Delivering biodiversity and socio economic co-benefits through the adoption of Beef Cattle Herd Management emission reduction projects in north-west Queensland

Gabriel Crowley, December 2019 Firescape Science and The Cairns Institute, James Cook University SUGGESTED CITATION Crowley, G.M. (2019). Delivering biodiversity and socio- economic co-benefits through the adoption of Beef Cattle Herd Management emission reduction projects in north-west Queensland. Southern Gulf NRM, Mount Isa, Queensland. ISBN 9780980877663

This report is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. You are free to copy, communicate and adapt this work, so long as you attribute Southern Gulf NRM and the author. Front cover image © Mel Bethel Photography

DISCLAIMER While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, the author and the publisher accept no liability for any loss or damage that result from reliance on it. This report does not constitute legal or financial advice. Readers should therefore seek professional financial and/ or legal advice before acting on any information provided in this report. While all electronic sources were successfully accessed between June and November 2019, their ongoing availability cannot be guaranteed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This initiative is supported by the Queensland Government as part of the Pilot Projects Program of the Land Restoration Fund. My thanks go to Holly Urquhart, Kayler Plant and Andrew Maclean (Southern Gulf NRM) and Charlie Hawkins and Julien Gastaldi (Natural Carbon) providing guidance and feedback throughout; to Jennifer McHugh (James Cook University) for the cover design; Tourism Tropical North Queensland for the cover photo; Steve Murphy (University of Queensland) and Leasie Felderhof (Firescape Science) for photographs in the text; and to Jeremy Garnett (Top End Editing) for proof-reading. Executive Summary

This report describes the many potential biodiversity and profitability, and droughts and floods causing additional socio-economic co-benefits of pastoralists undertaking stress. However, the best-performing businesses demonstrate Beef Cattle Herd Management (BCHM) emission reduction that improvements to pasture condition, and diet quality, projects in north-west Queensland, as well as identifying and to herd health and composition can restore financial areas of potential conflict with biodiversity conservation. viability. These improvements also reduce the number and The primary benefits are increased beef production and the age of animals needed to produce each kilogram of beef, so capacity for such projects to restore degraded ground cover. therefore reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most other financial, biodiversity and employment benefits Restoring pasture condition through improving herd flow on from these primary benefits. The biggest risk of management also has many co-benefits. It should restore such projects will be where changes to herd management the health of grazing-sensitive species and communities, are undertaken without regard to pasture condition. The although additional measures will be needed to protect greatest benefits will be where BCHM projects are integrated those that are the most sensitive. The beef industry has into whole-of-enterprise plans that include identifying and committed to practice improvement and environmental managing biodiversity values (particularly to manage up to stewardship through its Australian Beef Sustainability 10% of each project area for biodiversity conservation); an Framework. Fulfilling these commitments requires equipping inclusive employment policy; and engagement of Traditional pastoralists with the necessary knowledge, skills and Owners through an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (BCHM resources to understand and implement the best options for Plus projects). their enterprises. A program to support and financially reward The report then identifies parts of northwest Queensland that the pastoralist for improving practices and incorporating have been mapped as having lower than expected ground biodiversity co-benefits into their management by cover, and which are therefore a priority for undertaking Beef undertaking a Beef Cattle Herd Management project therefore Cattle Herd Management projects. It also identifies priority provides an opportunity to improve environmental outcomes areas for biodiversity conservation – based on areas that have in north-west Queensland. previously been identified as Strategic Offset Investment Corridors; where Regional Ecosystems are poorly represented in the protected area estate; and where conservation THE METHOD outcomes can be improved by fencing significant wetlands or The Beef Cattle Herd Management method under the reducing wildfire extent for the protection of fire-sensitive rare Emission Reduction Fund generates carbon credits for and threatened species. These areas are of the highest priority reducing the emission-intensity of beef production through for undertaking BCHM Plus projects. improved herd management. A small amount of income can A co-benefits delivery framework is then developed, which be generated through the sale of carbon credits, but the real identifies the support and financial recompense pastoralists benefit comes from the income generated by increased beef will need to undertake BCHM or BCHM Plus projects production. Pastoralists undertaking such a project can elect (education and extension, planning, business support and to undertake any practice improvement that can reasonably financial benefit), and the monitoring and contractual be expected to reduce the number and age of animals needed arrangements that will be required to ensure co-benefits to produce each kilogram of beef, by: are delivered. The monitoring framework is based on • Increasing the herd weight-to-age ratio existing schemes in use over pastoral lands, and uses many • Reducing the average age of animals in the herd indicators that are in use in the industry-led Australian Beef • Reducing the proportion of unproductive Sustainability Framework. A staged implementation schedule animals in the herd is provided that demonstrates how individual pastoralists • Changing the composition of livestock classes to increase can value-add to their BCHM project by incorporating those total annual liveweight gain (e.g. reducing breeder/ BCHM Plus elements that they believe best suited to their weaner ratio) own situations. A case study shows an example of how this A wide range of practices has been shown to achieve these can be done to improve enterprise profitability along with outcomes. However, these are best implemented in an biodiversity and socioeconomic outcomes. integrated manner as part of whole-of-enterprise planning that includes improving diets, herd management and infrastructure (referred to in this report as BCHM Plus). There PASTORAL LANDS are many impediments to practice improvement, especially Most of north-west Queensland is used for producing cattle on for small pastoral businesses or for pastoral enterprises that native pastures. The land is generally in good condition, but are in financial difficulty. much has been degraded by historical overgrazing, droughts, floods and weed invasion. Many of the region’s grazing sensitive species have probably declined, and at least 53 of CO-BENEFITS its species are threatened. Little of the region is in protected A reliance on healthy pastures means that the uptake of areas or covered by conservation agreements. Beef Cattle Herd Management projects should deliver The beef industry in north-west Queensland is also facing many biodiversity co-benefits. However, if projects are not challenges. Many businesses are struggling financially, strategically managed, they could also lead to biodiversity with sub-optimal practices limiting productivity and decline. Biodiversity co-benefits are most likely where practice improvement includes:

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 1 • Matching stocking rates to feed supply and limiting pasture PRIORITIES utilisation rates to safe levels • Reducing total grazing pressure Priority areas for promoting the uptake of Beef Cattle • Management of weeds and pest animals Herd Management in north-west Queensland are areas • Use of fire to restrict the extent of late-dry season fires with lower than expected ground-cover, which are • Using wet season spelling and hot fires to reverse susceptible to erosion and loss of ground-layer species. woody thickening These areas are: The documented co-benefits of these practices include: North-West Highlands: • Restoration and maintenance of ground cover and ground- • Western and southern slopes of the North-West Highlands layer vegetation • Restoration and maintenance of soil health • Improvement to the quality of water in paddock run-off Gulf Plains: • Recovery of grazing-sensitive species • The floodplains of the upper reaches of the Flinders catchments upstream of the Confluence between the Adverse biodiversity impacts could result where increased Flinders and Cloncurry rivers productivity is achieved by: • The central section of the Karumba Plain • Expanding grazing into underutilised areas • The divide between the upper reaches of the Norman and • Adopting changes that could increase feed-conversion Flinders rivers efficiency, if stocking rates are not appropriately • The divide between the middle reaches of the Flinders and adjusted, including: Leichhardt rivers » On-farm production of forage crops » Supplementary feeding Mitchell Grass Downs: » Vaccination • The upper catchment of the Diamantina River » Genetic improvement of feed conversion efficiency • The southern section of the Southern Wooded Downs • Sowing invasive, exotic pasture species (notably buffel grass bioregional province and leucaena) • The upper catchment of the Thompson River Where such measures are undertaken, they will need to be Priority areas for undertaking BCHM Plus projects are carefully planned and managed to limit adverse impacts on areas that support Regional Ecosystems that are poorly both pasture condition and biodiversity. represented in the current protected area estate; high-value Additional co-benefits that can be derived from undertaking a wetlands that would benefit from fencing to exclude cattle; or Beef Cattle Herd Management project include: concentrations of threatened species that would benefit from • Improved animal welfare (excluding some practices, such wildfire management. These areas include: as spaying weaner heifers) • Improved water-use efficiency North-West Highlands: • Increased employment opportunities • The far north of the bioregion, where several • Improved regional economic resilience Regional Ecosystems are under-represented in the protected area estate Improving herd management will not necessarily reduce • Lands adjacent to Boodjamulla National Park and whole-of-enterprise greenhouse gas emissions, as reductions extending south to Mount Isa (the Carpentarian Corridor), in emission-intensity are likely to be counterbalanced by where several rare and threatened species are threatened increases in total beef production. Moreover, improving by extensive wildfires pasture condition does not automatically increase soil carbon, unless other carbon loss pathways can be controlled. In north-west Queensland, there are also limited options for Gulf Plains: carbon sequestration, as most native vegetation is intact, and • Sections of nationally significant wetlands on the Karumba the tree-growth potential is low. Plain and along the Mitchell River • Areas south of Staaten River National Park and along the The co-benefits of Beef Cattle Herd Management projects can north-eastern flank of Boodjamulla National Park that be extended through additional property-scale and whole-of- contain Regional Ecosystems that are poorly represented in enterprise measures (BCHM Plus). Examples include: the protected area estate • Maintaining or increasing the extent of water-remote • An area north of Einasleigh River, where several mid-level areas through judicious placement of fencing and water biodiversity values coincide infrastructure • Fencing habitat for conservation of threatened and/or grazing intolerant species and communities Mitchell Grass Downs: • Rehabilitating eroded gullies and/or stream banks • Parts of the bioregion that are adjacent to the North-West • Entering into conservation covenants Highlands, and the southern part of the Southwestern • Entering into Indigenous Land Use Agreements Downs, where several Regional Ecosystems are under- • Adopting employment policies that favour women, represented in the protected area estate Indigenous people and other marginalised groups Pastoralists undertaking a Beef Cattle Herd Management project are not obligated to undertake any of these additional measures. However, doing so should improve the marketability of the beef and carbon credits they produce, and the prices these can attract.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 2 THE WAY FORWARD For BCHM and BCHM Plus projects to deliver co-benefits, education and extension programs will be required to help pastoralists to understand the practice improvement best suited to their enterprises; the financial implications of these practices; and the best pathway for implementing them. Such programs – delivered in partnership between natural resource management groups, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the beef industry – are already in place, but need further resourcing. Pastoralists may also need financial assistance to make the transition where this involves capital expenditure. Business support will also be required to help pastoralists navigate the legal and transactional requirements of entering and undertaking a BCHM project. High transaction costs of establishing and operating a Beef Cattle Herd Management project mean that the benefits of the carbon market are only accessible to the largest cattle producers. However, this constraint may be overcome through an aggregated Beef Cattle Herd Management project that includes several enterprises. The main driver for undertaking a BCHM or BCHM Plus project will be profitability. Financial rewards are likely to come from four sources. The most significant of these are derived from increased beef sales, with a small fraction coming from carbon credits (although this fraction is expected to increase as the imperative for climate change action is realised). For BCHM Plus, additional rewards may be derived through increased access to premium markets for both beef and carbon credits, and as one-off payments for conservation works. Access to these markets will require an accredited monitoring and evaluation scheme to provide evidence that the co-benefits have been delivered, and may also require pastoralists to enter into contractual arrangements. A monitoring framework for this purpose is presented here. It has been based on existing schemes applied to Queensland pastoral lands, and uses many of the indicators that are already in use in the industry-led Australian Beef Sustainability Framework. A staged implementation schedule is proposed that allows individual pastoralists to value-add to their BCHM projects by incorporating those BCHM Plus elements that they believe to be best suited to their own situations. A case study is provided to demonstrate how a north-west Queensland beef business could improve its profitability while also delivering the biodiversity and socioeconomic outcomes that it considers important. In conclusion, BCHM offers a unique opportunity to engage with pastoralists to improve business resilience and achieve environmental and social co-benefits, and to have those co-benefits enshrined in pastoral management across north- west Queensland.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 3 Table of contents

Executive Summary...... 1 Introduction...... 6 Industry commitment...... 6 Beef Cattle Herd Management...... 7 Description of method...... 7 Mechanisms for emission reduction...... 7 Co-benefits of the Beef Cattle Herd Management method...... 8 Grazing land condition...... 8 Bioregion...... 9 Gulf Plains...... 9 Mitchell Grass Downs...... 9 Mitchell Grass Downs...... 9 Ground cover...... 9 Soil health...... 10 Soil carbon...... 10 Soil conservation and water quality...... 11 Exotic pasture species...... 11 Total grazing pressure...... 12 Woody vegetation cover...... 12 Weed management...... 13 Fire management...... 16 Spreading pasture utilisation...... 17 Genetic herd improvement and vaccination...... 18 Supplementary feeding...... 18 Summary of biodiversity benefits...... 18 Water-use efficiency...... 19 NRM engagement and best practice uptake...... 20 Animal welfare...... 20 Regional economic development ...... 20 Indigenous wellbeing and economic development opportunities...... 21 Prioritisation...... 22 Beef Cattle Herd Management...... 22 Beef Cattle Herd Management Plus...... 23 Bioregional assessments...... 25 Proposed delivery framework...... 28 Education and extension...... 28 Planning...... 28 Carbon farming business support...... 29 Financial rewards...... 29 Improved productivity...... 30 Base-level carbon credits...... 31 Price premiums...... 31 Monitoring and evaluation framework...... 32 Contractual arrangements...... 35 Implementation framework...... 35 Example case study...... 36 Summary and conclusions...... 38 References...... 39 Appendix 1. Summary of biodiversity values and threats in north-west Queensland bioregions...... 56 Appendix 2. Significant terrestrial and freshwater species of north-west Queensland...... 57 Appendix 3. Grazing-sensitive species in north-west Queensland...... 59 Appendix 4. Endangered and Of Concern Regional Ecosystems of north-west Queensland...... 62 Appendix 5. Weeds with significant biodiversity impacts in north-west Queensland...... 65 Appendix 6. Australian Beef Sustainability Framework’s on-farm measures...... 67 Appendix 7. Sustainable Development Goals and Targets relevant to Beef Cattle Herd Management projects with multiple co-benefits...... 69

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 4 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Productivity, profitability and environmental co-benefits of emission reduction grazing projects in north- west Queensland...... 6 Table 2. Examples of weeds that are recognised as adversely affecting North-west Queensland threatened species...... 16 Table 3. North-west Queensland species that have been shown to decline around waterpoints...... 20 Table 4. Prioritisation for whole-of-property planning across north-west Queensland pastoral lands...... 33 Table 5. Steps involved in undertaking a Beef Cattle Herd Management project...... 42 Table 6. Financial return of emission reduction grazing projects in north-west Queensland...... 44 Table 7. Potential assets and indicators for assessing the co-benefits of Beef Cattle Herd Management projects...... 48 Table 8. Proposed implementation framework for Beef Cattle Herd Management with co-benefits...... 53 Table 9. Case study application of Beef Cattle Herd Management co-benefits implementation framework...... 55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Major weeds species with significant impacts on pastoral or biodiversity values in north-west Queensland...... 14 Figure 2. Distribution of water weeds and buffel grass species in north-west Queensland...... 17 Figure 3. Ground Cover Disturbance Index on grazing lands for (a) north-west Queensland bioregions, (b) Gulf Plains, (c) North-West Highlands and (d) Mitchell Grass Downs...... 29 Figure 4. Priority areas for biodiversity conservation on grazing lands in north-west Queensland: (a) Regional Ecosystems that are under-represented in protected areas, (b) Strategic Offset Investment Corridors, (c) Significant wetlands and Carpentarian Corridor (concentration of fire-sensitive rare and threatened species), and (d) Biodiversity Planning Assessments...... 32 Figure 5. Priority areas for the uptake of the Beef Cattle Herd Management (BCHM) and undertaking whole-of-property planning in the North-West Highlands...... 35 Figure 6. Priority areas for the uptake of the Beef Cattle Herd Management (BCHM) and undertaking whole-of-property planning in the Gulf Plains...... 37 Figure 7. Priority areas for the uptake of the Beef Cattle Herd Management (BCHM) and undertaking whole-of-property planning in the Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion...... 39 Figure 8. Potential sources of income from participation in a Beef Cattle Herd Management project...... 43

ABBREVIATIONS ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource LRF Land Restoration Fund Economics and Sciences MGD Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics MLA Meat and Livestock Australia ABSF Australian Beef Sustainability Framework NAFI North Australian Fire Information website ACCUs Australian Carbon Credit Units N/A Not applicable ANIR Australian National Inventory Report NAPCo North Australian Pastoral Company BCHM Beef Cattle Herd Management NCA Nature Conservation Act (1992) B-GAF Greenhouse Accounting Framework for NCVER National Centre for Vocational Education Research beef properties NGA National Greenhouse Accounts BMP Best Management Practice NLP National Landcare Programme BPA Biodiversity Planning Assessment NRM Natural Resource Management EA Enterprise accreditation NWH North-West Highlands bioregion EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity QDAF Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Conservation Act (1999) QDES Queensland Department of Environment and Science ERF Emission Reduction Fund SDG Sustainable Development Goals GEA Gender Equity Agency SOIC Strategic Offset Investment Corridor GHG Greenhouse gas SWA Safe Work Australia GUP Gulf Plains bioregion TBA To be advised IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia UCWS University of Canberra Wellbeing Survey ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement VMA Vegetation Management Act (1999) JRSRP Joint Remote Sensing Research Program LCA Life Cycle Analysis LPA Livestock Production Assurance

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 5 Introduction

Most of north-west Queensland is used for producing cattle on native pastures 1. The land is generally considered to be in good environmental condition. Very little vegetation has been cleared 2; the vast majority of vegetation is considered to be relatively undisturbed 3,4; and ground cover has been increasing 5. Nevertheless, there are concerns. Extensive vegetation cover masks some worrying trends 6. Up until 2005, much of the region was being grazed above safe stocking rates 7. The recent floods, combined with soils exposed by droughts and unsustainable grazing pressure, have stripped large areas of topsoil 8-10. Prickly acacia (Vachellia nilotica) is widespread, especially along waterways 11. Little of the region is in protected areas or covered by conservation agreements (Appendix 1) 12. At least 53 species in the region are considered threatened and a further 12 near threatened. Moreover, there are numerous species that are sensitive to grazing, and whose relative abundance and trends are unknown. Financial stress in the beef industry is a significant impediment to the adoption of practices that will improve environmental sustainability and carbon footprints; and can drive producers to overstocking, leading to environmental degradation 13. The majority of north-west Queensland’s beef-producing enterprises are ranked among Australia’s least profitable and most financially unsustainable 14, 15. Grazing enterprises in the Northern and Southern Gulf NRM regions run at a loss in at least one in three years 16,A. Financial stress in the region has been exacerbated by stock losses associated with extended drought and recent severe flooding 17,18. It is also a major cause of hardship across the region and has resulted in low personal, business and community resilience 13,19. The best performing beef businesses have high weaning rates, high branding rates, and low adult mortality, and tend to sell heavier cattle 20-22. Therefore, improving the financial performance of northern beef enterprises necessitates improving herd health, reproduction and growth rates, reducing mortality and improving food utilisation. These improvements reduce the number and age of animals needed to produce each kilogram of beef, and hence also reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 22,23. Queensland’s beef cattle produce approximately 2.5% (51.5 Mt CO2-e) of Australia’s GHG emissions in the form of methane emitted in gut fermentation, but also from nitrous oxide emitted from dung and urine 24-26. Although largely related to the size of the cattle herd 26, emissions can be reduced by changing the way beef cattle are managed and bred. Management practice change and improved genetics have seen a 20% reduction in emission intensity B of the Australian beef herd over the last 30 years, and of 8.3% in the last five years 27. In some parts of northern Australia, management improvements have been shown to halve emission intensity 28,29. The capacity to reduce emissions through improved herd management has been recognised in the development of the Beef Cattle Herd Management method. Graziers registering Emission Reduction Fund (ERF) projects under this method are rewarded for adopting new practices that improve emission intensity 30. Both herd performance and emission reduction are contingent on maintaining pasture in good condition to provide a high- quality diet 31. Maintaining pasture health also benefits biodiversity 32,33. Hence, improving herd performance while maintaining pasture condition is likely to have both carbon and biodiversity benefits 29. Improving the uptake of sustainable practices and biodiversity conservation has been a challenge for Australian agriculture, and often requires financial incentives34-38 . Financially rewarding best practice adoption – through both improved productivity and carbon credits – therefore, offers an opportunity to improve environmental outcomes.

INDUSTRY COMMITMENT In 2017, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) announced a commitment to the red meat industry becoming carbon neutral by 2030 39, and the Australian Beef Sustainability Framework C was launched 27. This framework aims to improve financial viability and environmental stewardship of the beef industry, including through meeting the commitment to reduce its emissions. This includes: • Reducing the GHG emissions intensity of beef production • Achieving optimum levels in: » The percentage of cattle-producing land set aside for conservation or protection purposes » The area of land managed by beef producers for conservation outcomes through formal arrangements » The percentage of cattle-producing land managed by beef producers for environmental outcomes through active management » The percentage of regions achieving healthy ground cover thresholds This framework offers a unique opportunity to achieve good environmental outcomes through improving the financial viability of the cattle industry.

A Gross Margin / Animal Equivalent for the Gulf has been estimated at $36.92, approximately one-sixth of that achieved in central Queensland ($239.62 GM/AE). B 2 Emission intensity of beef production is measured as kilograms of CO -e emitted per kilogram of beef produced. C The Australian Beef Sustainability Framework is an initiative of the Red Meat Advisory Council and managed by Meat and Livestock Australia.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 6 Beef Cattle Herd Management

DESCRIPTION OF METHOD • matching stocking rates to long-term carrying capacity • restricting grazing pressure to less than 20% utilisation of The Beef Cattle Herd Management (BCHM) method financially the available pasture 47 rewards pastoralists who adopt practices that successfully • using genetic and fertility selection reduce the intensity of GHGs emitted in beef production. • phosphorus supplementation Emission intensity is calculated as the amount of methane • pasture improvement, including through fire management and nitrous oxide emitted for each kilogram of beef produced, • bringing under-utilised land into production by developing rather than by each business, so it is not affected by the paddock and water point infrastructure number of cattle on a property, rather on how well those cattle are raised. A strategic approach to practice change is required, as many of these practices may have minimal impact when In order to reduce emission intensity, a practice must result in implemented on their own 48. A BCHM project must not one or more of the following: include clearing land for the purpose of the project or • Increased herd weight-to-age ratio increasing stocking rate. Projects can include shifting cattle • Reduced average age of animals in the herd to a new block of land, but not when this is the only practice • Reduced the proportion of unproductive change undertaken. animals in the herd • Increased total annual liveweight gain by changing livestock Other means of improving the agricultural carbon footprint class composition (e.g. reduce breeder/weaner ratio) of beef enterprises include changing feeding cattle non- protein nitrogen, sequestering carbon in the soil, undertaking Once the project is registered with the ERF, an assessment is revegetation, and allowing regrowth to sequester carbon made of the practices used by the business and the liveweight 24. Each of these activities is covered by a different gain over a baseline period of seven years. At least one project ERF methodology. activity must be undertaken for each year and each herd of the project. However, the same activity can be undertaken each year, as long as this activity was not undertaken in the baseline period. Types of practices listed in the explanatory statement include: • Improving pasture quality • Year-round supplementary feeding • Improving weaning percentage by culling unproductive cows • Installing fences to control herd movements and improve joining practices • Increasing density of watering points to ensure even use of the available pasture However, pastoralists can make a case for adopting almost any practice that can reasonably be expected to reduce emission intensity. Only feeding non-protein nitrogen and moving the cattle to a different parcel of land are specifically excluded from the method. Proposed practices must be supported by evidence in order to be eligible. This would usually consist of results from one or more studies.

Mechanisms for emission reduction Any change in management that reduces the amount of feed that an animal ingests through its lifetime will also reduce the emissions that it produces 22,40-42. Total dietary intake can be reduced by improving the herd’s health, reproduction and growth rates and reducing its mortality rate 40 or – to a lesser extent – by improving the efficiency with which the animals digest their food 22,42. Practices shown to improve the productivity and profitability of beef businesses 20,22,40,42-46, and therefore generally improve emission intensity, include combinations of: • increasing weaning rates • reducing mortality rates • improving weight gains

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 7 Co-benefits of the Beef Cattle Herd Management method

Good environmental outcomes and beef production are Recommendations for improving degraded pasture condition inextricably linked because, as stocking rate decreases, include reducing pasture utilisation and stocking rates and breeder mortality decreases, and liveweight gain and return periodically spelling the pasture during the growing season to on capital and input costs increase 49; while moderate allow recovery of perennial grasses 52,59. These are consistent grazing pressure ensures the highest pasture yields in all with the recommendations for improving productivity and years 50. These benefits range from improving the condition reducing emission intensity 22,48. Pasture spelling and strategic of the ground cover through to biodiversity conservation burning are required to halt or reverse woody thickening 52,60- and water-use efficiency. This report examines these co- 62. The implications of managing woody vegetation to improve benefits in detail. herd performance are discussed elsewhere in this report (see Total grazing pressure). Grazing land condition While poor land condition reduces the carrying capacity of Long-term livestock carrying capacity of grazing land across pastoral enterprises, it presents the best opportunity for Queensland is assessed using the grazing land condition emission reduction when it is undertaken hand-in-hand with assessment framework 51-53. This framework sets benchmarks restoring land condition. This is demonstrated in the analysis for soil and pasture condition, woodland density and of three grazing projects in north-west Queensland (Table 1). weed abundance expected for individual land types when One project was on a degraded property, and two projects they are in good condition, and determines the potential were on properties in good condition 28,31. The project on carrying capacity of each land type 52,54,55. It then compares the degraded property in the Gulf Plains assessed the actual individual sites and paddocks with these benchmarks changes in management, productivity and environmental to rate that land as being in A, B, C or D condition, which outcomes over a 15 year period 28. For the two good condition respectively correspond to 100%, 75%, 45% and 20% of the properties, practices and outcomes were compared with land type’s potential carrying capacity 56. Good condition those more typically used across the region 31. Several land should have: scenarios were run for the good condition properties, but • good coverage of perennial grasses (dominated by the this comparison is restricted to the most profitable scenarios. perennial, palatable and productive grasses) These studies demonstrate that there is greater capacity • little bare ground to improve productivity, profitability and environmental • few weeds and no significant infestations outcomes by improving herd management on a degraded • good soil condition, no erosion, good surface condition property than on a good condition property. • no sign, or early signs, of woodland thickening 57 Properties with good grazing land condition generally also provide good biodiversity habitat, with the exception of where exotic pastures have been introduced, or where the placement of waterpoints and fencing allows cattle to access the entire property 33. Grazing land condition standards have been set for all major land types in the Gulf Plains, North-West Highlands and Mitchell Grass Downs bioregions 53. Grazing lands in these bioregions are largely in good condition, but there are some exceptions. Between 2003 and 2006, the grazing land condition was assessed across the Gulf Plains and Mitchell Grass Downs 56,58. Approximately 70% of sites assessed in the Mitchell Grass Downs and 81% of sites assessed in the Northern Gulf Natural Resource Management (NRM) region were rated as being in good condition (A- or B-condition). In the Northern Gulf, degradation (C- or D- condition) was more widespread on high-value grazing lands (25%) than on low-value grazing lands (12%) 58. The most degraded land types (Georgetown granites, alluvial soils and red duplex) D have very little representation in the current area of interest. Pasture degradation was the biggest contributor to poor land condition on high-value grazing lands, whereas low-value grazing lands were more likely to be affected by woody thickening.

