scales are critical to ensuring that decisions are made with the best information possible. A huge remaining challenge is to ensure that decisions are also made at the appropriate temporal scale. Initiatives that are announced with fanfare but closed down within years lead to wasted resources and opportunities in managing long-term environmental issues. Short-term projects do not support stable careers in land management, and the loss of skilled workers from ranger groups to industry sectors, declines in research and management staffing, and reduced university intakes in relevant disciplines will pose challenges to Australia’s ability to respond to emerging environmental issues.

Box LAN15 Developing the north

Strong engagement with Indigenous communities in developing northern Australia (Australian Government 2015c) is crucial, in light of the increasing number of formal agreements and rights these communities are establishing on land and water; their presence on, and connection and responsibilities to, Country; their presence outside major urban centres; and the importance of their role in biocultural diversity. The white paper on developing northern Australia (Australian Government 2015c) presents new opportunities for engagement with Indigenous groups, who hold diverse formal land-use agreements and rights over at least 50 per cent of the region. Indigenous groups are also well placed to monitor and reduce biosecurity risks across the region—including incursions of exotic species, spread of pathogens and vectors, and landings by illegal foreign fishing vessels and other vessels that may carry pests or pathogens—and to conduct strategic weed and feral animal management (Marley 2007). However, they are unlikely to be able to reduce risks that come from external sources (e.g. increased movement of vehicles and goods).

Indigenous people represent 14.7 per cent of the population of northern Australia (Table LAN7) but a higher proportion of the population in the very remote areas (an average of 32 per cent) and in areas that are identified as Indigenous land interests (an average of 25 per cent) (see Figure LAN34). Indigenous people in these regions rely extensively on wild resources for food, culture, small enterprise and medicine (Jackson et al. 2012, Scheepers & Jackson 2012).

These remote communities face challenges as a result of distance, including limited transport and infrastructure, limited accessibility in the wet season, limited institutional capacity, and constrained opportunities for enterprise development and employment (Jackson et al. 2012, Altman & Markham 2014, Woinarski et al. 2014b). Although income generation opportunities through pastoral leases, cattle farming, and small enterprises such as fisheries, bushfood and tourism are increasing, protection and provision of ecosystem services is a major and undervalued activity in these regions.

Table LAN7 Indigenous land and sea interests in northern Australia and Indigenous populations in the region

	Area (km2)	Area (%)	Population	Indigenous population	Indigenous population (%)
Northern Australia	3,041,359	100.0	1,062,760	155,951	14.7
Indigenous land interests	1,752,790	57.6	385,552	96,838	25.1
Exclusive possession, NT	464,288	15.3	202,944	41,908	20.7
Non-exclusive possession, NT	720,861	23.7	316,405	56,737	17.9
IPA	359,220	11.8	101,435	23,816	23.5
ILUA	875,855	28.8	776,703	86,782	11.2
Australian tenure, Indigenous	858,221	28.2	132,674	63,847	48.1

ILUA = Indigenous Land Use Agreement; IPA = Indigenous Protected Area; NT = Northern Territory

Source: Petina Pert, CSIRO

Download as pngDownload dataset

Download as pngDownload dataset

Source: Petina Pert (CSIRO) - using data from multiple sources (Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy - IPA database, 2016; the National Native Title Tribunal for native title boundaries; and the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the northern Australia boundary line). Supplied under CC BY Attribution 3.0

Figure LAN34 Indigenous land and sea interests in northern Australia

Three catchments—the Mitchell, Darwin and Fitzroy—have been identified in the northern Australia development agenda. Water bodies in these catchments are integral to present-day Indigenous livelihoods, and can potentially sustain future water-related enterprises and employment (Scheepers & Jackson 2012). Indigenous people in the Mitchell catchment make up more than 90 per cent of the population on Aboriginal freehold lands, which occupy more than 10 per cent of the catchment area. The main formal mechanism of Indigenous involvement in land management in the Mitchell catchment is Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). ILUAs occur in more than 60 per cent of the catchment, where grazing is the main land use. With only 9.5 per cent of the land under exclusive native title possession and more than 90 per cent of the region nationally categorised as very remote, conditions to support greater presence and economic independence of traditional owners on Country are limited.

Indigenous lands in the Darwin and Fitzroy basins are rich in culture, and represent some of the most intact and least disturbed areas in Australia. More than 90 per cent of both catchments are categorised as remote and very remote. Indigenous land interests in the Darwin catchment occur on 31.3 per cent of the catchment. Significantly, Indigenous people make up more than half the population on these lands (55 per cent), and Aboriginal language is still spoken by much of the population. ILUAs occur in less than 3 per cent of the catchment and are in place in important wetlands.