D Georgetown granites and alluvial soils primarily occur east of the current area of interest in the Einasleigh Uplands bioregion. The red duplex land type is entirely restricted to the Einasleigh Uplands.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 8 Table 1. Productivity, profitability and environmental co-benefits of emission reduction grazing projects in north-west Queensland

Bioregion Gulf Plains Mitchell Grass Downs Mitchell Grass Downs Location Blanncourt Longreach Boulia Project type 15 year field trial Modelled Modelled Practice change Reduced breeder/weaner ratio No Yes Yes Early mating No Yes Yes Reduced mortality Yes No No Wet season spelling Yes Yes Yes Reduced stocking Yes No No Outcomes Liveweight turnoff increase 82% 39% 29% Gross margin increase 93% ~65%* ~49%* Emission intensity reduction 53% 28% 22% Land condition Improved through trial A/B-condition A/B-condition from 15% to 81% assumed throughout assumed throughout in A/B condition Source 28,63 31 31 * Estimated from graphs.

Improving beef cattle herd management to improve well as declines abundance and diversity of vertebrate fauna emission intensity by reducing stocking rates and 80,100-102. Bare patches created by overgrazing increase runoff 68 periodically spelling pasture should also lead to improved and soil loss from hillslopes and facilitate predation by cats 103 grazing land condition and pasture productivity. Using . Reductions in ground cover caused by fire also increase run-off and soil loss 104-106, but – as they are temporary, and fire to improve pasture quality may increase emission fire promotes regeneration and seed production in many intensity, and while not accounted for under the current food plants – are not necessarily associated with biodiversity method, may do so in the future. decline 78,107-109. Loss of ground cover drives not only hillslope erosion, but also downslope gullying 110. Ground cover Healthy ground cover comprises a range of perennial and Ground cover condition can be improved by reducing stocking annual plants, as well as biocrusts, logs and litter, with rates to match carrying capacity, limiting pasture utilisation minimal bare ground 64-67. Ground cover is important for rates to recommended levels, spelling during the wet season maintaining soil health as it provides organic matter, nutrients to allow pasture regeneration, and judicious use of rotational and aeration, and minimises soil loss by maximising rainfall grazing 32,52,59,111,112. Utilisation rates of 25% are recommended infiltration and minimising runoff68-71 . The state of ground to maintain pasture in good condition or improve the cover is most important for minimising erosion at the break of condition of degraded pasture 93. When combined with the wet season and at the bottom of hillslopes 68. spelling for two months over the wet season, utilisation rates can be increased to 50% 93. These practices improve ground- Ground-layer vegetation also provides food for many native layer vegetation through improvements to ground cover 72-79 herbivores and granivores ; as well as shelter for small 47,50,88, annual pasture yield 50,52,113, perennial grass abundance 80-82 animals and protection from predators, particularly cats . and basal area 49,93,114-117, and plant longevity 50,88. Therefore, The abundance of many small mammal and reptile species management strategies that improve the emission intensity is therefore highest in sites with moderate to high ground of beef production by reducing stocking rates should also 83-87 cover . improve the condition of degraded ground-layer vegetation. Overgrazing by livestock and unsustainable total grazing This was the case on Blanncourt station in the Gulf Plains, 88,89 pressure reduces ground cover . Livestock overgrazing where emission intensity was improved by 53% and has been shown to reduce litter cover, total plant biomass, liveweight turn-off increased by 80% by reducing stock and adversely affect the structure, function and composition numbers by 22%, with the result that land condition improved of ground-layer vegetation, with selective effects on the substantially (Table 1). The relationship between moderate 80,88,90-92 more palatable species, notably perennial grasses . stocking rates and best liveweight gain per animal (and hence Utilisation rates of 75% of annual forage growth cause pasture best emission intensity and profitability) is supported by a degradation, particularly loss of perennial grasses, and long-term study at Wambiana in the Desert Uplands bioregion 93 prevent recovery of poor condition pasture . Ground cover 88,118,119. In this study, best liveweight gain per animal was is therefore usually lower on grazing lands than on lands achieved under moderate grazing pressure (stocking rates 80,94 of other tenures . Macropods and feral herbivores can that were close to long-term carrying capacity or adjusted 95-97 contribute to these adverse effects . according to forage availability and seasonal outlook). In the Low levels of ground cover associated with grazing have long-term, these management strategies also produced the been linked to increased run-off and erosion 50,68,70,98,99, as highest liveweight turn-off, and were the most profitable, although they were out-performed by heavier stocking rates

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 9 – which degraded the pasture and increased soil erosion – in so they are unlikely to contribute significantly to emission the best years. Hence, carbon credits can be earned while intensity improvement in the short term. maintaining good ground-layer condition, or improving poor ground-layer condition. Adoption of management strategies to reduce the Exceptions to the rule that emission reduction projects emission intensity of beef cattle that maintain and restore are likely to maintain or return ground-layer to a good ground cover should help to maintain the condition of condition are worth mentioning. The BCHM method rewards healthy soils and restore moderately degraded soils. improvements in emission intensity, rather than a reduction Additional measures needed to restore severely degraded in total GHG emissions generated. Therefore, where a soil are likely to be outside the scope of the BCHM method. property is being developed to allow grazing of previously under-utilised country, stock numbers may be increased at Soil carbon the same time that emission intensity is being reduced 22. Improvement of grazing management practices has the While the study at Wambiana shows that this can only be potential to increase soil carbon and thus reduce GHG done sustainably and profitably where pasture is maintained emissions 138-140. However, this potential remains unproven in good condition, introducing cattle into previously ungrazed in Australian rangelands 141, and studies examining it have country could adversely affect ground-layer dependent had inconsistent results 22,24,142. While in any one location, soil biodiversity 120 (see Summary of biodiversity benefits). Other carbon is likely to be highest around perennial plants 32, this exceptions that could adversely affect ground cover would relationship breaks down at a landscape scale 143,144. In fact, include where grazing land is converted to forage crops, landscape-scale studies have variously shown: and where supplementary feeding allowed grazing pressure • no difference in soil carbon between grazed and ungrazed to intensify. areas 145,146 • higher soil carbon in grazed than in ungrazed areas 50,147 As low emission intensity of beef production is best • no impact of grazing intensity on soil carbon 146,148 achieved under moderate stocking rates, participation in • higher soil carbon under continuous grazing than under 149 BCHM projects should maintain or restore good condition rotational grazing ground cover. However, where projects involve expanding Even where an improvement to soil carbon has been grazing into underutilised areas, on-farm production achieved, it can be difficult to detect, and may not become of forage crops, or supplementary feeding, care will apparent for many years 148. be needed to ensure ground-layer vegetation is not The breakdown of this relationship is caused by a complexity degraded. of over-riding factors. These include soil carbon’s responses to temperature, rainfall and soil moisture 150, soil texture and Soil health condition 151; relative cover of shrubs and grasses 152; relative Healthy soil is important for nutrient cycling, and its capacity cover of C3 and C4 plants 153; fire regime 154-156; the activity to store water and reduce runoff and soil loss. These features of termites and other soil biota 157; and nitrogen fertilisation are essential for pastoral and agricultural productivity. Soils from dung 146. Where soil carbon is already at equilibrium with also provide habitat for microbes, invertebrates and fungi that the local conditions, it is unlikely to be increased by reducing 121-124 are fed on by many reptiles, birds and mammals . Healthy grazing pressure 140. Plant and organic matter that is not soils are characterised by surface stability and effective soil removed by cows will simply be lost through other means, 125 infiltration and nutrient cycling . including fire, termites and soil microbiota 149. Overgrazing by cattle degrades soil health directly through Capacity to increase carbon stores is affected by climate, compaction and indirectly by reducing soil stability, organic soil texture and fertility, biological activity and land use 140. matter and carbon inputs, creating bare patches, and altering In a national assessment, north-west Queensland is rated 50,68,97,126-128 the nutrients pools . These changes flow on to have as having the lowest potential for improving soil carbon 140. negative effects on litter cover, soil microbiota, biocrusts, This is because: water infiltration and storage capacity, and erosion rates • The region’s low fertility soils and hot and dry conditions 52,68,97,127,129-131 . limit Net Primary Productivity Moderately degraded soils can be restored through • Prevailing hot and dry conditions promote microbial combinations of reducing stocking rate and wet season activity resulting in high decomposition rates spelling 132. Reducing grazing pressure or excluding cattle • The region’s Net Primary Productivity is not currently altogether increases ground cover, species richness and constrained by low water-use efficiency abundance of native grasses; increases inputs of organic • Minimal amounts of clearing and cropping mean that matter and carbon; improves water infiltration and water- minimal carbon has been lost from the region’s soils 140,158 97,129,133 holding capacity; and promotes soil microbiota . Even with these limitations, the best scope for improving Therefore, management strategies to reduce the emission soil carbon is likely to be where the clay content of soils is intensity of beef production that involve moderating grazing between 25% and 45%, and where there is scope to increase pressure should also maintain healthy soil condition and the biomass of perennial grasses 140. Soils that are favourable improve the condition of moderately degraded soils. The for carbon enhancement are found through much of the capacity to recover soil health varies in relation to soil and Gulf Plains and Mitchell Grass Downs 140. Where suitable soils 134 pasture types, and the degree of degradation . Where are in poor condition, restoring perennial grasses should soils are severely degraded, adjusting stocking rates is therefore improve soil carbon. On good condition lands, the unlikely to be sufficient to rehabilitate them, and mechanical only means of improving soil carbon would be to cultivate 135-137 intervention may be required . The long timeframe perennial exotic pasture species (see Soil conservation and required for such rehabilitation means that impacts on herd water quality). performance are unlikely to be realised for many years,

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 10 Improving beef cattle herd management will not and improve water quality under extreme rainfall events 99, automatically increase soil carbon unless competing loss where heavy rain follows fire 99,105,185, or where the majority pathways can be identified and controlled. However, soil of erosion is from gullies or stream banks 186. In addition to carbon benefits may accrue where perennial grass cover reducing grazing pressure, stabilisation of gullies and stream is restored, or exotic pasture species are established on banks will also be required to improve water quality in many situations 132,137,171. As gully and streambank rehabilitation soils with moderate clay content. necessitates excluding cattle 136,187, it is unlikely to have any short term benefits for emission intensity of beef production, Soil conservation and water quality but should be a consideration of any whole-of-property Pastoral production 159-161 and ecosystem function 162 depend management plan. on keeping soil on paddocks . Soil erosion reduces agricultural productivity by reducing soil water-holding capacity and total nutrient supply and degrading soil structure 163,164. Hence, Adopting sustainable stocking strategies for reducing net primary productivity is highly correlated with annual soil the emission intensity of beef production will also reduce erosion rates 110. Soil that is lost from grazing lands may be soil loss and improve water quality. Where required, deposited downslope in the paddock or enter waterways, gully and/or streambank rehabilitation should also be where it degrades water quality 165. Fine soil particles travel incorporated into any whole-of-property management the furthest as suspended sediment, often polluting marine plan. environments 50,166,167. Good water quality is important for maintaining terrestrial wetland and marine ecosystems Exotic pasture species in good condition, and suspended sediment loads are Liveweight gain can be improved through the cultivation of implicated in their decline 168-171. productive exotic pasture species, as these improve feed- 188-190 Excessive sediment can bury or smother aquatic organisms, utilisation efficiency . This can involve over-sowing alter substrate composition, reduce light penetration and or replacing native pastures. Augmenting native pasture 172,173 with exotic legumes has been shown to be the best solitary alter water chemistry . These impacts can reduce 191 photosynthesis in aquatic plants and recruitment and survival practice for improving productivity . Leucaena leucocephala of a wide range of aquatic species (including seagrass, is the plants with the best-demonstrated production benefits in northern Australia. Leucaena can greatly increase carrying algae, coral and clams), thereby reducing cover and/or 48 192 species diversity 172,174,175. As many marine organisms rely on capacity , and improve liveweight gain , particularly when combined with buffel grass, where it has been shown to these species for food, impacts of excessive sedimentation 193 are felt throughout the aquatic food web 176. Seagrass improve gross margins by up to 37% . meadows are also important carbon sinks, so their loss to Introduced pasture species can have serious consequences sediment pollution contributes to GHG emissions 176. Not for biodiversity. The documented adverse effects of buffel all species are disadvantaged by excessive sedimentation, grass include increasing fuel loads, which cause increases the classic example being the crown-of-thorns starfish 177. in fire intensity and frequency, thereby eliminating canopy Population explosions of this species have been linked to species; and outcompeting and suppressing seed germination major runoff events, and are responsible for degrading reef in native plants, thereby reducing diversity and richness of ecosystems 178,180. ground-layer vegetation to the detriment of dependent fauna 194-197. Most of north-west Queensland is highly susceptible to Annual soil loss in north-west Queensland is well above 198 sustainable rates E. Most of this loss occurs in the wet season buffel grass invasion . This species is considered the most 181. There is little information on water quality in north-west significant weed threat to biodiversity in the North-West Highlands and one of the three most significant weeds in the Queensland. However, elsewhere in Queensland, strong 199 links have been made between grazing management, Mitchell Grass Downs . ground cover and water quality 68,182. Most soil loss comes Leucaena is also a concern for biodiversity conservation. It from bare patches, such as those created by overgrazing, can form dense thickets to the exclusion of all other species particularly when these are at the bottom of slopes 68,132. 200,201. It has become naturalised in small patches across Accelerated runoff caused by overgrazing also drives gully and north-west Queensland 202. Even Leucaena leucocephala ssp. streambank erosion 183, which is the source of the majority of glabrata – originally considered to have low weed potential fine-grained sediment entering waterways. – has become naturalised in some areas 200,201. For these reasons, cultivation of Leucaena is either discouraged or not As cover decreases, infiltration rate decrease, driving runoff 203,204 and soil loss 50,183, so restoring ground cover is needed to permitted in many Australian states . reduce both run-off and soil loss70,171 . Depending on soil and In order to avoid the adverse impacts of Leucaena, sterile pasture type, increasing ground cover to between 40% to varieties are being bred 203. Until these are widely available, 60% is needed to restrict soil loss to sustainable rates 50,99. it will be necessary to limit plantings to areas in which they Ground cover can be restored by reducing stocking rates to can be contained, away from areas of high conservation recommended levels and wet season spelling, which are also significance, and for the pastoralist to take responsibility for measures recommended for reducing emission intensity of eradicating escaped plants 205. These strategies are less likely beef production (see Ground cover). These measures can to be effective for buffel grass, a species for which effective fully restore the hydrological function of degraded pastures large‐scale management strategies, other than grazing or not within 15-20 years 70. Beyond them, total cattle exclusion can planting them in the first place, remain elusive 206,207. halve sediment loss in a single year 184. However, even these measures are likely to be inadequate to prevent soil loss

E Estimated soil loss rates: North-West Highlands: 20-50 times natural rates; Gulf Plains: 5 to 20 times natural rates; and Mitchell Grass Downs: 5 to 20 times natural rates 164,181.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 11 Establishing productive exotic species to improve pasture Woody vegetation cover productivity feed-utilisation and reduce emissions could Woody vegetation is an important component of biodiversity have adverse impacts on biodiversity both across grazing 235. It also provides wildlife habitat, nutrient and water 236,237 lands and into neighbouring properties. Management to cycling, and carbon storage . Trees may suppress pasture 238,239 limit the propagation and/or prevent the spread of exotic production in some situations , but can be important for the fertility status and growth of pastures in others 240. Very pasture species will therefore be needed to minimise these little of the Gulf Plains (0.9%), Mitchell Grass Downs (6.0%) impacts. or North-West Highlands (0.4%) has been cleared of woody vegetation 2,241. As a result, much of north-west Queensland Total grazing pressure is considered to be in good biodiversity condition 3,4, with little Feral and native herbivores can comprise a significant potential for increasing either carbon stocks or biodiversity proportion of grazing pressure. Feral animals that occur in conservation through assisted regrowth 242. north-west Queensland include cattle, pigs, rabbits, horses, goats and deer 7,208,209. Most of these species occur at low Historically, one of the most widespread approaches to density or are restricted to favourable habitats. Red kangaroos increasing liveweight gain has been to clear the trees and are widely distributed throughout the region, and eastern other woody vegetation 239,243-245. On some land types, grey kangaroos and antilopine wallaroos more sporadically clearance of woody vegetation provides short-term 7. The agile wallaby is also recognised as a problem species improvements to pastoral production 246. On others, better in the Gulf Plains 208. Numbers of problem herbivores are animal performance has been achieved when native tree unknown but are likely to fluctuate widely in relation to cover is retained 247. Vegetation clearance also causes loss of seasonal conditions 7. Damage mitigation permits for between biodiversity, declines in plant diversity, litter production and about 200,000 and 400,000 macropods were issued annually microbial biomass, soil pH and long term nutrient availability between 2014 and 2016, but a regional breakdown of data is and mineralisation 235,248,249. Clearance can also drive increases not available 210. in run-off and soil loss, especially when combined with heavy grazing 250. It not only generates significant amounts of GHG Adverse effects of feral herbivores include: emissions by reducing carbon stored in the vegetation, it • Reduce vegetation cover and increase areas of bare also reduces soil carbon stocks 237,251-253. For these reasons, ground 120,211 undertaking new vegetation clearance is not permitted under • Alter composition of ground-layer vegetation, selecting the BCHM method 30. However, the method does not prevent against palatable and perennial species 120,211-214 landholders clearing for other purposes. • prevent plant regeneration of plants 215,216 • increase soil erosion 217,219 There is a widespread perception that woody thickening • reduce soil carbon and nutrient status 220,221 is occurring in the Northern Gulf region, particularly by • alter the density and composition of the seed bank 120,222 breadfruit (Gardenia vilhelmii) and gutta-percha (Excoecaria • decrease seed production 223 parvifolia) 62,254-256. More than half the sites assessed on • disrupt microbial soil crusts 224 pastoral land in the region had higher than expected woodland density 56. Parts of the Mitchell Grass Downs have Grazing by kangaroos may have fewer adverse impacts on also suffered Gidgee encroachment257 . Vegetation thickening soil health and biodiversity, but has been shown to adversely is listed as a threatening process in only one Regional affect reptile abundance, richness and diversity, as well as the Ecosystem in north-west Queensland (4.9.11: Gidgee low occurrence of several ground-dwelling reptiles 87. woodland), but is a significant fire management issue in many Where feral herbivores are significant, reducing their numbers others (Gulf Plains: 50%; North-West Highlands: 4%; Mitchell to improve pasture condition – and hence food quality – Grass Downs: 61%) 257. However, perceptions of woody should be an effective mechanism for improving emission thickening have been contested, as the tree-grass balance in intensity 225. It should also have biodiversity benefits 226-229. the region appears to respond to climate cycles 258,259. Woody Control of macropods through passive means may also have thickening changes wildlife community composition, and benefits for pasture availability. Control of feral herbivores disadvantages species that depend on open habitats 260-262. should also make a positive contribution to reducing Where woody thickening has occurred, it may be Australia’s GHG emissions 230. management-related (driven by over-grazing and ineffective Macropod control can be problematic. Direct culling raises fire management) or the result of atmospheric carbon- ethical issues, and fencing out artificial waterpoints has been dioxide fertilisation 263,264. Regardless of the cause, improving shown to be ineffective at reducing the abundance of red grazing and fire management has been shown to be effective kangaroos 231. Dingoes provide effective macropod population at restoring the former tree-grass balance 52,60-62. Reversing control, but also harm and destroy livestock 232,233. Methods woody thickening on grazing lands should lead to pasture of maintaining dingo populations for macropod control that improvement and productivity gains 52, and hence improved avoid livestock loss are being trialled, but are more likely to be emission intensity, and have some biodiversity benefits. successful under intensive stock management than they are The most effective way to manage thickening is to spell the in rangeland grazing systems 234. pasture to allow fuel to build up, then burn when a hot fire can be achieved, particularly just after the first wet season 52,60-62 Controlling feral herbivores should have co-benefits storms . Where grass fuel loads have not been too for pastoral production, biodiversity conservation, and severely reduced by thickening and annual hot fires can be emission reduction both directly and indirectly through achieved, it may be possible to restore a healthy tree-grass balance after one to two burns 62. Where fuel is less abundant, improved feed quality. Control of macropods through reversing woody thickening may take several years 60. The passive means may also improve the emission intensity of BCHM method does not prohibit using fire to manage woody beef production in some circumstances. thickening 30. Nor does it account for any changes in carbon stocks as a result of managing vegetation thickening – either

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 12 for letting thickening develop, or reversing it using fire. Weed management However, as fires emit GHGs in their smoke, and thinning of Weeds have the potential to reduce pastoral production, vegetation emits carbon from sequestered carbon pools 265,266, displace native species and degrade ecosystems. Many weeds there is the risk that emissions may be included in assessment reduce pasture quality and extent, and can promote erosion future versions of the method 267. by reducing ground cover 268. The biggest economic impact of weeds on pastoral production is through reductions in While vegetation clearance is an ineligible activity under liveweight gain, but weeds can also increase mustering costs, 269,270 BCHM, clearing for other purposes is not prohibited. In and poison and kill stock . Even weeds, such as prickly some situations, using wet season spelling and hot fires to acacia, that may provide fodder during droughts can impose a 271 reverse woody thickening may improve emission intensity nett cost on pastoral production . of beef production, with biodiversity benefits. Emissions There are numerous weeds that adversely affect pastoral produced by managing woody thickening will generate production and/or biodiversity in north-west Queensland emissions are currently not included in emission intensity (Appendix 1). The most significant weeds for cattle production calculations, but there is the risk they may be in the include prickly acacia, parkinsonia, noogoora burr, mesquite, future. rubber vine and parthenium (Figure 1). These species also affect biodiversity adversely by replacing important habitat and altering the fire regime (Table 2). Their control will therefore have both pastoral and biodiversity benefits.

Figure 1. Major weeds species with significant impacts on pastoral or biodiversity values in north-west Queensland Data source: Queensland Spatial Catalogue http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue [Accessed 18 Oct 2019].

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 13 Figure 1 (continued). Major weeds species with significant impacts on pastoral or biodiversity values in north-west Queensland Data source: Queensland Spatial Catalogue http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue [Accessed 18 Oct 2019]. Control of some weeds could lead to improvements in been made would be considered eligible activities under this liveweight gain and therefore contribute to emission method, as control of some weeds may not even produce the reduction. For example, parthenium infestations can production returns that justify the expense of eradication 273. reduce beef production by up to 4.2% 269. Biological control Therefore, weed control that leads to improvement in of parthenium in buffel grass and Queensland bluegrass pasture quality should be considered a worthwhile activity pastures has been estimated generate up to an additional that complements other improvements to liveweight gain 32.5 kg of feed per hectare in the short-term, which translates and emission intensity, rather than an emission reduction into 0.3% increase in liveweight gain 272. Therefore, control of activity on its own. As emission intensity is calculated parthenium could be considered an eligible activity under the for the whole herd, rather than attributed to any single BCHM method, even though the small expected improvement activity, any improvement to liveweight gain that results would mean that it is unlikely to be a financially viable activity from weed control would still attract carbon credits under on its own. It is even more questionable as to whether control the BCHM method. of other weeds for which economic assessments have not

Table 2. Examples of weeds that are recognised as adversely affecting North-west Queensland threatened species

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 14 ater hyacinth ater † EPBC status † NCA status P rickly acacia Parkinsonia Rubber vine grass Grader W grass Para palms Date burr Noogoora Source Species * hymenachne Olive Julia Creek dunnart V En Yes 274 Redfin blue-eye En En Yes Yes 275 Australian painted snipe En V Yes 276 Crimson finch (white-bellied) En En Yes Yes Yes 277 Salt pipewort En En Yes 278 The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great - Yes Yes Yes Yes 278 Artesian Basin Purple-crowned fairy-wren - V Yes 279

* See Appendix 2 for scientific names † EPBC (under Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) and NCA (under the Nature Conservation Act 1992) status codes: En, Endangered; V, Vulnerable. Controlling weeds that adversely affect biodiversity, but either key areas of conflict between pastoralism and conservation in have minimal impact on pasture quality or have specifically northern Australia 33,280-282. been introduced as improved pasture species, will not lead A number of species that were originally introduced for to improved emission intensity, so will not be facilitated by pasture improvement have has such serious environmental uptake of the BCHM method. A case in point is buffel grass, impacts that their use has now been prohibited in perhaps the most significant weed for biodiversity in north- Queensland. These include gamba grass (Figure 1g) and olive west Queensland (Figure 2a). Its impact, and that of other hymenachne (Figure 2b). Although of limited extent in north- introduced pasture plants, is discussed under Exotic pasture west Queensland, these species are a particular concern species. Because these introduced plants improve pasture because of their potential to increase fuel loads and transform quality, their use would be rewarded rather than penalised native vegetation 281-283. However, their control is unlikely to under this method. Management of these grasses is one of the benefit pastoral production or reduce emissions.

Figure 2. Distribution of water weeds and buffel grass species in north-west Queensland Data source: Water weeds: Queensland Spatial Catalogue http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue [Accessed 18 Oct 2019]; Buffel grass species: Australian Virtual Herbarium https://avh.chah.org.au [Accessed 19 Oct 2019].

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 15 Management of many weeds will have both pastoral fires in the project years; or when fire is used to stimulate a and biodiversity benefits. However, evidence of a linkage short-term pasture response. Liveweight gains associated between weed control and liveweight gain has only been with Weed management or reducing Woody vegetation demonstrated for parthenium, and this improvement cover may be too small or too long in the making to be a is marginal. Weed control should therefore be seen viable eligible activity. However, as with Weed management, any improvement to liveweight gain that results from fire as complementing other practices adopted to reduce management would be credited under the method, as long as emission intensity under the BCHM method, rather than another eligible activity is listed for that year. an eligible activity in its own right. As emission intensity is calculated for the whole herd, rather than attributed to At present, emissions from fires are not included in the carbon any single activity, any improvement to liveweight gain calculations under this method, but they are included in the 301,302 that results from weed control would then be credited savanna burning and sequestration methods . Where an ERF project that involves fire management is undertaken on under the method. the same lands as a BCHM project, fire regimes will need to be designed to meet the obligations and requirements of both Biodiversity benefits of uptake of the BCHM method methods. There is also the risk that – in future iterations of will be limited to control of weeds that have a negative the BCHM method – if pastoralists propose fire management impact on forage quality. Moreover, introduced pasture as an eligible activity to reduce emission intensity of beef plants remain a significant area of contention between production, they will also be asked to account for emissions pastoralism and biodiversity conservation. Improving from smoke or loss of woody vegetation. pasture quality using buffel grass or other exotic species In general, fire regimes that benefit cattle production should is likely to improve liveweight gain, and may therefore be also benefit wildlife. Fire-sensitive species with small home promoted in BCHM projects. This is likely to have adverse ranges cannot tolerate extensive fires, which can destroy consequences for biodiversity. their habitat over large areas and inhibit recolonisation as the habitat recovers 303,304. Therefore, management of Fire management fire to improve liveweight gain by preventing extensive Fire can be used in a number of ways to improve pasture wildfire spread should also have biodiversity benefits. In quality and availability on pastoral properties, including by addition, as wildlife benefits from healthy ground cover, • Burning firebreaks early in the year to protect pasture and are disadvantaged by weeds (see Ground cover and resources from later wildfires 284,285 Weed management), fire management to improve ground • Burning under-utilised areas to improve their palatability cover and/or the condition of native pasture should also temporarily, encouraging livestock away from over-grazed have biodiversity benefits. Fire management to restore an areas, and so allowing their recovery 223,286,287 open vegetation structure should also benefit grassland • Burning then spelling to promote recovery of preferred species, such as the golden-shouldered parrot 305, but will not pasture species 288,289 necessarily benefit woodland or shrubland species 262. • Burning in the late dry season or just after the first wet season storm to promote perennial grass growth and/or Management of many weeds will have both pastoral and seeding 78,290,293 biodiversity benefits. However, evidence of a linkage between • Burning to provide a favourable seedbed for sowing weed control and liveweight gain has only been demonstrated introduced pastures for parthenium, and this improvement is marginal. Weed • Burning to reduce the impact of weeds on pasture control should therefore be seen as complementing other resources 294,295 practices adopted to reduce emission intensity under the • Burning to reduce the impact of woody thickening on BCHM method, rather than an eligible activity in its own right. pasture resources 60,61,296 As emission intensity is calculated for the whole herd, rather than attributed to any single activity, any improvement to Fire regimes need to be planned and implemented carefully liveweight gain that results from weed control would then be as some regimes can lead to pasture degradation by reducing credited under the method. palatable species, and promoting undesirable species, erosion and woody thickening, particularly when combined Fire management to improve pasture condition and 292,297,299. with heavy grazing restrict the extent of late dry season wildfires can Liveweight gain can be expected in the short-term from reasonably be expected to improve liveweight gain improvements in the nutritional value of the pastures that and reduce emission intensity of beef production. It result from burning. Steers on burnt native speargrass is therefore a valid practice change to make in BCHM pastures grew 10% more in a year than steers grazing projects. Using fire to manage weeds may provide 300 unburnt pastures . Improvements to liveweight could also marginal returns, so should be not be considered as the be expected when fire has been used successfully to control primary means of reducing emission intensity in any year. of woody thickening or exotic weeds 269,272. Improved fire All three practices should also benefit biodiversity by management therefore has reasonable prospects of leading increasing fire patchiness, reducing erosion, increasing to improvements in emission intensity of beef production, so – as long as it is well-designed – fire management ground cover and improving the condition of native should be considered an eligible activity under the BCHM pastures. Using fire to manage woody thickening could method. Whether fire management is a viable option to list also have marginal returns but will provide biodiversity as a practice change under this method will depend on the benefit in specific cases. timing and magnitude of the response. It is most likely to be profitable if the baseline included several years with extensive wildfires, and the pastoralist is confident of containing

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 16 Spreading pasture utilisation of the annual pasture growth, or up to 50% when combined Cattle have the best weight gains and weaning rates, and with spelling 93. However, expanding grazing pressure into the lowest mortality where they graze moderately and previously under-utilised areas is likely to displace many evenly across the landscape and do not need to travel far to grazing intolerant species 209,307. water 22,47,52,306. Moderating pasture utilisation in overgrazed While some species flourish around artificial waterpoints, paddocks and bringing under-utilised country into production others suffer from the effects of the heavy grazing pressure, through strategic placement of infrastructure can therefore where it can cause soil erosion; an increase in unpalatable be expected to produce beef with the best improvement in plants; a decrease in perennial native grasses; and an increase emission intensity 22,43. This approach involves combining two in the abundance of native and introduced herbivores and strategies, one that has biodiversity benefits and one that can introduced predators 307. Species most likely to be affected degrade sensitive biodiversity values. include ground-nesting birds. However, declines in grazing- As described earlier, moderating grazing pressure improves sensitive species of plants, grasshoppers, ants and beetles the cover and the condition of ground-layer vegetation, have also been documented 307. Indeed, any species that thereby providing important food plants, shelter and decreases in response to increased grazing pressure is protection from predators (see Ground cover and Grazing likely to be adversely affected by the spread of waterpoints land condition). The ground-layer can be maintained in (see Appendix 3). good condition or restored by limiting cattle grazing to 25%

Table 3. North-west Queensland species that have been shown to decline around waterpoints

Common name Species NWH * GUP * MGD * Source Plants Australian carrot Daucus glochidiatus + + 308 Bindi-eye Calotis cuneifolia + + + 308 Bladder saltbush Atriplex vesicaria + + 308 Blue heronsbill Erodium cygnorum + + 308 Brush threeawn Aristida obscura + + 308 Common white sunray Rhodanthe floribunda + + 308 Crimson turkey bush Eremophila latrobei + + + 309 Desert lantern Abutilon leucopetalum + + 309 Dwarf lantern flower Abutilon fraseri + + + 308 Frosted goosefruit Chenopodium desertorum + 309 Green copperburr Sclerolaena decurrens + + 308 Limestone grass Enneapogon polyphyllus + + + 308 Ruby saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa + + + 309 Serrated goodenia Goodenia cycloptera + + 308 Slender pigweed Portulaca filifolia + + + 308 Spiny saltbush Rhagodia spinescens + + 308 Twin-head goodenia Goodenia berardiana + + 308 Birds Chestnut-breasted quail-thrush Cinclosoma castaneothorax + 310 Grey shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica + + + 310 * Bioregional codes: GUP, Gulf Plains; MGD, Mitchell Grass Downs; NWH, North-West Highlands. Maintaining healthy populations species that are intolerant of cattle grazing requires maintaining some areas that are at least 6 km, and preferably 8-10 km, from permanent water 52,209. In most of north-west Queensland, this will require de- stocking and waterpoint closure, and so can probably only be achieved on dedicated conservation reserves 209. Within individual properties, fencing sections of high conservation value will help to protect species that are sensitive to cattle grazing. The benchmark standard for North Grazing Systems is for 10% of each property to be maintained as water- remote 52. These areas may require management of pigs and macropods.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 17 Reducing pasture utilisation to around 20% as an eligible Supplementary feeding practice under the BCHM method should produce the Supplementary feeding has two functions. It can be used to fastest liveweight gain, highest weaning rates and lowest tide animals over a period of food shortage, or it can be used mortality, and hence the lowest emission intensity. It to increase the efficiency of how well food is digested. Both should also benefit biodiversity by reducing erosion, allow cattle to grow well while on poor pasture resources, so can degrade the natural resource base 317, with flow-on increasing ground cover, improving nature pasture impacts to biodiversity (see Ground cover and Grazing land condition and reducing predation pressure from cats. condition). Supplements that have been shown to increase Spreading grazing pressure by reducing the distance liveweight gain include sources of protein (cottonseed meal, cattle have to travel to water also reduces emission fishmeal, algae), energy (barley, sorghum, molasses, lipids) intensity through similar mechanisms. However, where and phosphorus 191,318,321. Some forms of supplementary pastoral development results in little of the country feeding are unlikely to be economical. This includes on-farm remaining ungrazed, it will have an adverse impact on production of irrigated forage 322. Protein supplementation biodiversity. Where infrastructure development is to be of feed is also likely to be less cost-effective than sowing used to spread grazing pressure, then it should also be legumes 191 (see Exotic pasture species). used to exclude some parts of each property from grazing. Supplementation removes nutritional limitations 323, and hence boosts animal growth and calving rates, and reduces Genetic herd improvement and vaccination mortality, with corresponding increases in total grass Genetic modification to improve the emission intensity of consumption 323,324. Historically, this has led to increased 311,313 beef production should have biodiversity benefits . Where pasture utilisation rates across much of northern Australia, genetic selection is used to reduce the age of the animal at causing pasture degradation and feed shortages 91,317,323,326, as slaughter, it can help to reduce grazing pressure on pastures well as woody thickening in some areas 327. Therefore, when by reducing life-time food consumption or the number of supplements are fed, stocking rates need to be adjusted to animals needed to produce each slaughtered animal. There avoid overgrazing 328. are a number of ways genetic selection is being used to reduce emission intensity: Under the BCHM method, there are almost no restrictions • Selection to improve the conversion of feed into growth has on the use of supplements. Only feeding of non-protein been used to reduce daily feed intake, reducing methane by nitrogen (e.g. urea or nitrates) is disallowed, and this is 329 15% and daily emission by 16% 314 because it is covered by another ERF method . There is • Replacement of British breeds with a composite breed also no requirement for the use of dietary supplements with superior resistance to disease, heat tolerance, fitness to be combined with reduced stocking rates. However, if and reproductive rates has been used to increase in the pastures are allowed to deteriorate, then liveweight gains proportion of cows that birth live calves (weaner rate), will drop and emission intensity will increase. This should be reducing emission intensity by 31% 43 a disincentive to pastoralists aiming to increase productivity • Selection to extend the reproductive life of females has and reduce emissions, and so offer some protection against been used to reduce emission intensity by 6.4% in lamb pasture degradation. production and by 4% in cow’s milk production 311 Using supplementary feeding to improve the emission These forms of genetic selection reduce grazing pressure intensity of beef production has the potential to adversely by reducing the number of animals needed to produce affect resource condition and biodiversity, if not managed each kilogram of beef and the time they spend feeding, as long as the herd size is not increased to compensate for the carefully. It should always be combined with sustainable reduced feed intake. pasture utilisation rates and, where possible, spelling pastures at the start of the wet season. As with genetic improvement, vaccination to reduce the emission intensity of beef production should have Summary of biodiversity benefits biodiversity benefits. This is because vaccination improves Biodiversity provides humanity with important ecosystem growth rates, with early turnoff of cattle reducing grazing services, such as clean water and clean air 330. Society also 315 pressure on pastures . values the many plants, animals and micro-organisms that 331,332 Genetic modification and vaccination could also have constitute biodiversity in their own right . Land managers perverse outcomes. For example, when Brahman cattle therefore have a duty of care to manage biodiversity 333,334 originally replaced Shorthorn cattle in northern Australian sustainably and act as stewards for the common good . herds, their better rates of survival through the harsh Previous sections of this report have assessed the impact of dry season increased grazing pressure at the start of the different practice changes that might be adopted under the wet season 316. So along with improving the hardiness of BCHM method on biodiversity. This section summarises and animals, extra care will be needed to ensure that they do not extends these findings. overgraze, and particularly to rest pastures at the start of the Heavy grazing pressure can have adverse effects on 306 growing season . the abundance and diversity of native species, and/or community composition. Adverse effects of grazing have been Genetic selection and vaccination to reduce the number demonstrated for many species, including: and age of animals needed to produce each kilogram • Microbiota 129,130 of beef should also reduce grazing pressure, as long • Plants 33,50,275,309,335,341 as the herd size is not increased to compensate for the • Invertebrates 70,335,342 diminished feed intake. Restricting pasture utilisation • Fish 341 87,338,341,343 rates to sustainable levels and spelling pastures at the • Reptiles 275,310,339,341,343-345 start of the wet season will help to ensure genetic herd • Birds • Mammals 80,339,342,346-349 improvement and does not have perverse outcomes.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 18 Not all species are disadvantaged by grazing, with several areas either need to be fenced to exclude cattle (and other increaser species benefiting from grazing-related disturbance introduced herbivores) or at least 6 km from water – which and reduction in competition from decreaser species 33,340,350. is the distance cattle will regularly travel from water 209. As The response of large macropods to grazing is complex very few areas in north-west Queensland are more than 6 km and appears to be over-ridden by the effects of predation from water, exclusion fencing will need to be considered as pressure from dingoes 80,351,352. Conversely, where dingoes are part of whole-of-property planning where grazing-sensitive effectively controlled as part of cattle management, increased species are known to occur, particularly where these species grazing macropod pressure is likely to have adverse effects on are threatened. ground cover (see Total grazing pressure), and therefore on biodiversity. As low emission intensity of beef production is best Adverse grazing impacts on biodiversity are caused by a achieved where ground-layer vegetation is in good reduction in soil health and/or plant cover and structure 97,348,353, condition, uptake of the BCHM method should have changes in nutrient status and seed dispersal 354, removal of biodiversity benefits. Fencing habitat for conservation of important food plants 78, domination by exotic pasture species threatened and/or grazing intolerant species should also and weeds 101,355, sedimentation of aquatic environments 168-171, be incorporated into whole-of-property planning. In some and trophic cascades affecting interdependent species356 . Bare cases, the reintroduction of species into these exclusion 103 patches created by overgrazing facilitate predation by cats , areas may also be appropriate. and ground-layer species are more likely to be affected than are 357 canopy species . Water-use efficiency An extensive list of species that perform better under low Water scarcity is a growing environmental concern, and grazing pressure than under high grazing pressure is provided perceptions that red meat production is wasteful of water 363 in Appendix 3. These species would be expected to benefit has helped to fuel objections to beef industry . On a global from reducing grazing pressure through (1) complete and scale, it has been estimated that six times as much water is 363 permanent destocking, (2) temporary destocking to enhance used in producing protein from beef than from pulses , 364,365 pasture recovery (spelling), or (3) permanent stocking rate but these figures do not necessarily apply in Australia . reduction. These are examined below. Estimates of the amount of water used in raising rangeland • Complete destocking of cattle in northern Australia has cattle vary enormously depending on the components been shown to have the following biodiversity benefits: included and the assumptions made, such as how much • Increased cover of ground-layer vegetation 223,358 water is extracted from plant matter or returned to the 364-368 • Increased cover of native perennial grasses and native and environment . The vast majority of the water used in 363 introduced annual grasses and herbs and reduce areas of raising beef is consumed in feed production . This only bare ground 343 contributes to water scarcity when cattle feed is grown under 369 • Increased flowering and seed production 358 irrigation rather than rain . Hence, the grazing of rainfed • Increase species richness and abundance of small native native pastures has little impact on water scarcity. Over 85% 370 mammals and reptiles 346,358,359 of the feed crops grown in Queensland are rainfed , so • Increase kangaroo numbers 360 supplementation by Queensland-grown sorghum or corn (maize) also requires minimal water use. Hence, the water Responses to destocking will vary between land types and footprint of beef cattle raised in Australian rangelands is in relation to historical grazing pressure, and recovery is actually quite similar to that of many broad-acre crops 364. least likely where significant biodiversity losses have already occurred or climatic conditions are unfavourable 338,343,358,360. Many of the actions recommended to improve the emission Moreover, recovery may be hampered by compensatory intensity of beef raised in Australian rangelands also increases in grazing pressure by both native and feral improve water-use efficiency. Fundamentally, improving the herbivores 361. slaughter weight-for-age ratio of cattle improves water-use • Spelling pasture during the growing (wet) season has been efficiency because it reduces lifetime intake of both food and 369 shown to increase basal area and biomass of perennial water . However, individual actions to improve emission grasses 59,362 intensity may have positive or negative impacts on water • While few studies have followed the effects of reducing use. For example, providing shading to limit the impact of stocking rate on biodiversity, studies showing an inverse heat stress on animal growth rates can also reduce daily 371 relationship between stocking rate and biodiversity water consumption . However, improving feed-utilisation condition Appendix 3 suggest that improving ground-layer efficiency should benefit water-use efficiency through its 363 condition should have biodiversity benefits impact on growth rates , but any improvement may be offset by the use of pastures or supplementary feed that are The moderate grazing pressures needed for reducing the produced under irrigation 364. Changing herd composition to emission intensity of beef production should therefore benefit improve reproduction rates may increase daily water and feed biodiversity by maintaining a healthy ground-layer. However, consumption, which are elevated in pregnant and lactating where species have been lost from the local environment, animals 37-374. But these increases are likely to be offset by the reducing – or even totally excluding – cattle grazing is unlikely culling of non-reproductive animals. Hence, the impact of the to see their re-establishment, and re-introduction from other BCHM method on water scarcity will depend on the suite of 343 healthy population may be required . practices that are adopted. Two significant areas of conflict between cattle grazing Finally, some of the largest water losses from pastoral and biodiversity remain. These are expansion into under- enterprises are not through water consumption, but utilised areas and introduction of exotic pasture species through evaporation from dams 364. Such losses would 33 . Some species are unlikely to persist under any degree occur regardless of the intended use of the dam water. of cattle grazing pressure, so their conservation requires Some options to reduce evaporative losses, such as the maintenance or creation of ungrazed areas 120,309. Such

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 19 bore capping and pumping water to trough, may also can be addressed through whole-of-property planning that have biodiversity benefits 375. Other options, such as the includes management of high conservation value parts of the application of monolayers 376, may be less environmentally landscape for biodiversity. The aggregation model therefore desirable 377. Neither are likely to improve emission intensity provides a pathway to sustainable land management through directly, but should still be considered as part of whole-of- contracted practice improvement. enterprise planning. Improving resource condition and profitable production Improving beef cattle herd management should improve go hand-in-hand. However, sustainable land water-use efficiency of beef production where it improves management can be difficult for small pastoral businesses food-utilisation efficiency, increases the proportion of or on pastoral enterprises that are in financial difficulty; reproductive animals in the herd and/or reduces age-for- and the financial benefits of the carbon market are only weight ratio at slaughter. Additional measures, such as accessible to the largest cattle producers. This constraint bore capping, could be adopted to reduce water losses can be overcome through an aggregated BCHM project. further. Animal welfare NRM engagement and best practice uptake Many of the management practices known to reduce emission Pastoralists have a duty of care to manage the natural intensity also improve cattle health and reduce animal resource base on which they rely for producing cattle deaths 392. Such practices include vaccination, moderating sustainably 13. The charter of NRM bodies is to facilitate stocking rates, supplementary feeding and early weaning. the uptake of sustainable land management practices Conversely, management to improve animal welfare can also 378. There are many challenges to this task, and adoption improve growth and survival, and therefore can be expected rates can be low 379,380. Factors influencing uptake include to reduce emission intensity. Measures to reduce animal lifestyle choices, peer pressure, resistance to change, lack stress that could be expected to reduce emission intensity of knowledge or skills, distrust of information, and lack of therefore include best-practice branding and dehorning; financial capacity to restructure operations 381-385. However, self-mustering and self-weighing options; provision of shelter pastoralists are most likely to adopt sustainable practices sheds to reduce heat stress; increasing density of waterpoints; that have been demonstrated as improving enterprise and reducing transport distances 392-394. Some actions to profitability 382,384-386, and where they have voluntarily entered improve growth and emission intensity may raise welfare into contracted stewardship arrangements for improving concerns. The main issue is with spaying weaner heifers to resource condition 387. Economies of scale mean that practice improve survival and growth 392. However, even the growth improvement may only be financially viable on the largest and survival benefits of this practice are questionable 395-397. properties 21. North-west Queensland’s beef-producing enterprises are In general, activities undertaken to reduce the emission ranked among Australia’s least profitable and most financially intensity of beef production will also improve animal unsustainable 14,15. On average, grazing enterprises in the welfare. Notable exceptions include the spaying of weaner Northern and Southern Gulf NRM regions run at a loss in at heifers, which has questionable growth benefits. least one in three years 16,F. Financial stress in the region has been exacerbated by stock losses associated with extended Regional economic development drought and severe flooding 17,18. It has also been a major There are about 2,300 agricultural businesses in north-west cause of hardship across the region, taking a toll on mental Queensland, which currently provide approximately 15.4% of and physical health, and reduced personal, business and the jobs 398,G. Except in the far east of the region, most of these community resilience 13,19,388,389. Financial stress restricts operations are beef businesses 1. The number of agricultural pastoralists’ capacity to undertake changes needed to businesses has remained fairly stable, but the total number improve enterprise viability and environmental conditions, of agricultural jobs declined by 15%, from 3,970 in 2011 to or to cope with drought. It can also drive exacerbate 3,377 in 2016, increasing only in the northeast of the region, environmental degradation as producers tend to overstock in suggesting a shift to irrigated agriculture. Loss of agricultural order to service their debts 13,19,390,391. jobs reflects the financial stress being experienced by the cattle industry and is contributing to regional economic As demonstrated throughout this report, the most effective downturn 13,19,389. means of reducing emission intensity is to improve resource condition. However, the transaction costs of registering and Improving the financial viability of cattle enterprises resulting operating a BCHM project are likely to exclude all but the from productivity improvements and emission reduction largest pastoral operations in north-west Queensland 29. should benefit the regional economy, including through The aggregation model proposed in this report allows beef the production of jobs 13,399-401. Adoption of an inclusive cattle producers with smaller herds to both participate in a employment policy will further these benefits. BCHM project and access extension services and resources that will help them improve their profitability and reduce emission intensity. In addition to emission reduction, entry to the aggregation can be conditional on monitoring and improving resource condition and addressing biodiversity values. Potential conflict with biodiversity conservation

F Gross Margin / Animal Equivalent for the Gulf has been estimated at $36.92, approximately one-sixth of that achieved in central Queensland ($239.62 GM/AE). G Based on statistics for Outback North, Barcaldine-Blackall, Croydon-Etheridge, Far Central West, Longreach and Tablelands statistical regions

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 20 The agricultural sector provides one in six jobs in north- fencing, weed, pest and/or fire management, and other forms west Queensland. However, employment in the sector of ecosystem restoration 400,405. Ranger groups providing a has been declining in response to increasing financial wide range of services in north-west Queensland include the 406 407 stress. Improved viability of pastoral enterprises through Gangalidda Garawa Rangers , Normanton Rangers and 408,409 participation in the carbon economy should benefit the Lake Eyre Basin Rangers . regional economy, including through the production of Pastoralists can also negotiate an Indigenous Land Use jobs. Adoption of an inclusive employment policy will Agreement (ILUA) to enable Traditional Owners to access and further these benefits. use their traditional land and waters for hunting, fishing and undertaking other cultural activities 410-412. Many cattle stations Indigenous wellbeing and economic development in north-west Queensland are on leasehold land where opportunities Native Title interests still exist 413. While the Commonwealth Indigenous people have a long association with the Native Title Act 1993 allows pastoral leases to be renewed Queensland beef industry, which was largely built on and developed, diversification into other land uses requires Aboriginal labour 402,403. Some of the land re-acquired by the consent of Native Title owners 414. Entering into good- Traditional Owners is now being used for cattle operations. faith negotiations with Indigenous people to provide access This includes Delta Downs 404, Lawn Hill and Riversleigh, and long-term employment opportunities will facilitate this and Bulimba in the Gulf Plains bioregion, and Calton Hills in transition 400. It will also pave the way for carbon credits to the North-West Highlands. These enterprises are important achieve Gold Standard accreditation so that they can be sold sources of revenue and employment for Indigenous people, at premium prices (see Carbon credits). as well as opportunities for Traditional Owners to maintain and restore their connection to country, and to improve the Indigenous pastoral enterprises participating in BCHM condition of their traditional lands. Improving their viability projects will benefit from the increased revenue, with the through the uptake of best-practice management to improve potential to increase the number of Indigenous people productivity and reduce emission intensity of beef production that can be employed to manage cattle while Caring should help to bolster the financial wellbeing of Indigenous for Country on their traditional lands. Other pastoral communities 13,400,401. enterprises can contribute to Indigenous well-being Pastoral operations can contribute to Indigenous economic through employment and service agreements, as well as development by employing Indigenous workers – or engaging negotiating Indigenous Land Use Agreements. Indigenous service providers – for tasks such as mustering,

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 21 Prioritisation

Beef Cattle Herd Management • The floodplains of the upper reaches of the Flinders This report demonstrates how reductions in the emission catchments, upstream of the Confluence between the intensity of beef production and ground cover improvement Flinders and Cloncurry rivers, in the Gulf Plains bioregion are inextricably linked. Therefore, the priority areas for the (McKinlay Shire). uptake of the BCHM method are where ground cover falls • The southern section of the Southwestern Downs province below benchmark levels. These are also the areas where of the Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion, along the drainage the most improvement can be made in both grazing land divide between the Diamantina and Georgina Rivers condition and animal growth rates, and hence provide the (Diamantina Shire). greatest reductions in emission intensity. This is because, • The upper catchment of the Thompson River, in the Mitchell where ground cover is poor, reductions in emission intensity Grass Downs bioregion (Longreach Region). will only be possible by reducing stocking rates, especially by • The central section of the Karumba Plain in the Gulf Plains reducing the number of non-productive animals in the herd bioregion, between Normanton and just west of Burketown (see Grazing land condition). (Carpentaria and Burke shires). • The western and southern slopes of the North-West Areas with lower than expected ground cover were identified Highlands, and the adjoining areas of Mitchell Grass Downs by the Queensland Government’s Biodiversity Assessment bioregion, in the upper reaches of the Georgina River Team using Ground Cover Disturbance Index mapping in catchment (Boulia Shire). 2014 (Figure 3). This mapping compared trends in remotely- • The divide between the upper reaches of the Norman sensed ground cover indices with expected benchmark levels, and Flinders rivers, in the Gulf Plains (primarily in controlling for Regional Ecosystem and Bioregional Provinces. McKinlay Shire). It highlights the following areas of greatest disturbance, in • The divide between the middle reaches of the Flinders descending order: and Leichhardt rivers, in the Gulf Plains (northern • The upper catchment of the Diamantina River in the section of Cloncurry Shire and the southern section of Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion, in an area bounded by Carpentaria Shire). Richmond, Winton and McKinlay (Winton, Richmond and – to a lesser extent – McKinlay shires).