In the Fitzroy Basin, the availability of water is a precondition for the establishment of Indigenous communities (Toussaint et al. 2001). Indigenous land interests in the Fitzroy Basin occur in at least half of the catchment. They include ILUAs and native title, and support diverse land management activities, including protected area management, pastoral leases, food collecting and hunting. Indigenous people make up at least 50 per cent of the population. The high presence of Indigenous people and their close connection with Country support the continuation of language in the population, maintenance of culture, and sustenance of rights and responsibilities in water.

Source: Pethie Lyons and Petina Pert, CSIRO

Jackson S, Finn M & Featherstone P (2012). Aquatic resource use by Indigenous Australians in two tropical river catchments: the Fitzroy River and Daly River. Human Ecology 40(6):893–908.

Altman J & Markham F (2014). Burgeoning Indigenous land ownership: Diverse values and strategic potentialities. In: Brennan S, Davis M, Edgeworth B & Terrill L (eds), Native title from Mabo to Akiba: a vehicle for change and empowerment ?, The Federation Press, Sydney, 126–142.

Woinarski J, Traill B & Booth C (2014b). The modern outback: nature, people and the future of remote Australia, PEW Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia.

Australian Government (2015c). Our north, our future: white paper on developing northern Australia, Australian Government, Canberra.

Marley JV (2007). Indigenous communities are ideally located to monitor and reduce the biosecurity risks associated with illegal foreign fishing and climate change in northern Australia, North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance, Darwin.

Scheepers K & Jackson S (2012). Indigenous people’s socio-economic values and river flows in the Mitchell River delta, Cape York, CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, Australia.

Toussaint S, Sullivan P, Yu S & Mularty Jnr M (2001). Fitzroy valley Indigenous cultural values study (a preliminary assessment), Centre for Anthropological Research, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Costion CM, Simpson L, Pert PL, Carlsen MM, Kress WJ & Crayn D (2015). Will tropical mountaintop plant species survive climate change? Identifying key knowledge gaps using species distribution modelling in Australia. Biological Conservation 191:322–330.

Reside AE, VanDerWal J, Garnett ST & Kutt AS (2016). Vulnerability of Australian tropical savanna birds to climate change. Austral Ecology 41(1):106–116.

Bartley R, Speirs WJ, Ellis TW & Waters DK (2012). A review of sediment and nutrient concentration data from Australia for use in catchment water quality models. Marine Pollution Bulletin 65(4–9):101–116.

Brodie J, Waterhouse J, Schaffelke B, Kroon F, Thorburn P, Rolfe J, Johnson J, Fabricius K, Lewis S, Devlin M, Warne M & McKenzie L (2013). 2013 scientific consensus statement: land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, Brisbane.

Holland JE, Luck GW & Finlayson CM (2015). Threats to food production and water quality in the Murray–Darling Basin of Australia. Ecosystem Services 12:55-70.

Hajkowicz SA, Cook H & Littleboy A (2012). Our future world: global megatrends that will change the way we live, CSIRO, Canberra.

Bryan BA, Nolan M, McKellar L, Connor JD, Newth D, Harwood T, King D, Navarro J, Cai YY, Gao L, Grundy M, Graham P, Ernst A, Dunstall S, Stock F, Brinsmead T, Harman I, Grigg NJ, Battaglia M, Keating B, Wonhas A & Hatfield-Dodds S (2016). Land-use and sustainability under intersecting global change and domestic policy scenarios: trajectories for Australia to 2050. Global Environmental Change 38:130–152.

Simpson M & Srinivasan S (2014). Australia’s biosecurity future: preparing for future biological challenges, CSIRO, Canberra.

Aizen MA, Morales CL & Morales JM (2008). Invasive mutualists erode native pollination webs. PLoS Biology 6(2):article e31, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060031.

Hochman Z, Carberry PS, Robertson MJ, Gaydon DS, Bell LW & McIntosh PC (2013). Prospects for ecological intensification of Australian agriculture. European Journal of Agronomy 44:109–123.

Cook G (2009). Historical perspectives on land use development in northern Australia: with emphasis on the Northern Territory. In: Northern Australia land and water science review 2009, Australian Government Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra, 6-1–6-30.

Qureshi ME, Hanjra MA & Ward J (2013). Impact of water scarcity in Australia on global food security in an era of climate change. Food Policy 38(1):136–145.

Campbell KJ, Beek J, Eason CT, Glen AS, Godwin J, Gould F, Holmes ND, Howald GR, Madden FM, Ponder JB, Threadgill DW, Wegmann AS & Baxter GS (2015). The next generation of rodent eradications: innovative technologies and tools to improve species specificity and increase their feasibility on islands. Biological Conservation 185:47–58.

Howden M, Schroeter S, Crimp S & Hanigan I (2014). The changing roles of science in managing Australian droughts: an agricultural perspective. Weather and Climate Extremes 3:80–89.