Figure 3. Ground Cover Disturbance Index on grazing lands for (a) north-west Queensland bioregions, (b) Gulf Plains, (c) North-West Highlands and (d) Mitchell Grass Downs Data source: The Ground Cover Disturbance Index, developed by the Queensland Government, is based on the ground cover time series, and adjusted for Regional Ecosystems, assuming uniform climatic conditions within each bioregional province 415. Bioregional codes: (a) GUP, Gulf Plains; MGD, Mitchell Grass Downs; NWH, North- West Highlands. Bioregional Province codes: (b) AP, Armraynald Plains; CP, Claraville Plains; Do, Donors Plateau; DP, Doomadgee Plains; GP, Gilberton Plateau; HR, Holroyd Plain-Red Plateau; KP, Karumba Plains; MG, Mitchell-Gilbert Fans; WP, Woondoola Plains; (c) Mc, McArthur; MI, Mount Isa; SWP, Southwestern Plateaus and Floodouts; Th, Thorntonia; and (d) BT, Barkly Tableland; CD, Central Downs; GL, Georgina Limestone; KyP, Kynuna Plateau; ND, Northern Downs; SD, Southern Wooded Downs; SWD, Southwestern Downs.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 22 The above prioritisation is only a general guide. On-ground on Regional Ecosystems that have been mapped using assessment will be required to confirm its veracity and to the interpretation of aerial photographs with on-ground account for several years of drought that have occurred assessments of representative areas across Queensland, since the mapping was done, and have probably expanded with an 80% accuracy 423. Mapped as land parcels and the areas of ground-layer vegetation in poor condition. available for all three north-west Queensland bioregions. In addition, ground cover is likely to have been adversely • Strategic Offset Investment Corridors and hubs (SOIC). affected in several areas subject to flooding on a regular basis, Areas where conservation effort can most effectively offset including Areas 1 and 2, which experienced catastrophic development impacts based on biodiversity values across a flooding in February 2019. Such floods have a devastating range of landscape, community and species criteria derived impact on both production and biodiversity 416-420. Therefore, from a combination of database analysis, modelling and these areas are likely to be an ongoing high priority for expert opinion (Figure 4b) 424. Factors assessed include restoring ground cover. terrestrial ecosystems, freshwater or geological features, ecosystem service delivery, climate change resilience, threatened species and communities, habitat condition, threatening processes, and potential for rehabilitation, maintenance or enhancement of the environmental values. Mapped as land parcels and available for all three north- west Queensland bioregions. • Concentration of rare and threatened species threatened by extensive wildfires. The Carpentarian Corridor has been identified as supporting most of the fire-sensitive species found in north-west Queensland (Figure 4c), including the Carpentarian grasswren, Gouldian finch, purple-necked rock-wallaby and Carpentarian antechinus 425. Mapped as land parcels and restricted to the North-West Highlands. • Wetlands (Figure 4c). Mapped as individual wetland sites (national significance) from ground-based inspection 426 or as part of Regional Ecosystem mapping (wetlands of state and regional significance) 423. Available for all three north- Healthy spinifex ground cover in the North-West Highlands © west Queensland bioregions. Leasie Felderhof, Firescape Science • Biodiversity Planning Assessment (BPA). Areas with high biodiversity values across a range of landscape, community Beef Cattle Herd Management Plus and species criteria; Figure 4d). Captures many of the same In addition to improving ground cover through the uptake of features as SOIC assessments. Not available for North-West BCHM, whole-of-enterprise planning is particularly important Highlands. Mapped at the Regional Ecosystem level. for balancing the needs of beef production and biodiversity conservation, and to deliver broader socioeconomic co- benefits (BCHM Plus). Whole-of-property planning can be used to guide property development to improve effective pasture use while still protecting areas of high biodiversity values. In particular, it should be used for deciding the placement of fencing and installation of waterpoints to spread grazing pressure so that grazing is still excluded from approximately 10% of each property 52. Such an approach is consistent with the Australian Beef Sustainability Framework objectives ensuring an optimal area of cattle-producing land is set aside for conservation or protection purposes 27. It will require an on-ground assessment of both pastoral and biodiversity values, as well as where these are incompatible 421. Where high biodiversity values are identified for protection and where active management is required, landholders may wish to obtain support for their efforts through conservation covenants or stewardship programs 27, such as through Queensland Government’s Nature Refuge and NatureAssist programs 422. At the regional level, it is possible to identify priority areas for undertaking such planning based on the data available about the distribution of species, communities and landscapes that have high biodiversity values; are currently threatened; or are poorly represented in the protected area estate. A number of biodiversity prioritisation processes have already been undertaken for north-west Queensland. These include the identification of: • Regional Ecosystems that would make a significant contribution to conservation reserves (Figure 4a). Based

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 23 Figure 4. Priority areas for biodiversity conservation on grazing lands in north-west Queensland: (a) Regional Ecosystems that are under- represented in protected areas, (b) Strategic Offset Investment Corridors, (c) Significant wetlands and Carpentarian Corridor (concentration of fire-sensitive rare and threatened species), and (d) Biodiversity Planning Assessments Data sources: Regional Ecosystems that are under-represented in protected areas (provided by Protected Area Investment, Queensland Department of Environment and Science), Strategic Offset Investment Corridor 424; significant wetlands 3,4,426-428, the concentration of fire-sensitive rare and threatened species 425; Biodiversity Planning Assessments 3,4,427. Any one of these schemes could be used for prioritising prioritisation schemes. Of these, BPA awards high to very high whole-of-property planning for biodiversity co-benefits. values across most of the assessed areas, and has not been However, the most important areas for undertaking BCHM undertaken for most of the North-West Highlands; while SOIC Plus are where management can significantly improve provides a more strategic selection of land parcels across the biodiversity condition. Two areas of management stand out, whole of north-west Queensland. Therefore, this prioritisation namely conservation covenants over Regional Ecosystems scheme excludes BPA and combines the remaining schemes, that are poorly represented in the protected area estate; giving equal weight to each. Nevertheless, the information fencing to protect high-value wetland; and wildfire reduction collected for the BPA, and available online for individual land to protect fire-sensitive rare and threatened species. General parcels 429, will be invaluable for biodiversity assessments of biodiversity values are captured in both the SOIC and BPA individual properties.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 24 In this spatial prioritisation for BCHM Plus, each land parcel and tourism is expanding. Major population has been allocated a score between one and 12 based on its centres are Mount Isa and Cloncurry 7,I. relative value for improving the representation of Regional At least 14 threatened and one near-threatened species have Ecosystems in the protected area estate; Strategic Offset been recorded in the terrestrial and freshwater habitats of Investments; wetland conservation; and fire-sensitive rare the North-West Highlands bioregion (Appendix 1). These and threatened species (Table 4). include the main population of the Endangered Carpentarian Table 4. Prioritisation for whole-of-property planning across north- grasswren, and the only population of Kalkadoon grasswren west Queensland pastoral lands (Appendix 2). Twenty-six of the 86 Regional Ecosystems in the bioregion are classified as Endangered or Of Concern. Asset Score Protected Areas cover 7.8% of the bioregion, with 2.7% being Value of Regional Ecosystems to Protected Area estate * in Nature Refuges on private or leasehold land. Extremely high 3 The main threats to biodiversity in the bioregion are fire, Very high 2 weeds, grazing and cats 275. Extensive wildfires have reduced the population of the Carpentarian grasswren 431,432, and are High 1 considered a threat to several other species found in the Other 0 Carpentarian Corridor (Figure 4) 425. A total of 49 weeds with Strategic Offset Investment Corridors and hubs * adverse impacts on biodiversity have been recorded in the bioregion, 23 of which are listed as prohibited or restricted Priority 1 3 plants (Appendix 5). The most significant of these include Priority 2 2 buffel grass, a range of prickle bushes (prickly acacia, Priority 3 1 parkinsonia, mesquite and Chinee apple), rubber vine, rubber bush and salvinia (Appendix 5). Apart from buffel grass and None 0 salvinia, these weeds also reduce pastoral productivity (see Carpentarian Corridor * Weed management). Buffel grass, introduced to provide (concentration of fire-sensitive threatened species) reliable pasture, not only degrades wildlife habitat, but Yes 3 also contributes to the fire hazard in the bioregion (see Exotic pasture species). At least 69 plants and 13 animals No 0 recorded in the bioregion are known to be sensitive to Wetlands * grazing (Appendix 3). Eighteen per cent of the bioregion’s National significance 3 vegetation has been highly modified by overgrazing 257. Pasture management was improving up until 2008, with an State significance 2 increasing trend in ground cover, but further improvement Other 1 was considered necessary 7. In 2006, approximately 17% of None 0 the bioregion was less than 3 km from stock watering points, and therefore subject to grazing at levels likely to eliminate Maximum score possible 12 grazing-sensitive species 7. Cats have been identified

* See Figure 4 for an explanation of each category. as a threat to numerous small animals across northern Australia 433-435. The remainder of this section briefly describes the biodiversity values and challenges for each of the three north- Priority areas west Queensland bioregions, followed by the identification of The priority areas for the uptake of the BCHM method priority areas for both the uptake of BCHM projects for ground in the North-West Highlands are along the western and cover recovery and BCHM projects for biodiversity co-benefits. southern slopes of the bioregion (Area 6 in Beef Cattle Herd Management; Figure 5), where ground cover has been Bioregional assessments mapped as lower than expected (Figure 3). North-West Highlands The highest priority areas for BCHM Plus are areas with high biodiversity values (Figure 5). These are concentrated in the Overview of bioregion far north of the bioregion, where there are several Regional The landforms of the North-West Highlands Ecosystems that are under-represented in the protected area include rugged hills and mountain ranges estate (Figure 4c), and in the Carpentarian Corridor, where separated by undulating valleys in the several rare and threatened species that are threatened by 425 south (Mount Isa Inlier IBRA regionH), and extensive wildfires (Figure 4d) . spectacular gorges, water holes and dissected sandstone plateaus in the north (Gulf Fall and Uplands IBRA region). The predominant vegetation is low open woodland over spinifex hummock grassland. The major land use is cattle grazing on pastoral leases. Other land uses include Aboriginal land, conservation reserves and mining. Mining is very important to the bioregion’s economy,

H Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) regions 430. In most cases, these coincide with Queensland’s bioregions. However, Queensland’s North-West Highlands comprises the Queensland sections of both the Mount Isa Inlier and Gulf Fall and Uplands IBRA regions. I Paraphrased from (Bastin et al. 2008) 7 to incorporate information from both IBRA regions.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 25 the bioregion are known to be sensitive to grazing. Nearly half (43%) of the bioregion’s vegetation has been highly modified by overgrazing 257. Up until 2006, pasture utilisation rates were at or above sustainable levels across most of the bioregion, and about 20% of the bioregion was less than 3 km from stock watering points, so subject to grazing at levels likely to eliminate grazing-sensitive species 7. Vegetation thickening has occurred in parts of the bioregion, and appears to have arisen from a combination of overgrazing and a change in fire regime (see Woody vegetation cover). This thickening has contributed to the loss of species that are dependent open vegetation structure, notably the golden-shouldered parrot 260,305. Approximately half of the bioregion is floodplain and subject to periodic severe flooding 420,436. Floods at the start of 2019 stripped vast areas of topsoil and ground cover 437,438,439, probably eliminating many native plants and animals 416,417. Cats have been identified as a threat to numerous small animals across northern Australia 433-435. Pigs are a threat to the many wetlands in the bioregion 226, particularly to the nationally significant Southern Gulf Aggregation wetlands along the Gulf of Carpentaria 428. A project by Traditional Owners to manage cattle, pigs and weeds on Wernadinga – which is part of this aggregation – is showing improving ground cover and biodiversity condition 440. Priority areas The priority areas for the uptake of the BCHM method in the Gulf Plains are upstream of the confluence of the Flinders Figure 5. Priority areas for the uptake of the Beef Cattle Herd and Cloncurry rivers (Area 2 in Beef Cattle Herd Management; Management (BCHM) and undertaking whole-of-property Figure 6), the central section of the Karumba Plain (Area 5); planning in the North-West Highlands along the divides between the Norman and Flinders rivers (Area 7) and between the Flinders and Leichardt rivers (Area Gulf Plains 8). These are all areas where ground cover has been mapped Overview of bioregion as lower than expected (Figure 3). Periodic, severe flooding is likely to have contributed to low ground cover in some of The Gulf Plains bioregion is characterised these areas, particularly in Area 2. by extensive alluvial plains and coastal areas. The tropical savanna vegetation The highest priority areas for BCHM Plus are areas with comprises mainly eucalypt and tea-tree high biodiversity values (Figure 6). These include sections open woodlands. The regional economy is of the nationally significant wetlands on the Karumba Plain mainly based on cattle grazing with some and along the Mitchell River (Figure 4d); areas that contain prawn fishing, mining and tourism. Tenure Regional Ecosystems that are under-represented in the is pastoral lease, Aboriginal land and protected area estate (including areas south of Staaten nature reserves. Major population centres River National Park and along the north-eastern flank of are Burketown, Normanton, Karumba and Boodjamulla National Park; Figure 4c), and an area north Doomadgee Aboriginal Community 7. of Einasleigh River, where several mid-level biodiversity values coincide. At least 19 threatened and six near-threatened species have been recorded in the terrestrial and freshwater habitats of the Gulf Plains bioregion (Appendix 1). These include the southern extent of the golden-shouldered parrot and its commensal moth, both of which are Endangered at the state and national level (Appendix 2). Fifty of the 153 Regional Ecosystems in the bioregion are classified as Endangered or Of Concern. Protected Areas cover 4.8% of the bioregion, with 1.7% being in Nature Refuges on private or leasehold land. The main threats to biodiversity in the bioregion are weeds, grazing, inappropriate fire regimes, floods, cats and pigs 275. A total of 44 weeds with adverse impacts on biodiversity have been recorded in the bioregion, 16 of which are listed as prohibited or restricted plants (Appendix 5). The most significant of these include buffel grass, a range of prickle bushes (prickly acacia, parkinsonia and Chinee apple), noogoora burr, rubber vine, sicklepod and water hyacinth (Appendix 5). Except for buffel grass and water hyacinth, these weeds also reduce pastoral productivity (see Weed management). At least 70 plants and 14 animals recorded in

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 26 ground cover 7. In 2006, approximately 62% of the bioregion was less than 3 km from stock watering points, and therefore subject to grazing at levels likely to eliminate grazing-sensitive species 7. The western part of the region is periodically severely flooded 436. Floods at the start of 2019 stripped some areas of topsoil and ground cover 437-439. It is likely that such floods also regularly eliminate native plants and animals from vast areas 416,417. Cats have been identified as a threat to Julia Creek dunnart, as well as to numerous other small animals 433-435,441. Priority areas There are several priority areas for the uptake of the BCHM method in the Mitchell Grass Gowns bioregion, where ground cover has been mapped as lower than expected (Figure 3). These include the upper catchment of the Diamantina River in the Mitchell Grass Downs, in an area bounded by Richmond, Winton and McKinlay (Area 1 in Beef Cattle Herd Management; Figure 7); the southern section of the Southern Wooded Downs province (Area 3); the upper catchment of the Thompson River (Area 4); and the outwash areas of the North- West Highlands in the north-west of the bioregion (Area 6). Many of these areas are severely flooded on a periodic basis, which often strips both ground cover and topsoil, and so degrades pasture quality and biodiversity values 400-403. Figure 6. Priority areas for the uptake of the Beef Cattle Herd The highest priority areas BCHM Plus are areas with high Management (BCHM) and undertaking whole of property planning biodiversity values (Figure 7). These are concentrated in in the Gulf Plains the western half of the bioregion, where there are several Mitchell Grass Downs Regional Ecosystems that are under-represented in the protected area estate (Figure 4c). These areas largely coincide Overview of bioregion with priority areas for ground cover restoration. The Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion consists of largely treeless plains with some occasional ridges, rivers and gorges. The dominant vegetation type is Mitchell tussock grasslands. Land use is predominantly grazing by cattle and sheep. Major population centres are Longreach, Blackall and Hughenden 7. At least 33 threatened and four near-threatened species have been recorded in the terrestrial and freshwater habitats of the Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion (Appendix 2). These include several species that are associated with wetlands (Appendix 2). Three nationally threatened community are found in the bioregion. The community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the Great Artesian Basin occurs at scattered locations throughout the bioregion. Brigalow and Weeping Myall woodlands are restricted to the far south-east of the bioregion 275. Six of the 60 Regional Ecosystems in the bioregion are classified as Endangered or Of Concern (Appendix 4). The main threats to biodiversity in the bioregion are weeds, grazing, floods and cats 275. A total of 48 weeds with adverse impacts on biodiversity have been recorded in the bioregion, 21 of which are listed as prohibited or restricted plants (Appendix 5). The most significant of these include opuntioid Figure 7. Priority areas for the uptake of the Beef Cattle Herd cacti (including prickly pear), buffel grass, a range of prickle Management (BCHM) and undertaking whole of property planning bushes (prickly acacia, parkinsonia, mesquite and Chinee in the Mitchell Grass Downs bioregion apple), mother-of-millions, parthenium, rubber vine and Bioregion codes: GUP, Gulf Plains; MGD, Mitchell Grass Downs; NWH, sticky florestina. Excluding buffel grass, most also adversely North-West Highlands. affect pastoralism (see Weed management). At least 66 plants and 11 animals recorded in the bioregion are known to be sensitive to grazing (Appendix 3). One-fifth of the vegetation has been highly modified by overgrazing 257. However, there has been a general improvement in pasture management since the start of the 21st Century, with an increasing trend in

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 27 Proposed delivery framework

Maximising the multiple co-benefits of uptake of the BCHM These programs are part of the ongoing adaptive method will require that: management framework that has been used to develop a best • Pastoralists understand the benefits of reducing the management practice framework for beef production, and emission intensity of beef production for pastoral have been responsible for many of the research findings cited productivity and profitability, and the link between in this report. This extension framework now incorporates healthy ground cover and reducing emission intensity (see some information on the grazing management practices Education and extension) needed to reduced emission intensity. Further expansion • Planning is undertaken to determine if a BCHM project is and resourcing of these extension services are likely to be feasible and to identify which options are best suited to necessary to support pastoralists undertaking BCHM projects, each individual enterprise (see Planning) especially to ensure long-term sustainability is not sacrificed • Pastoral businesses have the financial and logistical in pursuits of short-term gains. capacity to enter the scheme (see Carbon farming business support) Grazing education and extension programs to assist in • Pastoral businesses are appropriately rewarded for practice change required for both BCHM and BCHM Plus productivity improvements, emission reduction and projects are already being delivered through partnerships biodiversity conservation, where appropriate under formal between NRM groups, QDAF and industry. However, these agreements (see Financial rewards) programs will need to be expanded and resourced if • Monitoring is in place to assess the value of improvements delivery of co-benefits is to be assured. in natural resource and biodiversity condition (see Monitoring and evaluation framework) • Contractual arrangements are in place to ensure Planning environmental outcomes are realised (see Contractual As well as providing general information on the costs and arrangements) benefits of individual practice changes, many pastoralists will need assistance to identify, implement and evaluate practices changes that are best suited to their own situations. A project Education and extension will only be feasible where there is the capacity to improve Pastoralists are most likely to adopt practice change when liveweight gain and/or weaning rates. For a well-run cattle they participate in extension programs that explain the operation on good condition land, little improvement will be production and financial benefits of doing so 442,443, especially possible, as emission intensity may already be at optimum when these programs are well-resourced and deliver one-on- levels. The case studies presented in Table 1 managed to one rather than – or in addition to – group-based activities 444. improve their emission intensity to around 11 kg CO2-e/ kg liveweight beef, so if the baseline assessment indicates Current grazing education and extension programs in north- the herd is already close to this level, there may be little west Queensland already promote the suite of sustainable opportunity for further improvement. In addition, where grazing practices that will reduce emission intensity of the herd size is small, the transaction costs may be more beef production, including practices to improve pasture than the potential income gain (but see Carbon farming condition, beef productivity and business profitability. These business support). programs include: • E-Beef. A comprehensive extension program that takes The best approach to designing a project to improve a whole-of-business approach to improve management production and reduce emission intensity is to map out a of pastures, groundcover, soils, land condition, business whole-of-enterprise development plan, identifying activities profitability and adaptability. Delivered in a partnership that can be undertaken to reduce emissions each year (BCHM between regional NRM groups and the Queensland Plus). Whole-of-property planning should also be undertaken Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF), and to identify natural resource and conservation values so that supported by the Australian Government 445-447. these can be protected or enhanced. This includes strategic • GrazingFutures. A producer-centred program aimed at placement of fences and waterpoints to enable the use of building the resilience of beef businesses, delivered in a under-utilised sections of the property; segregate different collaboration between regional NRM groups, QDAF and livestock classes; relieve pressure on overgrazed parts of the AgForce Queensland, and funded through the Queensland property; facilitate wet season spelling; and exclude areas Government’s Rural Assistance and Drought Package 448. with high conservation values from grazing 52. Fire and pest • Landcare. A sustainable land management capacity management plans will also be important for protecting and building program, delivered in partnership between the enhancing pastoral and biodiversity values 61,285,452-454. regional NRM groups and the Australian Government’s The North Australian Pastoral Company (NAPCo) provides National Landcare Programme (NLP) 449,450. a good example of a whole-of-enterprise approach to • Profitable Producers Creating Healthy Landscapes. A sustainable development. On Alexandria station, NAPCo producer-drive program in which pastoralists develop reduced its beef production emission intensity by 31% strategies to address their NRM issues, including through between 1981 and 2006 43. It has now has launched an practice improvement, delivered by Southern Gulf NRM and accredited carbon-neutral beef brand, under which it supported by NLP 451. sells beef from its 14 properties across northern Australia, including four in north-west Queensland 455,456. It is also

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 28 undertaking grazing trials to improve pasture condition; and Carbon farming business support is investing heavily in wildlife conservation and the Nature There is also a need to assist beef businesses to navigate Refuge program 43,457. While this company is larger than most the legal and accounting processes involved in establishing beef businesses in north-west Queensland, this demonstrates and acquitting a registered BCHM project under the ERF. The how conservation is compatible with production when Southern Gulf NRM project, Facilitating adoption of the Beef activities are well-planned. Cattle Herd Management Method as a foundation for the Land Restoration Fund in North-West Queensland J (which Whole-of-enterprise planning should also consider the has commissioned this report), is initiating this process. It co-benefits that can be gained through collaboration with has been running a series of workshops to assess pastoralists’ Indigenous people, particularly on pastoral leases that attitudes to undertaking BCHM projects and how best to co-exist with Native Title. A good example of this has been facilitate the uptake of the method in north-west Queensland. operating on Wernadinga station, where Indigenous rangers from the Carpentarian Land Council have helped to fence the Establishing a BCHM project under the ERF project is a wetlands to enable pasture spelling, which has improved both complex process, and costs can be considerable (Table 5). wetland condition and pasture productivity 440. Indigenous Carbon brokers may recoup the costs of the services they rangers have also been undertaking weed management and provide through upfront and annual fees, commissions on biodiversity surveys. carbon credits, or a combination of these means. Auditors charge a one-off fee for each audit. Many of the project Large pastoral operations have the internal capacity to administration costs are not scalable (i.e. they do not identify and plan the BCHM and BCHM Plus projects that vary with the number of cattle in the project). Therefore, are appropriate for their enterprises. However, smaller undertaking a BCHM project is only likely to be financially operations are likely to need planning assistance if viable for the largest cattle companies. These companies are also likely to have the internal capacity required to plan and delivery of co-benefits is to be assured. monitor ERF projects. Indeed, the proponents of all four of the projects that are currently registered under this methodology are large corporate producers 458.

Table 5. Steps involved in undertaking a Beef Cattle Herd Management project

Responsibility Steps Pastoral business Broker/ Aggregator Auditor Scalable Feasibility assessment   Partly Project registration   No Pre-project audit    No Implementing new management actions  Yes Weighing a representative sample of  Yes stock annually Annual reporting   No Audits    No Source of information: Commonwealth of Australia (2017) 30,459 & Paraway Pastoral Company (2019) 460. However, an aggregation provision under the ERF enables upon the capacity to aggregate of a number of small projects, small operations to combine into a single project, thereby preferably with a large project at the core. reducing the transaction costs of the individual businesses 461. Aggregation also relieves the individual pastoral businesses of There are considerable transaction costs in entering the responsibility of delivering a set number of carbon credits, and operating a BCHM project, which will be beyond as well as the risks associated with under-performance. The the means of family-operated pastoral companies. The aggregator may be one of the beef businesses within the aggregation model, in which several small businesses aggregation or an entirely separate entity. For aggregators combine with one or more large operations offers the best to operate, they must convince the Clean Energy Regulator opportunity for facilitating widespread adoption of BCHM. they have the legal right to do so, pass the fit and proper person test, and may require an Australian Financial Services Licence K. One of the advantages of aggregation for co-benefit Financial rewards delivery, is that an aggregator may decide to place specific The biggest incentive for undertaking a BCHM project with requirements on the activities to be undertaken, which could biodiversity co-benefits is the potential financial rewards. include commitments to improving conditions for biodiversity These come from four sources (Figure 8): on the project site (see Contractual arrangements). • Improved productivity and reduced costs of beef production For most family-operated pastoral companies, the high • Carbon credits for reducing the emission intensity of transaction costs of managing a project mean that the only beef production practical entry to the carbon market is through an aggregated • Price premiums paid for carbon-credit co-benefits BCHM project. Their participation will therefore be contingent • Payments for biodiversity management

J Funded by Queensland Government’s Land Restoration Fund. K An Australia Financial Services Licence may be required because Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) are specified as financial products in the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 461.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 29 Figure 8. Potential sources of income from participation in a Beef Cattle Herd Management project

Improved productivity Most of the extra income that can be expected from beef sales The greatest income boost from a BCHM project comes in comes directly from the extra production 28,63. However, price the form of income from beef sales. These gains have been premiums may also apply as a result of improvements to described in detail elsewhere in this report (see Co-benefits weight-to-age ratios (see Price premiums). Changes to the cost of the Beef Cattle Herd Management method). The highest of production must also be taken into account. Depending income gains are to be made by projects undertaken on on the management actions undertaken to reduce emission degraded lands, where there is the potential to reduce intensity, increased profitability may be partly reduced by stocking rates to improve both pasture quality and liveweight increased costs. Reducing stocking rates; culling barren cows; gain. In the best case study, an increase in gross margins early joining; and over-sowing legumes should incur minimal of up to 93% was demonstrated 28,63, amounting to several additional expense, whereas supplementary feeding can hundred thousand dollars per year (see Blanncourt case study rapidly eat into profits 63,191,322. In addition, the transaction in Table 6). However, substantial gains can also be made on costs of registering and auditing a carbon project must be good condition pastures when their condition is maintained taken into account 29, although these can be minimised (Longreach and Boulia case studies). through project aggregation. Despite these additional costs, well-planned emission reduction projects have been shown to be profitable, based on production increases alone.

Table 6. Financial return of emission reduction grazing projects in north-west Queensland

Mitchell Grass Mitchell Grass Bioregion Gulf Plains Downs Downs Location Blanncourt Longreach Boulia Initial herd size (breeders/weaners) or 2,270/1,066 1,750 1,842 (animal equivalents) Final herd size (breeders/weaners) or 1,533/1,060 1,750 1,842 (animal equivalents) Initial liveweight turnoff (tonnes) 222.6 236.3 238.0 Final liveweight turnoff (tonnes) 405.7 328.8 305.8 Liveweight increase (tonnes) 383.1 92.5 67.8 Estimated increased gross margin $745,000 * $180,000 * $95,000 * from increased production Initial Emission intensity (CO2-e/kg liveweight) 25.1 14.9 15.3 Final emission intensity (CO2-e/kg liveweight) 11.7 10.7 11.9 Emission intensity reduction (CO2-e/kg liveweight) 13.4 4.2 3.4 Total emission reduction 5,436 1,381 1,040 Carbon price (July 2019) L $14.17 $14.17 $14.17 Carbon credit income (before expenses) $77,028 $19,567 $14,737 Ratio between carbon credit income and 10.3% 10.9% 15.5% improved production gross margin Source 28,63 31 31

L www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Auctions-results/july-2019

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 30 See Table 1 for further project details. * Gross margin increases for Longreach and Boulia are approximate as they were read directly from graphs. For Blanncourt, the increase was estimated by extrapolating from the Longreach property.

For properties that have not already adopted best globally, and is dominated by climate-savvy, high-income practice management, undertaking a BCHM project consumers 467-469. Most current accreditation schemes focus increases enterprise profitability through improved on meat-eating quality and organic production, rather than 470,471 production gains and market access. It can be highly on pasture or environmental conditions . An exception is NAPCo’s Five Founders, an environmentally-friendly, carbon- profitable, despite some additional costs. It therefore neutral beef brand. Launched in April 2019, Five Founders is makes economic sense, even if no payments for carbon distributed directly to selected restaurants and retailers in credits are received. Australia and Asia 455,456,472,473. This beef attracts a price roughly twice that of regular beef of the same cuts M. While carbon- Base-level carbon credits neutral beef currently occupies the top-end of the market, The initial incentive for undertaking a BCHM project may it is also possible that low emission intensity will become a be to gain credits from reducing methane and nitrous oxide consumer expectation for all beef production 474,475. Hence, emissions. However, at present, this is actually a very small rather than a price premium for sustainably produced beef, part of the additional benefit that can be gained. Increases to this may see a price penalty for unsustainably produced gross margins presented in Table 1 and Table 6 were achieved beef, as is planned in New Zealand 476. Either way, producers through the production of additional liveweight alone. The that can demonstrate minimal carbon footprints are likely 10-15% addition income that can be expected from carbon to be at a price or market advantage over those that do credits is really just a bonus. One benefit of this ratio is that not. Branding opportunities for grass-fed, environmentally commissions charged by brokers are levied on income from produced beef are likely to increase, particularly if fast- carbon, not from production. growing animals grown on healthy pastures produce the most The Australian Government – through its ERF reverse auctions succulent beef 470. – is the main purchaser of Carbon Credits generated by ERF projects 462. The average price achieved at the most recent Beef production under a BCHM project should provide Emission Reduction auction in July 2019 was $14.17/ACCU. access to premium markets because of improvements to The estimates of carbon income in Table 6 were based on weight-for-age ratios. Sales at top prices are even more this price. Carbon credits can also be sold – usually at a likely if environmental accreditation is obtained. better price – on the voluntary market. November’s voluntary market spot price of $17.50/ACCU 463 would have increased Carbon credits the estimated carbon income of the projects in Table 6 by Where environmental and/or social co-benefits can be 23.5%. Prices of carbon credits are projected to increase into demonstrated, price premiums may also be received for the future 464, and – if these increases are realised – by 2030, carbon credits. For example, Gold Standard accreditation can carbon incomes from a BCHM project could potentially reach be awarded to carbon credits that contribute to a minimum parity with that received from increased beef production. of three of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, hence increasing their value 477,478. SocialCarbon accreditation can Based on current prices, the income from carbon credit be awarded to carbon credits that were produced, while also improving social, human or financial wellbeing, or natural sales from a BCHM project are likely to be 10-15% of that and biodiversity values 479. Both schemes can be applied in obtained from additional beef sales. However, should Australia, and do not require registration of an ERF project carbon prices increase as predicted, carbon income may 480,N. However, such accreditation can be expensive, so a grow to match that of additional beef sales. local scheme that recognises co-benefits in the production of ACCUs may be a more cost-effective pathway to achieve Price premiums price premiums. Beef Price is the only consideration in the Australian Government’s One of the likely benefits of increasing cattle growth rates ERF auction process 462. Therefore, price premiums for co- under a BCHM project is access to more lucrative markets – benefits do not apply. However, green-credentialed carbon even without having to demonstrate the beef’s environmental credits are likely to be attractive to the private carbon market, 465 credentials . For example, while a 300 kg 2.5-year-old steer where they can be sold at higher prices O. Even so, carbon might only be suitable for the live export market, an animal credits from beef production may be less attractive than those that has grown to twice the size in the same period could be generated from tree-planting or other activities that are more 465,466 sold on the more lucrative Japanese market . Therefore, obviously linked to biodiversity conservation 482. Beef Cattle as well as selling more beef, at least some of this beef may be Herd Management projects are primarily recognised for their sold at higher prices. co-benefits to farm productivity and improved ecosystem 483 This is likely to be even more the case when environmental function , benefits that could be viewed as part of a 401,484. credentials can be demonstrated. A market for climate- pastoralist’s duty-of-care Value-adding by incorporating friendly beef is beginning to emerge, both in Australia and biodiversity and socio-economic benefits could therefore improve their marketability.

M On 15 Nov 2019, Five Founders Sirloin was available from Meat at Billies (https://meatatbillys.com.au/product/five-founders-sirloin) for $41.99/kg, and the price for Sirloin (bone in) at Woolworths (www.woolworths.com.au) was $21/kg. N The Verified Carbon Standard Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance accreditation scheme only applies to land-based carbon projects so cannot be used to accredit carbon credits from Beef Cattle Herd Management projects 481. O Carbon credits sold privately have achieved up to 23.5% more than those sold through ERF auctions 462,463.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 31 State governments are having an increasing role in the carbon Financial support for ongoing maintenance and monitoring market. The Queensland Government’s Land Restoration may be available from time-to-time through Nature Refuge Fund (LRF) aims to support carbon projects that deliver clear Landholder Grants. Where a landholder has not received environmental, social and economic co-benefits 485,P. As well financial assistance when establishing a Nature Refuges, as assisting in the development of carbon methodologies, the they may be eligible for taxation and capital gains tax LRF is likely to be a prospective purchaser and on-seller of concessions 486. carbon credits, and is developing a framework under which carbon credits can be value-added based on recognised One-off funding may be available for pastoral operations co-benefits. It is not clear whether such a framework would to establish and manage Nature Refuges and for other improve the prices producers receive for their carbon credits. aspects of biodiversity management that go beyond duty-of-care obligations for the management of pastoral Carbon credits with demonstrated co-benefits should be land. Nature refuges establishment in the absence of attractive to the voluntary market, in which they should such funding may be eligible for tax and capital gains theoretically be sold at elevated prices. Where co-benefits concessions. Stewardship payments for biodiversity can be demonstrated through accreditation, they may conservation are only likely to be available for Indigenous attract a price premium. However, price premiums people managing their traditional lands. are more likely to be awarded where projects deliver biodiversity outcomes rather than just sustainable land Monitoring and evaluation framework management. The scope for carbon credits generated To assess whether co-benefits from BCHM projects are under BCHM projects is therefore uncertain. being delivered, they need to be monitored 462,487,488. There have been several attempts to establish frameworks for Payments for biodiversity management measuring the co-benefits of carbon projects in Australia, but Where conservation management goes beyond duty-of- no consensus has been reached 462,489. Lack of a monitoring care obligations, the pastoralist may also be eligible for and evaluation framework has impeded the development one-off project funding or stewardship payments. Most of an appropriate monitoring and evaluation framework for funds available for payment-for-environmental-services accrediting the co-benefits of ACCUs 462. A plethora of schemes in northern Australia are directed to Indigenous land and is available for quantifying the environmental conditions sea management 484. Few funding bodies are interested in of pastoral lands, biodiversity, Indigenous wellbeing supporting wildlife conservation by non-Indigenous pastoral and livelihoods, and overall environmental conditions in operations 484. The Australian and Queensland governments general 27,67,490,491-493. Each scheme has a different focus. Many and NRM groups are notable exceptions. These organisations monitoring schemes aimed at the property or paddock-scale periodically provide funding for projects for specific activities founder because they are complex and time-consuming to or outcomes, such as weed management, fencing or operate; and there can be a tension identifying indicators that biodiversity surveys. Their programs typically provide one-off are relevant at the project level and those that are capable of payments of between $5,000 and $50,000, and cannot be being aggregated to a state or national level 494. The general relied upon to provide a regular income stream. Current or principles of monitoring schemes are that they should be recent examples include: relevant to the management purpose and that indicators • Australian Government’s National Landcare Program: Smart should be simple measure (or extract from existing monitoring Farms Small Grants schemes), simple to interpret, and sensitive to conditions and • Australian Government’s National Landcare Program: their trends; and that results can be interpreted with a high Environment Small Grants level of certainty 27,488. • Australian Government’s Community Environment Program Q The type of monitoring needed to evaluate the co-benefits • Queensland Government’s Community Sustainability of BCHM projects will vary depending on the purpose of Action grants R that monitoring, and whether it is necessary to demonstrate carbon-footprint, sustainable production, biodiversity Funding for conservation management on pastoral properties benefits or triple-bottom-line outcomes. For the ERF, it is in priority areas may also be available under Queensland only necessary to calculate emission intensity 30; for Gold Government’s Nature Refuge program and its associated Standard accreditation of carbon credits, a full triple-bottom- grant programs 422. Nature Refuge agreements are voluntary, line assessment will be required. Similarly, marketing of binding agreements under which the landholder undertakes sustainable beef can focus just on the carbon footprint 455, or to manage all or part of a land parcel for biodiversity require a comprehensive assessment that extends to animal conservation. Sustainable grazing may be permitted in Nature husbandry and food safety 495. Refuges where biodiversity values will not be compromised. Priority areas for new Nature Refuges are areas that contain The approach taken here has been to identify all assets conservation values not already protected under the existing that could reasonably be expected to benefit from best- protected area estate 484. In north-west Queensland, regional practice beef production, as reviewed in this report and ecosystems with low representation in protected areas are elsewhere 27,483 (Table 7). These assets were amalgamated a particular priority (Figure 4a). Nature Refuges may attract into natural resources (NR), biodiversity (BIO), people (SOC) funding from two sources. NatureAssist provides funding and livestock (HERD). Indicators listed under each of these to cover the expenses of establishing a new Nature Refuge. categories measure condition of these assets. A fifth category

P LRF funded the Southern Gulf NRM project Facilitating adoption of the Beef Cattle Herd Management Method as a foundation for the Land Restoration Fund in North-West Queensland, which has commissioned this report. Q www.environment.gov.au/cep R www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/funding/community-sustainability

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 32 of stewardship has been used to capture the management in place for maintaining and restoring these assets (NR-S, BIO-S, SOC-S, HERD-S).

Table 7. Potential assets and indicators for assessing the co-benefits of Beef Cattle Herd Management projects

BCHM ABSF SDG Item Indicators Co-benefits Monitoring tool indicators * targets * Asset condition Natural resources Emission intensity of beef production (kg C02-e NR1  - BCHM Calculator 496 6.1a 9.4 emitted per kg liveweight) NR2 Total C02-e emitted by the enterprise -  B-GAF 497 6.1e 9.4 Trend in ground cover relative to Forage reports 498 & NR3 -  5.2b 15.3 regional average VegMachine 499 NR4 Grazing land condition -  Stocktake Plus 500 - 2.4 NR5 Fire extent -  NAFI 501 NR6 Water-use efficiency (l/kg liveweight production) -  - 6.3a 6.4 NR7 Water quality in run-off from paddocks -  - - 6.3 Biodiversity BIO1 Annual woody change in woodland canopy cover -  VegMachine 499 5.2b 15.5 Trends in abundance of species BIO2 -  Stocktake Plus 500 - 15.1, 15.5 sensitive to grazing 6.6, 14.2, BIO3 Condition of wetlands -  - - 14.5, 15.5 Condition of threatened species BIO4 -  - - 15.1, 15.5 and communities BIO5 Native vegetation condition -  BioCondition 491 - 15.1 People SOC1 Percentage of women in the workforce -  Enterprise report 9.2a 8.5 SOC2 Percentage of young people in the workforce -  Enterprise report 9.2b 8.5, 8.6 Percentage of Indigenous people in SOC3 -  Enterprise report 9.2c 2.3, 10.2 the workforce SOC4 Worker satisfaction and wellbeing -  UCWS 502 10.2a - Producer confidence in having the information, tools, technologies and resources (both SOC5 -  UCWS 502 6.2a 8.4 business and biophysical) to be able to adapt to change over time Livestock HERD1 Low-stress cattle management   Enterprise report 1.3b - Demonstrated adherence to Australian Animal HERD2 -  LPA 503 1.1a - Welfare Standards for Cattle HERD3 Percentage of the cattle herd with poll gene  - Enterprise report 1.3a - HERD4 Vaccination rates for clostridial diseases  - Enterprise report 2.1a - Stewardship Natural resources 8.2, 8.4, Adoption of best practice and innovative grazing NRS1 -  Grazing BMP 504,S - 12.2, 12.8, management practices 13.1 Property biosecurity NRS2 Active biosecurity management plan -  2.2 15.1, 15.5 management planning 506 Property fire management NRS3 Active fire management plan -  - 15.1, 15.5 planning kit 507 NRS4 Active water efficiency management plan -  - 6.3a 6.4

S While Grazing BMP is no longer in operation, its modules and their content are still highly relevant 505.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 33 BCHM ABSF SDG Item Indicators Co-benefits Monitoring tool indicators * targets * Biodiversity Environmental Reports BIOS1 Desktop assessment of biodiversity values -  - 15.1, 15.5 Online 429 Stocktake Plus 500 & Flora and fauna surveys, BIOS2 On-site assessment of biodiversity values -  Survey Guidelines for - 15.1, 15.5 Nationally Threatened Species 508 Active biodiversity management plan that includes exclusion of cattle from up to 10% of Bushland Management BIOS3 -  - 15.1, 15.5 the property and containment of any invasive Plan 509 pasture species Percentage of project area actively managed for BIOS4 -  Property plan 5.2a 15.1, 15.5 environmental outcomes Percentage of project area set aside for BIOS5 -  Property plan 5.2a 15.1, 15.5 conservation or protection purposes Area of project area managed for conservation Nature Refuge BIOS6 -  5.2a 15.1, 15.5 outcomes through formal arrangements Agreements 422 People Demonstrated knowledge and skills required for SOCS1 -  Grazing BMP 504 9.1b 4.4, 8.6 sustainable management Active Indigenous Land Use Agreement, SOCS2 -  ILUA 412 - 11.4 successfully implemented Livestock Demonstrated knowledge of animal welfare HERDS1 -  LPA 503 1.1a - standards and procedures Active biosecurity plan, HERDS2 -  LPA 503 2.2a - successfully implemented

* See Appendix 6 for details of Australian Beef Sustainability Framework indicators; and Appendix 7 for details of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets. Abbreviations: BCHM, Beef Cattle Herd Management; B-GAF, Greenhouse Accounting Framework for beef properties; BMP, Best management practice; ILUA, Indigenous Land Use Agreement; LPA, Livestock Production Assurance program; NAFI, North Australian Fire Information website, UCWS, University of Canberra Wellbeing Survey. In selecting appropriate indicators for these assets and their welfare by adding SOC and SOC-S indicators; and animal management, this monitoring framework drew on indicators welfare by adding HERD and HERD-S indicators. from the Australian Beef Sustainability Framework (ABSF), Not all indicators will be relevant in all situations. For before assessing whether a new indicator might be required. example, where there are no wetlands or threatened species, It also used – as far as possible – the same monitoring tools as the indicators relating to the assets will not be applicable. those used by ABSF for assessing asset condition. However, Some monitoring tools are still under development. For many of these tools collected information at a regional-, state- example, BioCondition 491 benchmarks are available for the or national-scale, and did not have the capacity to report at 40 of 60 Regional Ecosystems in the Mitchell Grass Downs the propertyscale. In such cases, other tools that are already bioregion 510, 23 of 86 in the North-West Highlands 511, and in use for monitoring grazing land condition or stewardship for only two of the 153 Regional Ecosystems found in the standards in Queensland were used wherever possible. Gulf Plains 512; and wetland condition assessment is still Finally, the information that could simply be collected at the at the scoping stage 513. In such cases, alternative, interim property or enterprise levels was listed as being reported in a approaches may be required until these tools are fully property plan or enterprise report, as appropriate. developed. For some indicators (e.g. water-use assessments The indicators were then ranked according to their relevance and efficiency plans, and wetland condition), no standard tool to co-benefit assessment and ease of reporting, listing could be found. For others, tools were located that only partly the most relevant and simplest to use first. This should assessed an indicator, as was the case for on-site biodiversity allow individual reporting or accreditation schemes to assessments. select the range of indicators that best suits their reporting Even where tools are available, data for populating them requirements. For example, a scheme documenting carbon may be unavailable, or difficult to collect or interpret. For footprint alone could use only NR1, NR2 and NRS1; while one example, BioCondition assessment or Regional Ecosystem demonstrating sustainable production would also require NR3 condition requires of two to five sites within each Regional through to NR6. Biodiversity can be added to the scheme by Ecosystem or Regional Ecosystem subunit – each likely to take adding a selection of BIO and BIO-S indicators; socioeconomic a couple of hours to establish; and some properties in north-

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 34 west Queensland have more than 30 Regional Ecosystems Various levels of contractual agreements can be or subunits. In such cases, the evaluation should focus on used to lock in co-benefits to Beef Herd Management the assets with most value or that are most vulnerable to projects. These include (a) aggregation agreements; (b) grazing pressure. conservation covenants; (c) stewardship agreements; (d) Therefore, when developing a monitoring scheme using environmental project funding with legacy provisions; and these indicators, selection of indicators should be based on (e) product accreditation. Such agreements are voluntary, (1) assets of interest; (2) relevance to project area; (3) ease and pastoralists are unlikely to commit to them unless of measurement and interpretation; and (4) availability of they add value to their pastoral enterprises. tools and data. Implementation framework A monitoring and evaluation framework is presented that A framework for implementing, assessing and rewarding offers a staged approach to assessing the co-benefits of the co-benefits of BCHM projects is presented in Table 8. BCHM projects. It identifies indicators and monitoring Pastoralists can select to commit to one or more activities tools for assessing the condition of – and management in the framework. The table demonstrates the multiple arrangements for – natural resources, biodiversity, people co-benefits that will be delivered by most projects, simply through the uptake of this ERF method (with some notable and livestock affected by the project. Wherever possible, exceptions). Should the pastoralist be willing to extend their it draws on existing monitoring and evaluation schemes activities, then further benefits will be generated – both that apply to pastoral lands in Queensland. to the pastoral operation in the form of increased income, and to the public in the form of improved environmental Contractual arrangements conditions, animal welfare and socioeconomic wellbeing. While many BCHM projects could be expected to deliver This schedule, along with the monitoring and evaluation co-benefits, these cannot be taken for granted. Pastoralists framework presented in Table 7, should be sufficient entering into a project are only legally obliged to make to meet the requirements of most triple-bottom-line management changes aimed at reducing the emission accreditation schemes. intensity of beef production; keep appropriate records; and monitor and report on the project’s operation 30,459. There is no penalty if emission intensity is not reduced T; and there are no requirements to maintain or restore land condition or to conserve biodiversity. Nevertheless, there are several levels of contractual arrangements that can be applied to ensure the co-benefits of BCHM projects are realised. Entering into such contractual arrangements is entirely voluntary, and, in order to do so, pastoralists will need to be convinced of the value these contracts bring to their enterprises. Contracts for carbon project aggregation (see Carbon farming business support) offer an opportunity to further refine activities considered acceptable in a BCHM project (e.g. application of appropriate breeder/weaner ratios or restricted use of exotic pasture species), or to include additional measures to restore resource and/or biodiversity condition as part of whole-of-property planning. In addition, conservation covenants (e.g. Nature Refuges agreements) undertaken as part of whole-of-property planning can provide assurances that recognised biodiversity values will be protected 422. Where available, stewardship funding specifically requires landholders to manage to improve biodiversity values in the long term 514. In addition, project funding increasingly comes with obligations – not only to undertake the contracted work, such as weed control – but to build in legacy arrangements to ensure long-term benefits 515. Finally, product accreditation can link the project to specific social and environmental outcomes (as outlined in Price premiums).

T To account for both increases and reductions that result from natural variation rather than improved management, a 4% deduction is applied to calculations of emission intensity 30,459.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 35 Table 8. Proposed implementation framework for Beef Cattle Herd Management with co-benefits Benefit Public benefit to pastoralist

Activity productivity Improved Base-level credits carbon beef Value-added credits carbon Value-added conservation biodiversity for Payments Emission reduction quality water cover/ Ground species sensitive grazing for Habitat assets biodiversity High-value Animal welfare efficiency water-use Improved human wellbeing Improved Indicators * Beef Cattle Herd Management emission reduction project with spreading grazing into under-utilised areas   ±   ± ± NR1, NR3, NR7, NRS1 with supplementary feeding, genetic   ±  ± ± ± NR1, NRS1 improvement, vaccination with reduced stocking rates       NR1, NR3, NR7, NRS1 with low-stress cattle husbandry     NR1, HERD1 with control of significant weeds and pests        NR1, NR4, NRS1, NRS2 with the reduction of wildfire extent        NR5, NRS1, NRS3 Additional property management for biodiversity co-benefits BIO1, BIO2, BIO3, BIO4, BIO5, Maintain healthy biodiversity across grazing lands    BIOS1, BIOS2, BIO-S3, BIO-S4 BIO2, BIO3, BIO4, BIO5 BIOS1, Exclude grazing from up to 10% of the property   ±   BIOS2, BIOS3, BIO-S4, BIOS-5 Enter into formal conservation covenants      BIOS-6 Whole-of-enterprise management for socioeconomic and animal welfare co-benefits NRS1, HERD1, HERD2, HERD3, Livestock welfare management     HERD4, HERDS1, HERDS2 Water-use efficiency management   NR6, NRS4 SOC1, SOC2, Staff capacity and welfare management    SOC4, SOC5, SOCS1 Indigenous employment and engagement    SOC3, SOCS2

* See Table 7 for details of indicators. Symbols: , financial reward / positive benefit. ±, possible financial reward / possible negative impact, depending on species and other management changes.

Example case study to increase fire risk, and to maintain the spinifex as reliable A pastoralist with land in north-west Queensland attends a drought fodder. BCHM workshop held by the local NRM group and becomes She has worked out that she can start reducing the breeder/ interested in undertaking a project. Her property has both weaner ratio immediately, but needs to wait until year two to Mitchell grass and spinifex pastures. Sections of Mitchell grass put in the new waterpoints, and year three to build the new pasture are degraded from over-grazing; and the herd of paddocks. To help her in this transition, and to identify other about 3,000 head of cattle has a high breeder-to-weaner ratio, options for improving her herd productivity, she attends some high herd mortality and very little infrastructure. Carpentarian E-Beef workshops. She becomes most interested in learning grasswren has also been recorded on the property, and she is about low-stress cattle management and plans to start interested in undertaking work to protect this population. incorporating this into the management over the next couple Her herd is too small to warrant undertaking a BCHM project of years. Her son, who has just returned from agricultural alone, but she is told of an opportunity to enter into an college has studied agronomy, so she tasks him with setting aggregated project. As part of this project, an extension officer up some Stocktake Plus monitoring sites in places where they comes to her station to help her map out the best approach hope to improve pasture condition. to take to reduce emissions. She decided she will cull barren She finds out from her local NRM biodiversity officer that the cows to reduce the breeder/weaner ratio and overall stocking grasswren can tolerate moderate – but not heavy – grazing, rate, and hopefully restore pasture condition. She also wants which she sees as another reason not to over-develop their to put in some new paddocks and waterpoints to help spread spinifex habitat. She does not think it necessary to fence grazing pressure across the unevenly grazed Mitchell grass off areas for their conservation, but opts for a whole-of- pastures. She decides not to introduce buffel grass so as not

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 36 property Nature Refuge agreement that allows her to graze The NRM group organises for the local Birdlife chapter to the property at sustainable levels, as long as she maintains include her property in their annual grasswren surveys, and the grasswren habitat in good condition. The local NRM she is pleased to find out that the property also has a small group help them prepare a fire management plan to protect population of the rare Kalkadoon grasswren that will benefit the pasture and the grasswren habitat from the extensive from the new fire management regime. wildfires that tend to sweep across the property once or twice The NRM Landcare facilitator helps her to evaluate her a decade. The NatureAssist payment that she receives as part BCHM/Carpentarian Grasswren project for co-benefits, of her Nature Refuge agreement helps her engage a contractor producing the schedule in Table 9. After three years, she is to establish a fire mosaic. Along with her son, she joins the happy that they are raising healthier cattle, producing more local rural fire brigade, where they receive training in fire beef, and getting a small bonus through the sale of carbon management. That way they can gradually take over the fire credits. They now have the Carpentarian grasswren on their management themselves. In the fire brigade, they meet up company letterhead, and – with a few more changes to land with some Indigenous rangers who offer to help with the fire management – she is hoping that they can start selling their management on an ongoing basis so that they can help look grasswren-friendly, low-carbon beef into premium markets after their traditional country. This works so well that they instead of through the live-export trade. decide to negotiate an Indigenous Land Use Agreement.

Table 9. Case study application of Beef Cattle Herd Management co-benefits implementation framework Benefit to pastoralist Public benefit

Activity productivity Improved Base-level credits carbon beef Value-added credits carbon Value-added conservation biodiversity for Payments Emission reduction quality water cover/ Ground species sensitive grazing for Habitat assets biodiversity High-value Animal welfare efficiency water-use Improved human wellbeing Improved Indicators * Beef Cattle Herd Management emission reduction project with spreading grazing into under-   ±   ± NR1, NR3, NR7, NRS1 utilised areas with reduced stocking rates       NR1, NR3, NR7, NRS1 with low-stress cattle husbandry      NR1, HERD1 with the reduction of        NR5, NRS1, NRS3 wildfire extent Additional property management for biodiversity co-benefits Maintain healthy biodiversity BIO1, BIO2, BIO4, BIOS1,    across grazing lands BIOS2, BIO-S3, BIO-S4 Enter into formal      BIOS-6 conservation covenants Whole-of-enterprise management for socioeconomic and animal welfare co-benefits Staff capacity and    SOC1, SOC2, SOCS1 welfare management Indigenous employment    SOC3, SOCS2 and engagement

* See Table 7 for details of indicators. Symbols: , financial reward / positive benefit. ±, possible financial reward / possible negative impact, depending on species and other management changes.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 37 Summary and conclusions

Beef Cattle Herd Management emission reduction projects will also need help to navigate the legal and transactional offer a unique opportunity to improve degraded pastoral requirements of entering and undertaking a BCHM project. land and deliver biodiversity and socioeconomic benefits in Financial rewards of undertaking BCHM projects come from north-west Queensland. Benefits will primarily be delivered four sources. The most significant are through improved through increased beef production and restoration of productivity and increased beef sales, with a small fraction degraded ground cover. Most other financial, biodiversity and through carbon credits (although this fraction is expected employment benefits flow on from these primary benefits. to increase as the imperative for climate change action is The biggest risk of such projects will be where changes to realised). For BCHM Plus, additional rewards may be derived herd management are undertaken without regard to pasture through increased access to premium markets for both beef condition. The greatest benefits will be where BCHM projects and carbon credits, and as one-off payments for conservation are integrated into whole-of-enterprise plans that include works. Access to these markets will require an accredited identifying and managing biodiversity values (particularly monitoring and evaluation scheme to provide evidence that managing up to 10% of each project area for biodiversity the co-benefits have been delivered, and may also require conservation); an inclusive employment policy; and pastoralists to enter into contractual arrangements. The engagement of Traditional Owners through an Indigenous monitoring framework presented here has been based on Land Use Agreement (BCHM Plus projects). existing schemes monitoring Queensland pastoral lands, The priority areas for undertaking BCHM projects are the parts and uses many indicators that are already in use in the of north-west Queensland that have lower than expected industry-led Australian Beef Sustainability Framework. ground cover. The priority areas for undertaking BCHM Plus It provides a staged implementation schedule to allow projects are where biodiversity values have been delineated individual pastoralists to value-add to their BCHM project by as Strategic Offset Investment Corridors; where Regional incorporating those BCHM Plus elements that they believe Ecosystems are poorly represented in the protected area best suited to their own situations. The case study provided estate; and where conservation outcomes can be improved by shows an example of how a north-west Queensland beef fencing significant wetlands or reducing wildfire extent for the business could improve its profitability while also delivering protection of fire-sensitive rare and threatened species. the biodiversity and socioeconomic outcomes that it considers important. For BCHM and BCHM Plus projects to deliver co-benefits, education and extension programs will be required to help In conclusion, BCHM offers a unique opportunity to engage pastoralists to understand the practice improvement best with pastoralists to improve business resilience and achieve suited to their enterprises; the financial implications of these environmental and social co-benefits, and to have those practices; and the best pathway for implementing them. They co-benefits enshrined in pastoral management across north- west Queensland.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 38 References

1. Department of Science Information Technology and Innovation 16. Phelps DG et al. 2014. Climate savvy grazing - Developing 2015. Land use mapping - Queensland current. (State of improved grazing and related practices to assist beef Queensland, Brisbane). production enterprises across northern Australia to adapt to a 2. Accad A et al. 2019. Remnant regional ecosystem vegetation changing and more variable climate. Final Report B.NBP.0616 in Queensland: Analysis 1997-2017. (Queensland Department (Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com. of Environment and Science, Brisbane). www.qld.gov.au/ au/research-and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report- environment/plants-animals/plants/ecosystems/remnant- details/Environment-On-Farm/Climate-savvy-grazing/425 vegetation#bioregion [Accessed 24 Sep 2019] [Accessed 25 Sep 2019] 3. Department of Environment and Science 2019. Biodiversity 17. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 2018. Queensland planning assessment - Gulf Plains. http://qldspatial.information. AgTrends 2018–19: Forecasts and trends in Queensland qld.gov.au/catalogue [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] agricultural, fisheries and forestry production. (State of Queensland, Brisbane). https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/ 4. Department of Environment and Science 2009. Biodiversity queensland-agtrends [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] planning assessment - Mitchell Grass Downs. http://qldspatial. information.qld.gov.au/catalogue [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] 18. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 2019. AgTrends update: April 2019. (State of Queensland, Brisbane). https://publications. 5. Department of Environment and Science 2018. VegMachine. qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-agtrends [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] https://vegmachine.net [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] 19. Paton S 2017. Drought and poverty in central western 6. Woinarski JCZ et al. 2007. The nature of northern Australia: Queensland 2016-2017. (Centacare CQ, Rockhampton). www. Its natural values, ecological processes and future prospects. centacarecq.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Drought-and- (ANU ePress, Canberra). https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/ Poverty-Report-HQ-Linked2017.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] nature-northern-australia [Accessed 13 Nov 2019] 20. McGowan M et al. 2014. Northern Australian beef fertility 7. Bastin G & the ACRIS Management Committee 2008. project: CashCow. Final Report Project B.NBP.0382 (Meat and Rangelands 2008 — Taking the Pulse. (Published on behalf Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/research- of the ACRIS Management Committee by the National Land and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/ & Water Resources Audit, Canberra). www.environment.gov. productivity-on-farm/northern-australian-beef-fertility-project- au/land/publications/acris-rangelands-2008-taking-pulse cashcow/370 [Accessed 28 Sep 2019] [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] 21. McLean I et al. 2014. The Northern beef report: 2013 Northern 8. Walton S 2019. Southern Gulf NRM support North West graziers beef situation analysis. (Meat and Livestock Australia, North with high-level strategy. The North West Star. 27 Feb, www. Sydney). www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/search- northweststar.com.au/story/5926931/southern-gulf-nrm- rd-reports/final-report-details/Productivity-On-Farm/The- supports-graziers-and-environment-with-high-level-strategy Northern-beef-report-2013-Northern-beef-situation-analysis/234 9. Wilson PL et al. 2010. Soils of Northern Australia-potential food [Accessed 23 Sep 2019] bowl or dust bowl? In 19th World Congress of Soil Science: 22. Bray SG et al. 2016. Climate Clever Beef: options to improve Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, Australia, pp. business performance and reduce greenhouse gas emissions 13-6. www.iuss.org/19th%20WCSS/Symposium/pdf/0198.pdf in northern Australia. The Rangeland Journal. 38:207-18. doi: [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] 10.1071/RJ15124 10. Caitcheon GG et al. 2012. The dominant erosion processes 23. Berndt A & Tomkins NW 2013. Measurement and mitigation of supplying fine sediment to three major rivers in tropical methane emissions from beef cattle in tropical grazing systems: Australia, the Daly (NT), Mitchell (Qld) and Flinders (Qld) a perspective from Australia and Brazil. Animal. 7:363-72. doi: Rivers. Geomorphology. 151-152:188-95. doi: 10.1016/j. 10.1017/S1751731113000670 geomorph.2012.02.001 24. Bray SG & Willcocks J 2009. Net carbon position of the 11. Weed Management CRC 2003. Weed management guide: Prickly Queensland beef industry. (State of Queensland). www. acacia (Acacia nilotica). Weeds of National Signficance. www. futurebeef.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Net-carbon- environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/publications/ beef-industry.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] guidelines/wons/pubs/a-nilotica.pdf [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] 25. Wiedemann SG et al. 2015. Resource use and greenhouse gas 12. Department of the Environment and Energy 2016. Collaborative intensity of Australian beef production: 1981–2010. Agricultural Australian Protected Areas Database (2016): National Reserve Systems. 133:109-18. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2014.11.002 System. (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www. environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/3a086119-5ec2-4bf1- 26. Department of the Environment and Energy 2019. National 9889-136376c5bd25/files/ibra-regions-protection-2016.pdf Inventory Report 2017, The Australian Government Submission [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www. 13. Crowley GM 2016. Trends in natural resource management environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/ in Australia’s Monsoonal North: The beef industry. (The greenhouse-gas-measurement/publications/national-inventory- Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia). report-2017 [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/43653/1/Beef_industry.pdf [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] 27. Sustainability Steering Group 2019. Australian Beef Sustainability Framework www.sustainableaustralianbeef.com. 14. McCosker T et al. 2010. Northern beef situation analysis 2009. au [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] (Meat & Livestock Australia). 28. Broad KC et al. 2011. Adapting to beef business pressures in 15. McLean I & Holmes P 2015. Improving the performance the Gulf. (Department of Employment, Economic Development of northern beef enterprises: Key findings for producers and Innovation, Kairi). www.futurebeef.com.au/wp-content/ from the Northern Beef Report. 2nd edition (Meat and uploads/2012/04/4-NBRUC20111.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Livestock Australia). 29. Walsh D & Cowley R 2016. Optimising beef business

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 39 performance in northern Australia: what can 30 years of level-rates-of-breeder-cow-mortality-in-northern-Australia- commercial innovation teach us? The Rangeland Journal. including-literature-review/438 [Accessed 28 Sep 2019] 38:291-305. doi: 10.1071/RJ15064 45. Petty S et al. 2013. Guidelines for the development of extensive 30. Commonwealth of Australia 2017. Carbon Credits (Carbon cattle stations in northern Australia: Insights from the Pigeon Farming Initiative—Beef Cattle Herd Management) Hole Project. (Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). Methodology Determination 2015. (Commonwealth of Australia, www.researchgate.net/publication/278412002_Guidelines_ Canberra). www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00466 for_the_development_of_extensive_cattle_stations_in_ [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] northern_Australia_Insights_from_the_Pigeon_Hole_Project 31. Cullen BR et al. 2016. The effect of earlier mating and [Accessed 30 Sep 2019] improving fertility on greenhouse gas emissions intensity of 46. Quigley S & Poppi D 2013. Factors associated with divergent beef production in northern Australian herds. The Rangeland post-weaning live weight gain in northern Australian Beef Cattle. Journal. 38:283-90. doi: 10.1071/RJ15063 Final report B.NBP.0629 (Meat and Livestock Australia, North 32. Ash A et al. 2002. The Ecograze Project: Developing guidelines Sydney). www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/search- to better manage grazing country. (CSIRO, Townsville). rd-reports/final-report-details/Productivity-On-Farm/Factors- associated-with-divergent-post-weaning-liveweight-gain-in- 33. Fisher A & Kutt AS 2007. Biodiversity and land condition northern-Australian-beef-cattle/433 [Accessed 30 Sep 2019] in tropical savanna rangelands - technical report. (Tropical Savannas CRC, Darwin). www.researchgate.net/ 47. Cowley R et al. 2007. Optimal pasture utilisation rates for publication/268151055_Biodiversity_and_Land_Condition_ sustainable cattle production with a commercial brahman in_Tropical_Savanna_Rangelands_Technical_Report herd in the Victoria River Downs region of the Northern [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Territory. Proceedings, Northern Beef Research Update Conference. 2007:34-44. 34. Lankester A 2012. Understanding producers’ change to more sustainable grazing practices in the tropical savanna rangelands 48. Bray SG et al. 2014. Climate Clever Beef: on farm of north Queensland. Final report for Project B.NBP.0467 demsonstration of adaptation and mitigation options for (Meat and Livestock Australia). www.mla.com.au/research- climate change in northern Australia. Final report B.NBP.0564. and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/ (Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). http://era.daf. Extension-On-Farm/Understanding-producers-change-to- qld.gov.au/id/eprint/6106/1/B.NBP.0564_Final_Report.pdf more-sustainable-grazing-practices-in-the-tropical-savanna- [Accessed 19 Sep 2019] rangelands-of-North-Queensland/380 [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 49. Scanlan JC et al. 2013. Scaling results up from a plot and 35. Lankester AJ 2013. Conceptual and operational understanding paddock scale to a property – a case study from a long-term of learning for sustainability: A case study of the beef industry in grazing experiment in northern Australia. The Rangeland north-eastern Australia. Journal of Environmental Management. Journal. 35:193-200. doi: 10.1071/RJ12084 119:182-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.002 50. Silcock RG et al. 2005. Enhancing pasture stability and 36. Nelson BS & Robinson E 2009. Critical success factors of a whole profitability for producers in poplar box and silverleaved of business extension approach for increased capacity of beef ironbark woodlands. (Meat and Livestock Australia, producers and improved enterprise profit and sustainability. North Sydney). The Rangeland Journal. 31:61-8. doi: 10.1071/RJ08059 51. Ash AJ et al. 1995. How land condition alters plant-animal 37. Moon K & Cocklin C 2011. Participation in biodiversity relationships in Australia’s tropical rangelands. Agriculture, conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian Ecosystems & Environment. 56:77-92. doi: 10.1016/0167- landholders. Journal of Rural Studies. 27:331-42. doi: 10.1016/j. 8809(95)00645-1 jrurstud.2011.04.001 52. Hunt LP et al. 2014. Principles and guidelines for managing 38. Lockie S 2013. Market instruments, ecosystem services, and cattle grazing in the grazing lands of northern Australia: property rights: Assumptions and conditions for sustained Stocking rates, pasture resting, prescribed fire, paddock size social and ecological benefits. Land Use Policy. 31:90-8. doi: and water points – a review. The Rangeland Journal. 36:105-19. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.08.010 doi: 10.1071/RJ13070 39. Meat and Livestock Australia 2017. Red meat industry can be 53. QDAF 2019. Land Types of Queensland. (Queensland carbon neutral by 2030. www.mla.com.au/news-and-events/ Department of Agriculture and Fisheries). https://futurebeef. industry-news/red-meat-industry-can-be-carbon-neutral-by-2030 com.au/knowledge-centre/land-types-of-queensland [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] [Accessed 23 Sep 2019] 40. Charmley E et al. 2008. Predicting livestock productivity and 54. Chilcott CR et al. 2003. Grazing land management education methane emissions in northern Australia: development of package; workshop notes – Burdekin. (Meat and Livestock a bio-economic modelling approach. Australian Journal of Australia, North Sydney). Experimental Agriculture. 48:109-13. doi: 10.1071/EA07264 55. Southern Gulf NRM 2016. Land Condition Guide. (Southern 41. Hegarty RS et al. 2007. Cattle selected for lower residual feed Gulf NRM, Mount Isa). www.southerngulf.com.au/wp- intake have reduced daily methane production. Journal of content/uploads/2016/07/GUI-Land-Condition-Rev2.pdf Animal Science. 85:1479-86. doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-236 [Accessed 23 Sep 2019] 42. Rolfe J 2010. Economics of reducing methane emissions from 56. Shaw K et al. 2007. A contemporary assessment of land beef cattle in extensive grazing systems in Queensland. The condition in the Northern Gulf region of Queensland. Tropical Rangeland Journal. 32:197-204. doi: 10.1071/RJ09026 Grasslands. 41:245. 43. Bentley D et al. 2008. Managing livestock enterprises in 57. McIvor JG 2010. Enhancing adoption of improved grazing and Australia’s extensive rangelands for greenhouse gas and fire management practices in northern Australia: Synthesis environmental outcomes: a pastoral company perspective. of research and identification of best bet management Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 48:60-4. doi: guidelines. Final report B.NBP.0579 (Meat & Livestock 10.1071/EA07210 Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/Research- and-development/Search-RD-reports/final-report-details/ 44. Henderson A et al. 2013. Determining property-level rates Environment-On-Farm/Enhancing-adoption-of-improved- of breeder cow mortality in northern Australia. Final report grazing-and-fire-management-practices-in-northern-Australia- B.NBP.0664 (Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www. Synthesis-of-research-and-identification-of-best-bet-ma/416 mla.com.au/Research-and-development/Search-RD-reports/ [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] final-report-details/Productivity-On-Farm/Determining-property- 58. Phelps DG et al. 2007. Mitchell grass death in Qld: extent,

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 40 economic impact and potential for recovery. Final Report 74. Gibson LA 2001. Seasonal changes in the diet, food availability NBP.348 (Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www. and food preference of the greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) in mla.com.au/research-and-development/search-rd-reports/ south-western Queensland. Wildlife Research. 28:121-34. doi: final-report-details/Environment-On-Farm/Mitchell-grass-death- 10.1071/WR00003 in-Queensland-extent-economic-impact-and-potential-for- 75. Telfer WR & Bowman DMJS 2006. Diet of four rock-dwelling recovery/664 [Accessed 25 Sep 2019] macropods in the Australian monsoon tropics. Austral 59. Scanlan JC et al. 2014. Resting pastures to improve land Ecology. 31:817-27. condition in northern Australia: guidelines based on the 76. Southgate RI & Carthew SM 2006. Diet of the bilby (Macrotis literature and simulation modelling. The Rangeland Journal. lagotis) in relation to substrate, fire and rainfall characteristics 36:429-43. doi: 10.1071/RJ14071 in the Tanami Desert. Wildlife Research. 33:507-19. doi: 60. Crowley GM et al. 2009. Impact of storm-burns on Melaleuca 10.1071/WR05079 viridiflora invasion of grasslands and grassy woodlands on 77. Crowley GM & Garnett ST 1999. Seed of the annual grasses Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Austral Ecology. 34:196-209. doi: Schizachyrium spp. as a food for tropical granivorous birds. 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2008.01921.x Australian Journal of Ecology. 24:208-20. doi: 10.1046/j.1442- 61. Cowley RA et al. 2014. How hot? How often? Getting the fire 9993.1999.00964.x frequency and timing right for optimal management of woody 78. Crowley GM & Garnett ST 2001. Growth, seed production and cover and pasture composition in northern Australian grazed effect of defoliation in an early flowering perennial grass, tropical savannas. Kidman Springs Fire Experiment 1993–2013. Alloteropsis semialata (Poaceae), on Cape York Peninsula, The Rangeland Journal. 36:323-45. doi: 10.1071/RJ14030 Australia. Australian Journal of Botany. 49:735-43. doi: 62. Grice AC 2007. Developing, implementing and evaluating fire 10.1071/BT00090 management of woody vegetation in the Gulf region. (Meat and 79. Crowley GM 2008. Cockatoo grass Alloteropsis semialata as Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/research- a keystone species in northern Australia. Northern Territory and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/ Naturalist. 20:58-63. Environment-On-Farm/Fire-Management-of-Woody-Vegetation- 80. Kutt AS & Gordon IJ 2012. Variation in terrestrial mammal in-the-Gulf-Region/651 [Accessed 23 Sep 2019] abundance on pastoral and conservation land tenures in north- 63. Broad KC et al. 2011. Adapting to beef business pressures eastern Australian tropical savannas. Animal Conservation. in the Gulf. In Proceedings, Northern Beef Research Update 15:416-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00530.x Conference, 2011, p. 176. 81. Howland BWA et al. 2016. Habitat preference of the striped 64. Chamizo S et al. 2016. ‘The role of biocrusts in arid land legless lizard: Implications of grazing by native herbivores and hydrology’. pp. 321-46 in Weber et al. Biological Soil Crusts: livestock for conservation of grassland biota. Austral Ecology. An Organizing Principle in Drylands (Springer International 41:455-64. doi: 10.1111/aec.12337 Publishing, Cham). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 82. Kutt AS et al. 2004. Distribution and habitat of the desert mouse 319-30214-0_17 (Pseudomys desertor) in Queensland. Wildlife Research. 31:129- 65. Eyre T et al. 2015. BioCondition: A Condition Assessment 42. doi: 10.1071/WR02005 Framework for Terrestrial Biodiversity in Queensland. 83. Dickman CR et al. 1999. Long-term dynamics of rodent Assessment Manual. Version 2.2. Queensland Herbarium, populations in arid Australia: the influence of rainfall. Wildlife Department of Science. Information Technology, Innovation Research. 26:389-403. doi: 10.1071/WR97057 and Arts, Brisbane, 84. McKenzie NL et al. 2007. Analysis of factors implicated 66. Gibbons P & Freudenberger D 2006. An overview of methods in the recent decline of Australia’s mammal fauna. used to assess vegetation condition at the scale of the Journal of Biogeography. 34:597-611. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- site. Ecological Management & Restoration. 7:S10-S7. doi: 2699.2006.01639.x 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2006.00286.x 85. Monamy V & Fox BJ 2000. Small mammal succession is 67. Parkes D et al. 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: determined by vegetation density rather than time elapsed The ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management & since disturbance. Austral Ecology. 25:580-7. doi: 10.1111/ Restoration. 4:S29-S38. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.4.x j.1442-9993.2000.tb00063.x 68. Bartley R et al. 2006. Runoff and erosion from Australia’s 86. Moseby K et al. 2016. How high is your hummock? The tropical semi-arid rangelands: influence of ground cover importance of Triodia height as a habitat predictor for an for differing space and time scales. Hydrological Processes. endangered marsupial in a fire-prone environment. Austral 20:3317-33. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6334 Ecology. 41:376-89. doi: 10.1111/aec.12323 69. Fraser GW & Stone GS 2016. The effect of soil and pasture 87. Howland B et al. 2014. Eaten out of house and home: Impacts attributes on rangeland infiltration rates in northern Australia. of grazing on ground-dwelling reptiles in Australian grasslands The Rangeland Journal. 38:245-59. doi: 10.1071/RJ15099 and grassy woodlands. PLoS ONE. 9:e105966. doi: 10.1371/ 70. Roth CH 2004. A framework relating soil surface condition journal.pone.0105966 to infiltration and sediment and nutrient mobilization in 88. Orr DM & O’Reagain PJ 2011. Managing for rainfall variability: grazed rangelands of northeastern Queensland, Australia. impacts of grazing strategies on perennial grass dynamics in a Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 29:1093-104. doi: dry tropical savanna. The Rangeland Journal. 33:209-20. doi: 10.1002/esp.1104 10.1071/RJ11032 71. Ludwig JA et al. 2005. Vegetation patches and runoff–erosion as 89. Fisher A et al. 2004. Review of total grazing pressure interacting ecohydrological processes in semiarid landscapes. management issues and priorities for biodiversity conservation Ecology. 86:288-97. doi: 10.1890/03-0569 in rangelands: A resource to aid NRM planning. (Desert 72. Davis NE et al. 2008. Diets of native and introduced Knowledge CRC, Alice Springs, and Tropical Savannas mammalian herbivores in shrub-encroached grassy woodland, Management CRC., Darwin). south-eastern Australia. Wildlife Research. 35:684-94. doi: 90. Landsberg RG et al. 1998. Learning from history to survive in 10.1071/WR08042 the future: Management evolution on trafalgar station, north- 73. Garnett ST et al. 2005. Habitat and diet of the Star Finch East Queensland. The Rangeland Journal. 20:104-18. doi: (Neochmia ruficauda clarescens) in the early wet season at 10.1071/RJ9980104 Princess Charlotte Bay, Cape York Peninsula, Australia. Emu. 91. Ash AJ et al. 1997. Building grass castles: Integrating ecology 105:81-5. ://000228021600009 and management of Australia’s tropical tallgrass rangelands.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 41 Rangeland Journal. 19:123-44. Australia. Ecography. 30:759-76. doi: 10.1111/j.2007.0906-7590. 92. Eldridge DJ et al. 2016. Ecosystem structure, function, 04956.x and composition in rangelands are negatively affected by 110. Jackson H & Prince SD 2016. Degradation of net primary livestock grazing. Ecological Applications. 26:1273-83. doi: production in a semiarid rangeland. Biogeosciences. 13:4721- 10.1890/15-1234 34. doi: 10.5194/bg-13-4721-2016 93. Ash AJ et al. 2011. Grazing management in tropical savannas: 111. Lawrence R et al. 2019. Short-duration rotational grazing leads Utilization and rest strategies to manipulate rangeland to improvements in landscape functionality and increased condition. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 64:223-39. doi: perennial herbaceous plant cover. Agriculture, Ecosystems & 10.2111/REM-D-09-00111.1 Environment. 281:134-44. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.04.031 94. Fensham RJ & Skull SD 1999. Before cattle: a comparative 112. Hall TJ et al. 2014. A comparison of stocking methods for beef floristic study of Eucalyptus savanna grazed by macropods and production in northern Australia: pasture and soil surface cattle in north Queensland, Australia. Biotropica. 31:37-47. doi: condition responses. The Rangeland Journal. 36:161-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.1999.tb00115.x 10.1071/RJ13075 95. Stirrat SC 2000. The ecology and management of the agile 113. Jones RJ 1998. Steer gains, pasture yield and pasture wallaby, Macropus agilis. Northern Territory University Darwin. composition on native pasture and on native pasture oversown 96. Dawson TJ & Ellis BA 1994. Diets of mammalian herbivores in with Indian couch (Bothriochloa pertusa) at three stocking Australian arid shrublands: seasonal effects on overlap between rates. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 37:755-65. red kangaroos, sheep and rabbits and on dietary niche breadths doi: 10.1071/EA97032 and electivities. Journal of Arid Environments. 26:257-71. doi: 114. Mott JJ et al. 1992. Effects of moisture supply in the dry season 10.1006/jare.1994.1028 and subsequent defoliation on the persistence of savanna 97. Eldridge DJ et al. 2017. Do grazing intensity and herbivore grasses Themeda triandra, Heteropogon contortus and type affect soil health? Insights from a semi-arid productivity Panicum maximum. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology. 54:976-85. doi: 43:241-60. doi: 10.1071/AR9920241 10.1111/1365-2664.12834 115. Macleod N & Mcintyre S 1997. Stocking rate impacts on the 98. Scanlan JC et al. 1996. Run-off and soil movement on mid- production and economic performance of steers grazing black slopes in north-east Queensland grazed woodlands. The speargrass pastures. The Rangeland Journal. 19:174-89. doi: Rangeland Journal. 18:33-46. doi: 10.1071/RJ9960033 10.1071/RJ9970174 99. McIvor JG et al. 1995. Pasture management influences runoff 116. Orr DM 2005. Effects of stocking rate, legume augmentation, and soil movement in the semi-arid tropics. Australian Journal supplements and fire on animal production and stability of of Experimental Agriculture. 35:55-65. doi: 10.1071/EA9950055 native pastures. Final Report NAP3.207. (Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/download/ 100. Ward DP & Kutt AS 2009. Rangeland biodiversity assessment finalreports?itemId=889 [Accessed 18 Sep 2019] using fine scale on-ground survey, time series of remotely sensed ground cover and climate data: an Australian savanna 117. O’Reagain P et al. 2007. Testing and developing principles and case study. Landscape Ecology. 24:495-507. doi: 10.1007/ management guidelines for the sustainable management of the s10980-009-9324-1 seasonably variable tropical savannas. Final Report for Project NBP.318 (Meat and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). 101. Kutt AS & Fisher A 2011. Increased grazing and dominance of an exotic pasture (Bothriochloa pertusa) affects vertebrate 118. O’Reagain P et al. 2011. Managing for rainfall variability: long- fauna species composition, abundance and habitat in term profitability of different grazing strategies in a northern savanna woodland. The Rangeland Journal. 33:49-58. doi: Australian tropical savanna. Animal Production Science. 51:210- 10.1071/RJ10065 24. doi: 10.1071/AN10106 102. Letnic M & Dickman CR 2010. Resource pulses and mammalian 119. Cullen BR et al. 2018. Influence of climate variability and dynamics: conceptual models for hummock grasslands and stocking strategies on greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), other Australian desert habitats. Biological Reviews. 85:501-21. production and profit of a northern Queensland beef doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00113.x cattle herd. Animal Production Science. 58:990-7. doi: 10.1071/AN15608 103. McGregor HW et al. 2014. Landscape management of fire and grazing regimes alters the fine-scale habitat utilisation by feral 120. Landsberg J et al. 1997. The effects of artificial sources of water cats. PLoS ONE. 9:e109097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109097 on rangeland biodiversity. Final report to the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories (CSIRO, Canberra). www. 104. Russell-Smith J et al. 2006. Fire regimes and soil erosion environment.gov.au/archive/biodiversity/publications/technical/ in north Australian hilly savannas. International Journal of artificial-water [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Wildland Fire. 15:551-6. doi: 10.1071/WF05112 121. Dunlop JA et al. 2017. Dietary flexibility in small carnivores: 105. Prosser IP & Williams L 1998. The effect of wildfire on runoff and a case study on the endangered northern quoll, Dasyurus erosion in native Eucalyptus forest. Hydrological Processes. hallucatus. Journal of Mammalogy. 98:858-66. doi: 10.1093/ 12:251-65. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1085(199802)12:2<251::Aid- jmammal/gyx015 hyp574>3.0.Co;2-4 122. Griffiths AD & Christian KA 1996. Diet and habitat use of frillneck 106. Dragovich D & Morris R 2002. ‘Fire intensity, runoff and sediment lizards in a seasonal tropical environment. Oecologia. 106:39- movement in eucalypt forest near Sydney, Australia’. pp. 145-64 48. doi: 10.1007/bf00334405 in Allison Applied Geomorphology: Theory and Practice (John Wiley and Sons, Chichester). 123. Griffiths M te al. 1990. The diet of the spiny anteater Tachyglossus aculeatus acanthion in tropical habitats of 107. Letnic M et al. 2004. The responses of small mammals and the Northern Territory. The Beagle, Records of the Northern lizards to post-fire succession and rainfall in arid Australia. Territory Museum and Arts Society. 7:79-90. Journal of Arid Environments. 59:85-114. doi: 10.1016/j. jaridenv.2004.01.014 124. Mcilwee AP & Johnson CN 1998. The contribution of fungus to the diets of three mycophagous marsupials in Eucalyptus 108. Letnic M & Dickman CR 2005. The responses of small mammals forests, revealed by stable isotope analysis. Functional to patches regenerating after fire and rainfall in the Simpson Ecology. 12:223-31. Desert, central Australia. Austral Ecology. 30:24-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01410.x 125. Tongway D 1995. Monitoring soil productive potential. Environmental monitoring and assessment. 37:303-18. doi: 109. Southgate RI et al. 2007. Bilby distribution and fire: a test of 10.1007/bf00546897 alternative models of habitat suitability in the Tanami Desert,

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 42 126. Tongway DJ & Hindley N 1995. Manual for soil condition use change: processes and potential. Global Change Biology. assessment of tropical grasslands. (CSIRO, Canberra). 6:317-27. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00308.x 127. Vandandorj S et al. 2017. Microsite and grazing intensity drive 144. Conant RT et al. 2001. Grassland management infiltration in a semiarid woodland. Ecohydrology. 10:e1831. and conversion into grassland: effects on soil doi: 10.1002/eco.1831 carbon. Ecological Applications. 11:343-55. doi: 128. Eldridge DJ et al. 2013. Grazing dampens the positive effects 10.1890/1051-0761(2001)011[0343:gmacig]2.0.co;2 of shrub encroachment on ecosystem functions in a semi- 145. Medina-Roldán E et al. 2012. Grazing exclusion affects soil and arid woodland. Journal of Applied Ecology. 50:1028-38. doi: plant communities, but has no impact on soil carbon storage in 10.1111/1365-2664.12105 an upland grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 129. Northup BK et al. 1999. Grazing impacts on the spatial 149:118-23. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.012 distribution of soil microbial biomass around tussock grasses 146. Walsh D 2014. What impact has grazing had on soil carbon? in a tropical grassland. Applied Soil Ecology. 13:259-70. doi: Katherine Rural Review. September 2014:6. 10.1016/S0929-1393(99)00039-6 147. Carter J & Fraser G 2009. ‘0–5 cm soil carbon trends with 130. Eldridge DJ et al. 2017. Competition drives the response of removal of domestic stock: An analysis of data from 12 grazing soil microbial diversity to increased grazing by vertebrate exclosures. Appendix 2’. pp. 156-65 in Dean et al. Prognosis herbivores. Ecology. 98:1922-31. doi: 10.1002/ecy.1879 for Carbon Sequestration in Rangelands upon Destocking. A 131. Johns GG et al. 1984. ‘Land and water processes’. pp. 25–40 in case study of the vast Australian Rangelands with reference Harrington et al. Management of Australia’s Rangelands (CSIRO to biogeochemistry, ecology, fire, biodiversity and climate Publishing, Melbourne). change (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Australia). 132. Bartley R et al. 2014. Can changes to pasture management reduce runoff and sediment loss to the Great Barrier Reef? The 148. Pringle MJ et al. 2014. The effect of pasture utilization rate on results of a 10-year study in the Burdekin catchment, Australia. stocks of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in a semi-arid The Rangeland Journal. 36:67-84. doi: 10.1071/RJ13013 tropical grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 195:83-90. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.05.013 133. Witt GB et al. 2011. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity restoration potential of semi-arid mulga lands of Australia 149. Allen DE et al. 2013. What determines soil organic carbon stocks interpreted from long-term grazing exclosures. Agriculture, in the grazing lands of north-eastern Australia? Soil Research. Ecosystems & Environment. 141:108-18. doi: 10.1016/j. 51:695-706. doi: 10.1071/SR13041 agee.2011.02.020 150. Piñeiro G et al. 2010. Pathways of grazing effects on soil organic 134. Wilkinson SN et al. 2013. Gully erosion and its carbon and nitrogen. Rangeland Ecology & Management. response to grazing practices in the Upper Burdekin 63:109-19. doi: 10.2111/08-255.1 catchment. A report to NQ Dry Tropics for the Paddock 151. Pringle MJ et al. 2011. Soil carbon stock in the tropical to reef program. (CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country rangelands of Australia: Effects of soil type and grazing pressure, Flagship, Canberra). https://pdfs.semanticscholar. and determination of sampling requirement. Geoderma. org/7f3a/d709cd2bb4e0e4d94df8f3ba47465e1e32dc.pdf 167–168:261-73. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.09.001 [Accessed 19 Sep 2019] 152. Asner GP et al. 2003. Net changes in regional woody vegetation 135. Ludwig JA & Tongway DJ 1996. Rehabilitation of semiarid cover and carbon storage in Texas Drylands, 1937–1999. landscapes in Australia. II. Restoring vegetation patches. Global Change Biology. 9:316-35. doi: 10.1046/j.1365- Restoration Ecology. 4:398-406. doi: 10.1111/j.1526- 2486.2003.00594.x 100X.1996.tb00192.x 153. Derner JD et al. 2006. Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in 136. Shellberg JG & Brooks AP 2013. Alluvial gully prevention and the North American Great Plains. Plant and Soil. 280:77-90. doi: rehabilitation options for reducing sediment loads in the 10.1007/s11104-005-2554-3 Normanby catchment and northern Australia. (Australian 154. O’Neill KP et al. 2003. Seasonal and decadal patterns of Rivers Institute, Griffith University). www.capeyorkwaterquality. soil carbon uptake and emission along an age sequence of info/sites/default/files/downloads/shellberg_normanby_ burned black spruce stands in interior Alaska. Journal of gully_rehabilitation_options_report_final_150dpi.pdf Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 108:FFR 11-1-FFR -5. doi: [Accessed 30 Sep 2019] 10.1029/2001JD000443 137. Tongway DJ & Ludwig JA 1996. Rehabilitation of semiarid 155. Wardle DA et al. 2003. Long-Term Effects of Wildfire on landscapes in Australia. I. Restoring productive soil Ecosystem Properties Across an Island Area Gradient. Science. patches. Restoration Ecology. 4:388-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1526- 300:972-5. doi: 10.1126/science.1082709 100X.1996.tb00191.x 156. Riedell W et al. 2011. Grassland canopy management and 138. Lal R 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate native tallgrass species composition effects on C and N in grass change and food security. Science. 304:1623-7. doi: 10.1126/ canopies and soil. Plant and Soil. 338:51-61. doi: 10.1007/ science.1097396 s11104-010-0341-2 139. Allen DE et al. 2010. A review of sampling designs for the 157. Bignell DE et al. 1997. ‘Termites as mediators of carbon fluxes measurement of soil organic carbon in Australian grazing lands. in tropical forest: budgets for carbon dioxide and methane The Rangeland Journal. 32:227-46. doi: 10.1071/RJ09043 emissions’. pp. 109–34 in A.D.Watt et al. Forests and Insects 140. McKenzie NJ et al. 2017. Priorities for improving soil condition (Chapman & Hall, London). across Australia’s agricultural landscapes. Report prepared 158. Roxburgh SH et al. 2004. A critical overview of model estimates for the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and of net primary productivity for the Australian continent. Water Resources (CSIRO, Australia.). Functional Plant Biology. 31:1043-59. doi: 10.1071/FP04100 141. Lam SK et al. 2013. The potential for carbon sequestration in 159. Blaschke PM et al. 2000. Impacts of mass movement Australian agricultural soils is technically and economically erosion on land productivity: a review. Progress in Physical limited. Scientific Reports. 3 doi: 10.1038/srep02179 Geography: Earth and Environment. 24:21-52. doi: 142. Hunt LP 2014. Aboveground and belowground carbon dynamics 10.1177/030913330002400102 in response to fire regimes in the grazed rangelands of northern 160. Dregne HE 1995. Erosion and soil productivity in Australia and Australia: initial results from field studies and modelling. The New Zealand. Land Degradation & Development. 6:71-8. doi: Rangeland Journal. 36:347-58. doi: 10.1071/RJ13123 10.1002/ldr.3400060202 143. Post WM & Kwon KC 2000. Soil carbon sequestration and land- 161. Lal R 2001. Soil degradation by erosion. Land Degradation &

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 43 Development. 12:519-39. doi: 10.1002/ldr.472 179. Kayal M et al. 2012. Predator crown-of-thorns starfish 162. Ludwig JA et al. 1999. Stripes, strands or stipples: modelling (Acanthaster planci) outbreak, mass mortality of corals, and the influence of three landscape banding patterns on resource cascading effects on reef fish and benthic communities. PLoS capture and productivity in semi-arid woodlands, Australia. ONE. 7:e47363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047363 CATENA. 37:257-73. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(98)00067-8 180. De’ath G et al. 2012. The 27–year decline of coral cover on 163. Montgomery DR 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proceedings of the sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of National Academy of Sciences. 109:17995-9. doi: 10.1073/ Sciences. 104:13268-72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0611508104 pnas.1208909109 164. Bui E et al. 2011. ‘Tolerable’ hillslope soil erosion rates in 181. Lu H et al. 2001. Prediction of sheet and rill erosion over Australia: Linking science and policy. Agriculture, Ecosystems & the Australian continent, incorporating monthly soil loss Environment. 144:136-49. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.07.022 distribution. www.clw.csiro.au/publications/technical2001/tr13- 01.pdf [Accessed 20 Sep 2019] 165. McKergow LA et al. 2005. Sources of sediment to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 182. Bartley R et al. 2004. Application of the SedNet Model to the 51:200-11. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.11.029 Bowen Catchment, Queensland: assessment of sediment and nutrient loads at a sub-catchment scale and under different 166. Miles RL & Johnston PW 1990. Run-off and soil loss from four grazing scenarios. A Report to the Burdekin Dry Tropics Board small catchments in the mulga lands of South west Queensland. for the NAP PAP 4 Project in the Bowen Catchment (CSIRO Land In Proc. 6th Australian Rangeland Conference, Carnarvon, and Water Townsville). Western Australia. , pp. 170-84. 183. Bartley R et al. 2010. Impacts of improved grazing land 167. Bainbridge ZT et al. 2014. Fine-suspended sediment and water management on sediment yields, Part 1: Hillslope budgets for a large, seasonally dry tropical catchment: Burdekin processes. Journal of Hydrology. 389:237-48. doi: 10.1016/j. River catchment, Queensland, Australia. Water Resources jhydrol.2010.05.002 Research. 50:9067-87. doi: 10.1002/2013WR014386 184. Hawdon A et al. 2008. ‘Hydrological recovery of rangeland 168. Moss A et al. 2005. Water quality guidelines for the Great following cattle exclusion’. pp. 532-9 in Sediment dynamics Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: a basis for development and in changing environments (IAHS Publ. 325, Christchurch preliminary values. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 51:76-88. doi: New Zealand). 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.10.052 185. Brogan DJ et al. 2019. Spatial and temporal patterns of 169. Waycott M et al. 2005. Seagrass population dynamics and water sediment storage and erosion following a wildfire and quality in the Great Barrier Reef region: A review and future extreme flood. Earth Surf. Dynam. 7:563-90. doi: 10.5194/ research directions. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 51:343-50. doi: esurf-7-563-2019 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.01.017 186. Wilkinson SN et al. 2013. Using sediment tracing to assess 170. Brodie J et al. 2014. Links between water quality and marine processes and spatial patterns of erosion in grazed rangelands, turtle health. A Technical Report to the World Wildlife Fund Burdekin River basin, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & (TropWATER, Townsville). www.researchgate.net/profile/Jon_ Environment. 180:90-102. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.02.002 Brodie/publication/304424778_Links_Between_Water_Quality_ and_Marine_Turtle_Health_TropWATER_Report_No_1405/ 187. Higham W et al. 2017. Technical report to the Springvale station links/58b65d2592851c471d43cf9b/Links-Between-Water-Quality- erosion management plan. (Cape York NRM, Atherton). www. and-Marine-Turtle-Health-TropWATER-Report-No-14-05.pdf capeyorknrm.com.au/sites/default/files/2018-10/Technical- [Accessed 30 Sep 2019] Springvale-Erosion-Management-Plan-20171212-web.pdf [Accessed 30 Sep 2019] 171. Thorburn PJ et al. 2013. Water quality in agricultural lands draining to the Great Barrier Reef: A review of causes, 188. Coates D & Mannetje L 1990. Productivity of cows and calves management and priorities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & on native and improved pasture in subcoastal, subtropical Environment. 180:4-20. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.07.006 Queensland. Trop Grasslands. 24:46-54. 172. Fabricius KE 2005. Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of 189. Gillard P et al. 1980. Comparison of Stylosanthes humilis with corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis. Marine Pollution S. hamata and S. subsericea in the Queensland dry tropics: Bulletin. 50:125-46. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.11.028 effects on pasture composition and cattle liveweight gain. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 31:205-20. doi: 173. Jones JI et al. 2012. The relationship between fine sediment 10.1071/AR9800205 and macrophytes in rivers. River Research and Applications. 28:1006-18. doi: 10.1002/rra.1486 190. Lesleighter L & Shelton H 1986. Adoption of the shrub legume Leucaena leucocephala in Central and Southeast Queensland. 174. Longstaff BJ & Dennison WC 1999. Seagrass survival during Tropical Grasslands. 20:97. pulsed turbidity events: the effects of light deprivation on the seagrasses Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ovalis. Aquatic 191. Ash A et al. 2015. Boosting the productivity and profitability Botany. 65:105-21. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3770(99)00035-2 of northern Australian beef enterprises: Exploring innovation options using simulation modelling and systems analysis. 175. Campbell SJ & McKenzie LJ 2004. Flood related loss and Agricultural Systems. 139:50-65. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.001 recovery of intertidal seagrass meadows in southern Queensland, Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 192. Jones RM & Jones RJ 1984. The effect of Leucaena leucocephala 60:477-90. doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2004.02.007 on liveweight gain, thyroid size and thyroxine levels of steers in south-eastern Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental 176. Waycott M et al. 2009. Accelerating loss of seagrasses across Agriculture. 24:4-9. doi: 10.1071/EA9840004 the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106:12377-81. doi: 10.1073/ 193. Harrison MT et al. 2015. Improving greenhouse gas emissions pnas.0905620106 intensities of subtropical and tropical beef farming systems using Leucaena leucocephala. Agricultural Systems. 136:138-46. 177. Fabricius KE et al. 2010. Three lines of evidence to link doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.03.003 outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns seastar Acanthaster planci to the release of larval food limitation. Coral Reefs. 29:593-605. 194. Schlesinger C et al. 2013. Spatial pattern and severity of fire doi: 10.1007/s00338-010-0628-z in areas with and without buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) and effects on native vegetation in central Australia. Austral Ecology. 178. Brodie J et al. 2005. Are increased nutrient inputs responsible 38:831-40. doi: 10.1111/aec.12039 for more outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish? An appraisal of the evidence. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 51:266-78. doi: 195. Bonney S et al. 2017. Biodiversity impacts of an invasive grass: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.10.035 ant community responses to Cenchrus ciliaris in arid Australia.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 44 Biological Invasions. 19:57-72. doi: 10.1007/s10530-016-1263-6 (Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra). 196. Marshall VM et al. 2012. Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an 215. Harrington GN 1979. The effects of feral goats and sheep on the invader and threat to biodiversity in arid environments: A shrub populations in a semi-arid woodland. The Rangeland review. Journal of Arid Environments. 78:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j. Journal. 1:334-45. doi: 10.1071/RJ9790334 jaridenv.2011.11.005 216. Harrington G 1986. Herbivore diet in a semi-arid Eucalyptus 197. Andrew JF 2002. The ecological consequences of Buffel Grass populnea woodland. 2. Feral goats. Australian Journal of Cenchrus ciliaris establishment within remnant vegetation Experimental Agriculture. 26:423-9. doi: 10.1071/EA9860423 of Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology. 8:99-107. doi: 217. Greene RSB et al. 1998. Runoff and micromorphological 10.1071/PC020099 properties of a grazed haplargid, near Cobar, NSW, Australia. 198. Martin TG et al. 2015. Buffel grass and climate change: a Soil Research. 36:87-108. doi: 10.1071/S97024 framework for projecting invasive species distributions when 218. Wasson RJ & Galloway RW 1986. Sediment yield in the Barrier data are scarce. Biological Invasions. 17:3197-210. doi: 10.1007/ Range before and after European settlement. The Rangeland s10530-015-0945-9 Journal. 8:79-90. doi: 10.1071/RJ9860079 199. Grice AC 2006. The impacts of invasive plant species on the 219. Bayne P et al. 2004. Feral goats (Capra hircus L.) in the Macleay biodiversity of Australian rangelands. Rangeland Journal. 28:27- River gorge system, north-eastern New South Wales, Australia. 35. doi: 10.1071/RJ06014 I. Impacts on soil erosion. Wildlife Research. 31:519-25. doi: 200. Campbell S et al. 2019. Weed leucaena and its significance, 10.1071/WR03039 implications and control. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes 220. Mills AJ et al. 2005. Effects of goat pastoralism on ecosystem Tropicales. 7:280-9. doi: 10.17138/TGFT(7)280-289 carbon storage in semiarid thicket, Eastern Cape, South 201. Shelton HM et al. 2003. A survey of the weed status and Africa. Austral Ecology. 30:797-804. doi: 10.1111/j.1442- management of Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit in 9993.2005.01523.x Queensland, Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly. 18:42-7. 221. Sparrow AD et al. 2003. Degradation and recovery processes www.weedinfo.com.au/ppq_abs18/ppq_18-2-42.html in arid grazing lands of central Australia Part 3: implications at 202. Biosecurity Queensland 2016. Invasive plant: Leucaena landscape scale. Journal of Arid Environments. 55:349-60. doi: Leucaena leucocephala. (Department of Agriculture and 10.1016/S0140-1963(03)00027-2 Fisheries, Brisbane). www.daf.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ 222. Kinloch JE & Friedel MH 2005. Soil seed reserves in arid grazing file/0019/73450/IPA-Leucaena-PP85.pdf [Accessed 24 Sep 2019] lands of central Australia. Part 1: seed bank and vegetation 203. McMillan HE et al. 2019. Sterile leucaena becomes a reality? dynamics. Journal of Arid Environments. 60:133-61. doi: Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales. 7:74-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2004.03.005 10.17138/tgft(7)74-79 223. Letnic M 2004. Cattle grazing in a hummock grassland 204. Leishman MR et al. 2017. ‘Invasive plants and pathogens in regenerating after fire: the short-term effects of cattle exclusion Australia’. pp. 207-29 in Keith Australian Vegetation 3rd Edition on vegetation in south-western Queensland. The Rangeland edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK). Journal. 26:34-48. 205. Christensen B 2019. The Leucaena Network and the Leucaena 224. Eldridge D & Greene R 1994. Microbiotic soil crusts - a review of Code of Practice. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales. their roles in soil and ecological processes in the rangelands of 7:331‒2. doi: 10.17138/TGFT(7)331-332 Australia. Soil Research. 32:389-415. doi: 10.1071/SR9940389 206. Fensham RJ et al. 2013. Propagule pressure, not fire or 225. Bomford M & Hart Q 2002. ‘Non-indigenous vertebrates in cattle grazing, promotes invasion of buffel grass Cenchrus Australia’. pp. 25-45 in Pimental Biological Invasions: Economic ciliaris. Journal of Applied Ecology. 50:138-46. doi: and Environmental Costs of Alien Plant, Animal, and Microbe 10.1111/1365-2664.12009 Species (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida). 207. Melzer RI 2015. When is stock grazing an appropriate ‘tool’ 226. Department of the Environment and Energy 2017. Threat for reducing ‘Cenchrus ciliaris’ (Buffel grass) on conservation abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation, reserves? The Proceedings of the Royal Society of competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) Queensland. 120:53-68. (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www.environment. 208. Northern Gulf Resource Management Group 2016. Northern gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/feral-pig-2017 Gulf Region: Natural Resource Management Plan 2016– [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 2021. (Northern Gulf Resource Management Group Ltd, 227. Department of the Environment and Energy 2016. Threat Georgetown, Queensland). http://plan.northerngulf.com.au/ abatement plan for competition and land degradation by wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NGRMG-NRM-Plan-2016-2021.pdf rabbits. (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www. [Accessed 26 Sep 2019] environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/ 209. Fensham RJ & Fairfax RJ 2008. Water-remoteness for grazing tap/competition-and-land-degradation-rabbits-2016 relief in Australian arid-lands. Biological Conservation. [Accessed 26 Sep 2019] 141:1447-60. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.016 228. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the 210. Queensland Government 2019. Kangaroo damage mitigation Arts 2008. Threat abatement plan for competition and land permits. https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/ degradation by unmanaged goats. (Commonwealth of plants-animals/kangaroo-dmp.html [Accessed 26 Sep 2019] Australia, Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ threatened/publications/tap/competition-and-land-degradation- 211. Ludwig J et al. (eds) 1997. Landscape ecology, function unmanaged-goats [Accessed 26 Sep 2019] and management: Principles from Australia’s rangelands. (CSIRO, Melbourne). 229. Carwardine J et al. 2012. Prioritizing threat management for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters. 5:196-204. doi: 212. Squires VR 1980. Chemical and botanical composition of the 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00228.x diets of oesophageally fistulated sheep, cattle and goats in a semi-arid Eucalyptus populnea woodland community. The 230. Bengsen A & Cox T 2014. The role of rabbit and other Rangeland Journal. 2:94-103. doi: 10.1071/RJ9800094 invasive herbivore control in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. PestSmart Toolkit publication (Invasive 213. Henzell R 1993. The ecology of feral goats. In Planning for Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, ACT, action: Proceedings of the National Workshop on Feral Goat Australia). www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew_Bengsen/ Management, Canberra. (Ed. Freudenberger), pp. 9–16. publication/270582359_The_role_of_rabbit_and_other_ 214. Parkes J et al. 1996. Managing vertebrate pests: feral goats. invasive_herbivore_control_in_reducing_Australia’s_

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 45 greenhouse_gas_emissions/links/54af083f0cf29661a3d456bd.pdf 249. Kaur K et al. 2007. Impact of tree clearing on soil attributes for a [Accessed 26 Sep 2019] pastoral property in central queensland, Australia. Soil Science. 231. Fukuda Y et al. 2009. Fencing artificial waterpoints failed to 172:516-33. doi: 10.1097/SS.0b013e31804fa286 influence density and distribution of red kangaroos (Macropus 250. Ludwig J & Tongway D 2002. Clearing savannas for use as rufus). Wildlife Research. 36:457-65. doi: 10.1071/WR08122 rangelands in Queensland: altered landscapes and water- 232. Colman NJ et al. 2014. Lethal control of an apex predator has erosion processes. The Rangeland Journal. 24:83-95. doi: unintended cascading effects on forest mammal assemblages. 10.1071/RJ02004 Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 251. Cook GD et al. 2010. Managing sources and sinks of 281:20133094. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.3094 greenhouse gases in Australia’s rangelands and tropical 233. Letnic M et al. 2012. Top predators as biodiversity regulators: savannas. Rangeland Ecology & Management. 63:137-46. doi: the dingo Canis lupus dingo as a case study. Biological Reviews. 10.2111/08-101.1 87:390-413. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00203.x 252. Harms BP et al. 2005. Changes in soil carbon and soil nitrogen 234. Smith BP & Appleby RG 2018. Promoting human–dingo after tree clearing in the semi-arid rangelands of Queensland. co-existence in Australia: moving towards more innovative Australian Journal of Botany. 53:639-50. doi: 10.1071/BT04154 methods of protecting livestock rather than killing dingoes 253. Burrows WH et al. 2002. Growth and carbon stock change in (Canis dingo). Wildlife Research. 45:1-15. doi: 10.1071/WR16161 eucalypt woodlands in northeast Australia: ecological and 235. McAlpine CA et al. 2002. Biodiversity conservation and greenhouse sink implications. Global Change Biology. 8:769-84. vegetation clearing in Queensland: principles and thresholds. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00515.x The Rangeland Journal. 24:36-55. doi: 10.1071/RJ02002 254. Kernot JC 2005. Fire may provide relief from shrub increase. 236. Eldridge DJ & Soliveres S 2015. Are shrubs really a sign of Savanna Links. 31:8-9. https://territorystories.nt.gov.au/jspui/ declining ecosystem function? Disentangling the myths and bitstream/10070/236002/1/savlinks31.pdf truths of woody encroachment in Australia. Australian Journal 255. Waller N 2015. Northern Gulf - Northern Tablelands Regional of Botany. 62:594-608. doi: 10.1071/BT14137 NRM Assessment 2015. (Northern Gulf Resource Management 237. Henry BK et al. 2002. A review of the potential role of Group, Mareeba). http://plan.northerngulf.com.au/wp-content/ greenhouse gas abatement in native vegetation management uploads/2016/05/Northern-Tablelands-NRM-Assessment.pdf in Queensland’s rangelands. Rangeland Journal. 24:112-32. doi: [Accessed 21 Sep 2019] 10.1071/RJ02006 256. Crowley GM & Waller N 2015. Northern Gulf - Grazing lands 238. Jackson J & Ash AJ 1998. Tree-grass relationships in open - Regional NRM Assessment 2015. (Northern Gulf Resource eucalypt woodlands of northeastern Australia: influence of trees Management Group, Mareeba). http://plan.northerngulf.com.au/ on pasture productivity, forage quality and species distribution. wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Grazing-Lands-NRM-Assessment. Agroforestry Systems. 40:159-76. doi: 10.1023/a:1006067110870 pdf [Accessed 23 Sep 2019] 239. Burrows WH et al. 1990. Management of savannas for livestock 257. Queensland Herbarium 2016. Regional Ecosystem Description production in north-east Australia: contrasts across the tree- Database (REDD). Version 11.1 (April 2019). www.qld.gov.au/ grass continuum. Journal of Biogeography. 17:503-12. doi: environment/plants-animals/plants/ecosystems/descriptions/ 10.2307/2845383 download [Accessed 23 Sep 2019] 240. Christie EK 1975. A note on the significance of Eucalyptus 258. Fensham RJ 2008. Leichhardt’s maps: 100 years of change populnea for buffel grass production in infertile semi-arid in vegetation structure in inland Queensland. Journal of rangelands. Tropical Grasslands. 9:243-6. Biogeography. 35:141-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2007.01777.x 241. Department of Environment and Science 2019. Remnant 259. Fensham RJ & Fairfax RJ 2005. Preliminary assessment vegetation cover by subregion Version 11.0 (State of of gidgee (Acacia cambagei) woodland thickening in the Queensland, Brisbane). www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/ Longreach district, Queensland. The Rangeland Journal. 27:159- subregions-remnant-veg [Accessed 24 Sep 2019] 68. doi: 10.1071/RJ05013 242. Queensland Government 2019. Regrowth benefits. https://apps. 260. Crowley GM et al. 2004. Management guidelines for Golden- des.qld.gov.au/regrowth-benefits [Accessed 24 Sep 2019] shouldered Parrot conservation. (Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Cairns). www.firescape.com.au/wp-content/ 243. McIvor JG & Monypenny R 1995. Evaluation of pasture uploads/2012/10/Management-Guidelines-GSP-Conservation.pdf management systems for beef production in the semi-arid [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] tropics: model development. Agricultural Systems. 49:45-67. 261. Kutt AS & Martin TG 2010. Bird foraging height predicts bird 244. Tothill JC et al. 2008. Development options in Heteropogon species response to woody vegetation change. Biodiversity and contortus grasslands in south-east Queensland: tree killing, Conservation. 19:2247-62. doi: 10.1007/s10531-010-9840-y legume oversowing and pasture replacement. 2. Animal production. Tropical Grasslands. 42:152. 262. Tassicker AL et al. 2006. The effects of vegetation structure on the birds in a tropical savanna woodland in north- 245. Scanlan JC 2002. Some aspects of tree-grass dynamics in eastern Australia. The Rangeland Journal. 28:139-52. doi: Queensland’s grazing lands. Rangeland Journal. 24:56-82. doi: 10.1071/RJ05029 10.1071/RJ02003 263. Stevens N et al. 2017. Savanna woody encroachment is 246. Graham TWG et al. 1981. Soil nitrogen status and pasture widespread across three continents. Global Change Biology. productivity after clearing of brigalow (Acacia harpophylla). 23:235-44. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13409 Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 21:109-18. doi: 10.1071/EA9810109 264. Bond WJ & Midgley GF 2012. Carbon dioxide and the uneasy interactions of trees and savannah grasses. Philosophical 247. Ash A & McIvor J 1998. Forage quality and feed intake responses Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. of cattle to improved pastures, tree killing and stocking rate 367:601-12. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0182 in open eucalypt woodlands of north-eastern Australia. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 131:211-9. doi: 10.1017/ 265. Cook GD & Meyer CP 2009. ‘Fire, fuels and greenhouse gases’. S0021859698005607 pp. 313-28 in Russell-Smith et al. Culture, ecology, and economy of fire management in north Australian savannas: Rekindling 248. Sangha KK et al. 2005. Tradeoffs between pasture production the wurrk tradition (CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood). and plant diversity and soil health attributes of pasture systems of central Queensland, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & 266. Bray SG & Golden R 2009. Scenario analysis of alternative Environment. 111:93-103. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.05.007 vegetation management options on the greenhouse gas budget of two grazing businesses in north-eastern Australia. The

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 46 Rangeland Journal. 31:137-42. doi: 10.1071/RJ08055 281. Rossiter-Rachor NA et al. 2009. Invasive Andropogon gayanus 267. Henry B et al. 2005. A regional interpretation of rules and (gamba grass) is an ecosystem transformer of nitrogen relations good practice for greenhouse accounting: northern Australian in Australian savanna. Ecological Applications. 19:1546-60. doi: savanna systems. Australian Journal of Botany. 53:589-605. doi: 10.1890/08-0265.1 10.1071/BT04200 282. Department of Environment and Energy 2016. Threat 268. AEC Group 2002. Economic impact of state and local Abatement Advice for the key threatening process: Invasive government expenditure on weed and pest animal pasture grasses in northern Australia - gamba grass, para management in Queensland. (Local Government Association of grass, olive hymenachne, perennial mission grass and annual Queensland, Newstead, Queensland). mission grass - Introduction. (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ 269. Kloessing K 1994. Estimating the financial loss caused by threat-abatement-advices/invasive-pasture-grasses-introduction parthenium weed in the Queensland grazing industry. (CRC for [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] Tropical Pest Management, Brisbane). 283. Rossiter-Rachor NA et al. 2008. Andropogon gayanus (gamba 270. Chippendale JF & Panetta FD 1994. The cost of parthenium grass) invasion increases fire-mediated nitrogen losses in the weed to the Queensland cattle industry. Plant Protection tropical savannas of northern Australia. Ecosystems. 11:77-88. Quarterly. 9:73-6. 284. Dyer R & Stafford Smith M 2003. Ecological and economic 271. Miller EN 1996. Property level economic assessment of assessment of prescribed burning impacts in semi-arid pastoral prickly acacia (Acacia nilotica) on the Mitchell grass downs lands of northern Australia. International Journal of Wildland of Queensland. In Proceedings of the 11th Australian Weeds Fire. 12:403-13. doi: 10.1071/WF03026 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 30 September - 3 October 1996, pp. 227-30. 285. Drucker AG et al. 2008. Manager-based valuations of alternative fire management regimes on Cape York Peninsula, Australia. 272. Adamson D & Bray S 1999. The economic benefit from investing International Journal of Wildland Fire. 17:660-73. doi: in insect biological control of parthenium weed (Parthenium 10.1071/WF07102 hysterophorus). (Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane). www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Adamson/ 286. Andrew MH 1986. Use of fire for spelling monsoon tallgrass publication/236248637_The_economic_benefit_from_ pasture grazed by cattle. Tropical Grasslands. 20:69-78. investing_in_insect_biological_control_of_parthenium_weed_ 287. Dyer RM et al. 2003. Developing sustainable grazing Parthenium_hysterophorus/links/5b31bf41a6fdcc8506d000e0/ management systems for the semi-arid tropics of the The-economic-benefit-from-investing-in-insect-biological- Northern Territory. (Meat and Livestock Australia Final Report control-of-parthenium-weed-Parthenium-hysterophorus.pdf Project NAP3.211.). [Accessed 16 Oct 2019] 288. Orr DM & Paton CJ 1997. Using fire to manage species 273. Bray SG et al. 2008. Economic analyses of options for weedy composition in Heteropogon contortus (black speargrass) Sporobolus grass management. The Rangeland Journal. 30:375- pastures. 2. Enhancing the effects of fire with grazing 81. doi: 10.1071/RJ07061 management. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 274. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016. Conservation 48:803-10. doi: 10.1071/A96131 Advice Sminthopsis douglasi Julia Creek dunnart. (Department 289. Orr DM et al. 1997. Using fire to manage species composition in of the Environment and Energy, Canberra). www.environment. Heteropogon contortus (black speargrass) pastures. 1. Burning gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/305-conservation- regimes. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 48:795- advice-07122016.pdf [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] 802. doi: 10.1071/A96130 275. Department of the Environment and Energy 2019. Species 290. Phelps DG et al. 2007. Rain waiter or decision maker? Managing Profile and Threats Database. www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ Mitchell grass during drought. (Department of Primary sprat/public/sprat.pl [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] Industries & Fisheries, Longreach). https://futurebeef.com. 276. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population au/document-library/rain-waiter-decision-maker-managing- and Communities 2013. Approved Conservation Advice for mitchell-grass-drought [Accessed 22 Oct 2019] Rostratula australis (Australian painted snipe). (Commonwealth 291. Cowley R et al. 2013. Early dry season or two-yearly fires are of Australia, Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ not so hot in grazed savannas: fire impacts on pasture species. threatened/species/pubs/77037-conservation-advice.pdf In Proceedings, Northern Beef Research Update Conference, [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] 2013, pp. 21-6. 277. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2018. Conservation 292. Smith EL 1960. Effects of burning and clipping at various times advice Neochmia phaeton evangelinae crimson finch during the wet season on tropical tall grass range in Northern (white-bellied) (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). Australia. Journal of Range Management. 13:197-203. doi: www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ 10.2307/3894952 species/pubs/64443-conservation-advice-15022018.pdf 293. Materne C 2011. Practical applications of fire in the Mitchell [Accessed 21 Feb 2019] grasslands of the Barkly region. In Proceedings, Northern Beef 278. Fensham RJ et al. 2010. Recovery plan for the community of Research Update Conference, 2011, p. 164. native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater 294. Grice AC & Slatter SM 1996. Fire in the management of northern from the Great Artesian Basin. Report to Department of Australian pastoral lands. Tropical Grassland Society of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Australia. Occasional Publication. 8, (Queensland Department of Environment and Resource 295. Vitelli JS 2000. Options for effective weed management. Management, Brisbane). www.environment.gov.au/system/files/ Tropical Grasslands. 34:280-94. resources/0cefc83a-3854-4cff-9128-abc719d9f9b3/files/great- artesian-basin-ec.pdf [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] 296. Cowley R & Dyer R 2004. The use of fire in the VRD to control woody vegetation. (Victoria River Research Station Progress 279. Van Doorn A 2007. Ecology and conservation of the Purple- Report: Part B: Completed Projects.). crowned Fairy-wren (Malurus coronatus coronatus) in the Northern Territory, Australia. PhD Thesis Thesis, University 297. Orr DM 2010. Managing the grass-legume balance in of Florida, Gainsville. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0018021/ Stylosanthes scabra cv. Seca pastures in central Queensland. vandoorn_a.pdf [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] Tropical Grasslands. 44:174-83. 280. Grice AC et al. 2012. Tackling contentious invasive plant 298. Liedloff CA et al. 2001. Modelling the trade-off between fire and species: A case study of buffel grass in Australia. Environmental grazing in a tropical savanna landscape, northern Australia. Management. 49:285-94. doi: 10.1007/s00267-011-9781-6 Environment International. 27:173-80.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 47 299. Norman MJT 1963. The short term effects of time and frequency cattle production in Central Queensland. (Meat and Livestock of burning on native pastures at Katherine, NT. Australian Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/download/ Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry. finalreports?itemId=902 [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 3:26-9. doi: 10.1071/EA9630026 316. Burrows WH 2002. Harry Stobbs Memorial Lecture, 2002. 300. Ash AJ et al. 1982. Short-term effects of burning native pasture Seeing the wood(land) for the trees - an individual perspective in spring on herbage and animal production in south-east of Queensland woodland studies (1965-2005). Tropical Queensland. In Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Grasslands. 36:202-17. Production Vol 14, Brisbane, Queensland, pp. 377-80. 317. MacLeod N et al. 2004. An economic assessment of the impact 301. Commonwealth of Australia 2018. Carbon Credits (Carbon of grazing land condition on livestock performance in tropical Farming Initiative—Savanna Fire Management—Emissions woodlands. The Rangeland Journal. 26:49-71. Avoidance) Methodology Determination 2018. www.legislation. 318. McLennan SR et al. 2017. Responses to various protein and gov.au/Details/F2018L00560 [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] energy supplements by steers fed low-quality tropical hay. 302. Commonwealth of Australia 2018. Carbon Credits (Carbon 1. Comparison of response surfaces for young steers. Animal Farming Initiative—Savanna Fire Management—Sequestration Production Science. 57:473-88. doi: 10.1071/AN15659 and Emissions Avoidance) Methodology Determination 319. Winks L et al. 1974. Effect of stocking rate and fertilizer on the 2018. www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00562 performance of steers grazing Townsville stylo-based pasture [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] in north Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental 303. Firth RSC et al. 2006. Home range and den characteristics of the Agricultural and Animal Husbandry. 14:146-54. brush-tailed rabbit-rat Conilurus penicillatus in the monsoonal 320. Holm AM et al. 1981. The response of weaner cattle grazing tropics of the Northern Territory, Australia. Wildlife Research. natural pastures in north western Australia to phosphoric acid, 33:397-407. doi: 10.1071/WR05057 non protein nitrogen and sulphur in their drinking water. The 304. Murphy SA et al. 2010. The effects of early and late-season fires Rangeland Journal. 3:133-41. doi: 10.1071/RJ9810133 on mortality, dispersal, physiology and breeding of red-backed 321. Herd RM et al. 2015. Baseline and greenhouse-gas emissions fairy-wrens (Malurus melanocephalus). Wildlife Research. in extensive livestock enterprises, with a case study of feeding 37:145-55. doi: 10.1071/WR09007 lipid to beef cattle. Animal Production Science. 55:159-65. doi: 305. Crowley GM 2001. ‘Grasslands of Cape York Peninsula-a 10.1071/AN14222 fire-dependent habitat’. pp. 34 in Dyer et al. Savanna Burning- 322. Monjardino M et al. 2015. Economic evaluation of irrigated Understanding and Using Fire in Northern Australia (Tropical forage production in a beef cattle operation in the semi-arid Savannas Cooperative Research Centre, Darwin). tropics of northern Australia. Agricultural Systems. 139:122-43. 306. Hunt LP et al. 2007. Factors affecting the management of doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.07.004 cattle grazing distribution in northern Australia: preliminary 323. Winter WH 1990. Australia’s northern savannas: a time for observations on the effect of paddock size and water points. change in management philosophy. Journal of Biogeography. The Rangeland Journal. 29:169-79. doi: 10.1071/RJ07029 17:525-9. doi: 10.2307/2845386 307. James CD et al. 1999. Provision of watering points in the 324. Gardener CJ et al. 1990. Dry tropical rangelands: solving one Australian arid zone: a review of effects on biota. Journal of Arid problem and creating another. Proceedings of the Ecological Environments. 41:87-121. Society of Australia. 16:279-86. 308. Landsberg J et al. 2003. Abundance and composition of plant 325. Tothill JC & Mott JJ 1985. Australian savannas and their species along grazing gradients in Australian rangelands. stability under grazing. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Journal of Applied Ecology. 40:1008-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- Australia. 13:317-22. 2664.2003.00862.x 326. Winter WH 1988. Supplementation of steers grazing 309. Landsberg J et al. 2002. Scale-related effects of grazing on Stylosanthes hamata pastures at Katherine, Northern Territory. native plant communities in an arid rangeland region of Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 28:669-82. doi: South Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology. 39:427-44. doi: 10.1071/EA9880669 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00719.x 327. Sharp BR & Whittaker RJ 2003. The irreversible cattle-driven 310. Harrington R 2002. The effects of artificial watering points on transformation of a seasonally flooded Australian savanna. the distribution and abundance of avifauna in an arid and semi- Journal of Biogeography. 30:783-802. doi: 10.1046/j.1365- arid mallee environment. University of Melbourne, Melbourne. 2699.2003.00840.x 311. Hegarty R & McEwan J 2010. Genetic opportunities to reduce 328. Jackson D et al. 2012. Phosphorus management of beef enteric methane emissions from ruminant livestock. In cattle in northern Australia. (Meat and Livestock Australia, Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to North Sydney). Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany, pp. 1-6. 329. Commonwealth of Australia 2015. Carbon Credits (Carbon 312. Basarab JA et al. 2013. Reducing GHG emissions through Farming Initiative) (Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions by genetic improvement for feed efficiency: effects on Feeding Nitrates to Beef Cattle) Methodology Determination economically important traits and enteric methane production. 2014. (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www.legislation. Animal. 7:303-15. doi: 10.1017/S1751731113000888 gov.au/Details/F2015C00580 [Accessed 24 Oct 2019] 313. Alford AR et al. 2006. The impact of breeding to reduce residual 330. Mace GM et al. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a feed intake on enteric methane emissions from the Australian multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 27:19- beef industry. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 26. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 46:813-20. doi: 10.1071/EA05300 331. Jepson P & Canney S 2003. Values-led conservation. Global 314. Herd R et al. 2002. Potential to reduce greenhouse gas Ecology and Biogeography. 12:271-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1466- emissions from beef production by selection for reduced 822X.2003.00019.x residual feed intake. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress 332. Reyers B et al. 2012. Finding common ground for biodiversity on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, and ecosystem services. BioScience. 62:503-7. doi: 10.1525/ France. www.wcgalp.org/system/files/proceedings/2002/ bio.2012.62.5.12 potential-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-beef- production-selection-reduced-residual-feed-intake.pdf 333. Greiner R 2014. Environmental Duty of Care: From ethical [Accessed 24 Oct 2019] principle towards a code of practice for the grazing industry in Queensland (Australia). Journal of Agricultural 315. Rolfe J 2010. Economics of reducing methane emissions from and Environmental Ethics. 27:527-47. doi: 10.1007/

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 48 s10806-013-9475-6 352. Fryxell JM 1991. Forage quality and aggregation by large 334. Earl G et al. 2010. Towards a Duty of Care for Biodiversity. herbivores. The American Naturalist. 138:478-98. doi: Environmental Management. 45:682-96. doi: 10.1007/ 10.1086/285227 s00267-010-9444-z 353. McCosker J et al. 2009. Can bare ground cover server as a 335. Holt JA et al. 1996. The effects of grazing pressure on soil surrogate for plant biodiversity in grazed tropical woodlands? animals and hydraulic properties of two soils in semi- The Rangeland Journal. 31:103-9. doi: 10.1071/RJ08041 arid tropical Queensland. Soil Research. 34:69-79. doi: 354. Carmona CP et al. 2013. Does cattle dung cause differences 10.1071/SR9960069 between grazing increaser and decreaser germination 336. Mcintyre S et al. 2003. The relative importance of cattle grazing response? Acta Oecologica. 47:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j. in subtropical grasslands: does it reduce or enhance plant actao.2012.11.001 biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology. 40:445-57. doi: 355. Kutt AS & Kemp JE 2012. Native plant diversity in tropical 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00823.x savannas decreases when exotic pasture grass cover increases. 337. Kutt AS & Woinarski JCZ 2007. The effects of grazing and fire The Rangeland Journal. 34:183-9. doi: 10.1071/RJ11048 on vegetation and the vertebrate assemblage in a tropical 356. Teichman KJ 2013. Trophic cascades: linking ungulates to savanna woodland in north-eastern Australia. Journal of shrub-dependent birds and butterflies. Master of Science Tropical Ecology. 23:95-106. http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton. https://doi. asp?ArticleID=45C6BAFAED86C6BE888C org/10.7939/R38M0J [Accessed 29 Sep 2019] 338. Frank ASK et al. 2013. Interactions of grazing history, cattle 357. Neilly H et al. 2018. Arboreality increases reptile community removal and time since rain drive divergent short-term resistance to disturbance from livestock grazing. Journal of responses by desert biota. PLoS ONE. 8:e68466. doi: 10.1371/ Applied Ecology. 55:786-99. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12982 journal.pone.0068466 358. Frank ASK et al. 2014. Habitat- and rainfall-dependent 339. Fisher A 2001. Biogeography and conservation of Mitchell biodiversity responses to cattle removal in an arid woodland– grasslands in northern Australia. PhD Thesis, Northern Territory grassland environment. Ecological Applications. 24:2013-28. University, Darwin. doi: 10.1890/13-2244.1 340. Calvert GA 2001. The effects of cattle grazing on vegetation 359. Haby NA & Brandle R 2018. Passive recovery of small vertebrates diversity and structural characteristics in the semi-arid following livestock removal in the Australian rangelands. rangelands of North Queensland. PhD thesis Thesis, James Restoration Ecology. 26:174-82. doi: 10.1111/rec.12542 Cook University, Townsville. 360. Frank ASK et al. 2016. Cattle removal in arid Australia benefits 341. Department of Environment and Resource Management 2010. kangaroos in high quality habitat but does not affect camels. Back on track actions for biodiversity (reports for Southern The Rangeland Journal. 38:73-84. doi: 10.1071/RJ15039 Gulf, Northern Gulf and Desert Channels). (State of Queensland, 361. Page MJ & Beeton RJS 2000. Is the removal of domestic stock Brisbane). http://qldgov.softlinkhosting.com.au/liberty/ sufficient to restore semi-arid conservation areas? Pacific libraryHome.do [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Conservation Biology. 6:245-53. doi: 10.1071/PC000245 342. Department of Environment and Science 2019. Species 362. Jones P et al. 2015. Spelling strategies for recovery of pasture profile search. https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/species-search condition. In ‘Innovation in the Rangelands. Proceedings ofthe [Accessed 17 Sep 2019] 18th Australian Rangeland Society Biennial Conference, Alice 343. Kutt AS et al. 2012. Signals of change in tropical savanna Springs.’ (Ed. Friedel) pp. 1-3. (Australian Rangeland Society: woodland vertebrate fauna 5 years after cessation of livestock Parkside, SA). grazing. Wildlife Research. 39:386-96. doi: 10.1071/WR11137 363. Mekonnen MM & Hoekstra AY 2010. The green, blue and 344. Kutt AS et al. 2012. Spatial and temporal effects of grazing grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. management and rainfall on the vertebrate fauna of a ( Value of Water Research Report Series No.48, UNESCO- tropical savanna. The Rangeland Journal. 34:173-82. doi: IHE). https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product- 10.1071/RJ11049 water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products 345. van Doorn A et al. 2015. Livestock grazing affects habitat quality [Accessed 17 Sep 2019] and persistence of the threatened purple-crowned fairy-wren 364. Ridoutt BG et al. 2012. Water footprint of livestock: comparison Malurus coronatus in the Victoria River District, Northern of six geographically defined beef production systems. The Territory, Australia. Emu - Austral Ornithology. 115:302-8. doi: International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 17:165-75. doi: 10.1071/MU14073 10.1007/s11367-011-0346-y 346. Legge SM et al. 2011. Rapid recovery of mammal fauna in the 365. Ridoutt BG et al. 2012. Meat consumption and water scarcity: central Kimberley, northern Australia, following the removal beware of generalizations. Journal of Cleaner Production. of introduced herbivores. Austral Ecology. 36:791-9. doi: 28:127-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.027 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2010.02218.x 366. Peters GM et al. 2010. Accounting for water use in Australian 347. IUCN 2019. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019- red meat production. The International Journal of Life Cycle 2. www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed 17 Sep 2019] Assessment. 15:311-20. doi: 10.1007/s11367-010-0161-x 348. Neilly H & Schwarzkopf L 2018. Heavy livestock grazing 367. Falkenmark M & Rockström J 2006. The New Blue and Green negatively impacts a marsupial ecosystem engineer. Journal of Water paradigm: Breaking new ground for water resources Zoology. 305:35-42. doi: 10.1111/jzo.12533 planning and management. Journal of Water Resources 349. Kutt AS & Kemp JE 2005. Distribution, habitat and conservation Planning and Management. 132:129-32. doi: 10.1061/ status of Leggadina lakedownensis (Rodentia: Muridae) (ASCE)0733-9496(2006)132:3(129) in Queensland. Australian Zoologist. 33:258-64. doi: 368. Eady S et al. 2011. On-farm greenhouse gas emissions and 10.7882/az.2005.023 water use: case studies in the Queensland beef industry. Animal 350. Vesk PA & Westoby M 2001. Predicting plant species’ responses Production Science. 51:667-81. doi: 10.1071/AN11030 to grazing. Journal of Applied Ecology. 38:897-909. doi: 369. Doreau M et al. 2012. Water use by livestock: A global 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2001.00646.x perspective for a regional issue? Animal Frontiers. 2:9-16. doi: 351. Bergman CM et al. 2001. Ungulate foraging strategies: energy 10.2527/af.2012-0036 maximizing or time minimizing? Journal of Animal Ecology. 370. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 2018. Queensland 70:289-300. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2001.00496.x agricultural snapshot 2018. (State of Queensland, Brisbane). https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/queensland-agtrends

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 49 [Accessed 10 Sep 2019] of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems. 371. Davis RJ et al. 2011. Environmental sustainability assessment 99:86-104. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003 of the Australian feedlot industry. Part E - Review of lot fed 385. Young MD et al. 1996. Reimbursing the future: An evaluation cattle water. Final Report for Project FLOT.328 E (Meat and of motivational, voluntary, price-based, property-right, and Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/research- regulatory incentives for the conservation of biodiversity. and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/ (CSIRO Divisions of Wildlife and Ecology; Canberra Environment-On-Farm/BFLT0328-Environmental-Sustainability- and the Australian Centre for Environmental Law; and Assessment-of-the-Australian-Feedlot-Industry/1886 Community Solutions). [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 386. Morrison M et al. 2011. Segmenting landholders for improving 372. Freer M et al. 1997. GRAZPLAN: Decision support systems for the targeting of natural resource management expenditures. Australian grazing enterprises—II. The animal biology model Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 55:17-37. for feed intake, production and reproduction and the GrazFeed doi: 10.1080/09640568.2011.575630 DSS. Agricultural Systems. 54:77-126. doi: 10.1016/S0308- 387. Dobbs TL & Pretty JN 2004. Agri-environmental stewardship 521X(96)00045-5 schemes and “multifunctionality”. Review of Agricultural 373. Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Economics. 26:220-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00172.x Fisheries and Resources 2011. Cattle and land management 388. Andersen K et al. 2010. Suicide in selected occupations in best practices in the Top End region. (Northern Territory Queensland: evidence from the State suicide register. Australian Government, Darwin). https://nt.gov.au/industry/agriculture/ and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 44:243-9. livestock/cattle/cattle-land-management-practices 389. Nason J 2014. Gulf cattlemen take debt survey results [Accessed 17 Sep 2019] to Canberra. Beef Central. www.beefcentral.com/news/ 374. Corbett JL et al. 1990. Feeding Standards for Australian gulf-cattlemen-take-debt-survey-results-to-canberra Livestock Ruminants. (Standing Committee on Agriculture, [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] CSIRO, Melbourne). 390. Marshall NA 2010. Understanding social resilience to 375. Fensham RJ & Fairfax RJ 2003. Spring wetlands of climate variability in primary enterprises and industries. the Great Artesian Basin, Queensland, Australia. Global Environmental Change. 20:36-43. doi: 10.1016/j. Wetlands Ecology and Management. 11:343-62. doi: gloenvcha.2009.10.003 10.1023/B:WETL.0000005532.95598.e4 391. Marshall NA et al. 2015. A handbook for enhancing social 376. Baillie C 2008. Assessment of evaporation losses and resilience in the Monsoonal North of Australia. (CSIRO Land evaporation mitigation technologies for on farm water and Water, Townsville). https://terranova.org.au/repository/ storages across Australia. (Cooperative Research Centre for monsoonal-north-nrm-collection [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Irrigation Futures,). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ 392. Petherick JC 2005. Animal welfare issues associated with download?doi=10.1.1.620.5415&rep=rep1&type=pdf extensive livestock production: The northern Australian beef [Accessed 18 Sep 2019] cattle industry. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 92:211-34. 377. Pittaway P & Van den Ancker T 2010. Microbial and doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2005.05.009 environmental implications for use of monolayers to reduce 393. Warriss PD 1990. The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its evaporative losses from water storages. (CRC for Irrigation effects on carcass and meat quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Futures, Toowoomba). https://eprints.usq.edu.au/23262/1/ Science. 28:171-86. doi: 10.1016/0168-1591(90)90052-F monolayers_0710_web.pdf 394. Blackshaw JK & Blackshaw AW 1994. Heat stress in cattle and 378. Prager K & Vanclay F 2010. Landcare in Australia and Germany: the effect of shade on production and behaviour: a review. comparing structures and policies for community engagement Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 34:285-95. doi: in natural resource management. Ecological Management & 10.1071/EA9940285 Restoration. 11:187-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00548.x 395. McCosker K et al. 2010. Morbidity, mortality and body 379. Barr N & Cary J 2000. Influencing improved natural weight gain of surgically spayed, yearling Brahman heifers. resource management on farms: A guide to understanding Australian Veterinary Journal. 88:497-503. doi: 10.1111/j.1751- factors influencing the adoption of sustainable resource 0813.2010.00646.x practices. (Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra). www. researchgate.net/profile/Neil_Barr/publication/267839450_ 396. Petherick J et al. 2011. Preliminary investigation of some Influencing_Improved_Natural_Resource_Management_ physiological responses of Bos indicus heifers to surgical on_Farms/links/557a640908aeb6d8c0206072/Influencing- spaying. Australian Veterinary Journal. 89:131-7. doi: Improved-Natural-Resource-Management-on-Farms.pdf 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00696.x [Accessed 25 Oct 2019] 397. Bray S et al. 2015. Desktop research project to provide data 380. Vanclay F 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension on liveweight and liveweight gain in the beef cattle sector in to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Queensland and the Northern Territory. https://futurebeef. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 44:213-22. com.au/wp-content/uploads/Bray-Walsh-et-al-2015-LWG-data- project-final-report.pdf [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] 381. Smyth A et al. (eds) 2007. Enabling the market: Incentives for biodiversity in the rangelands: . (Report to the 398. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2019. Data by region. Australian Government Department of the Environment (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). https://itt.abs.gov.au/ and Water Resources by the Desert Knowledge Cooperative itt/r.jsp?databyregion [Accessed 25 Oct 2019] Research Centre). 399. Arjunan K 2001. Profitability of the Australian beef industry: 382. Greiner R 2015. Motivations and attitudes influence farmers’ A break-even analysis. Agribusiness Review. 9:1-23. https:// willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2979571 contracts. Agricultural Systems. 137:154-65. doi: 10.1016/j. 400. Russell-Smith J & Sangha KK 2018. Emerging opportunities agsy.2015.04.005 for developing a diversified land sector economy in Australia’s 383. Greiner R & Gregg D 2011. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, northern savannas. The Rangeland Journal. 40:315-30. doi: barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and 10.1071/RJ18005 effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from 401. Russell-Smith J & Sangha KK 2019. Beneficial land sector northern Australian. Land Use Policy. 28:257–65. doi: 10.1016/j. change in far northern Australia is required and possible – a landusepol.2010.06.006. refutation of McLean and Holmes (2019). The Rangeland 384. Greiner R et al. 2009. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption Journal. 41:363-9. doi: 10.1071/RJ19030

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 50 402. May D 1994. Aboriginal labour and the cattle industry in 418. Phelps DG et al. 2018. Flinders River catchment flood rules of Queensland from white settlement to the present. (Cambridge thumb. (Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Brisbane and University Press, Cambridge). Southern Gulf NRM, Mount Isa). https://futurebeef.com.au/wp- 403. Skyring F 2012. ‘Low wages, low rents, and pension cheques: content/uploads/2019/02/Flinders-river-catchment-flood-rules- The introduction of equal wages in the Kimberley, 1968-1969’ of-thumb-portrait.pdf [Accessed 29 Sep 2019] in Fijn et al. Indigenous Participation in Australian Economies. II 419. Phelps DG et al. 2006. Diamantina River catchment flood rules Historical engagements and current enterprises (ANU ePress). of thumb. (Desert Channels Queensland, Longreach). https:// https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/indigenous-participation- futurebeef.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Diamantina_ australian-economies-ii [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Flood_Rules_of_Thumb_Nov06_A3.pdf [Accessed 29 Sep 2019] 404. Delta Downs 2019. Delta Downs Station website. www. 420. Ticehurst C et al. 2015. Improving the accuracy of daily MODIS deltadownsstation.com.au [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] OWL flood inundation mapping using hydrodynamic modelling. 405. Josif P et al. 2009. Indigenous pastoral employment review - Natural Hazards. 78:803-20. doi: 10.1007/s11069-015-1743-5 identifying effective methods an d opportunities to increase 421. Lunt ID et al. 2007. A framework to predict the effects of indigenous employment in the northern pastoral industry. livestock grazing and grazing exclusion on conservation values Project NBP.0232 Final Report. www.mla.com.au/research- in natural ecosystems in Australia. Australian Journal of Botany. and-development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/ 55:401-15. doi: 10.1071/BT06178 Extension-On-Farm/Review-of-Indigenous-employment-and- 422. Department of Environmental and Science 2019. Private engagement-in-the-northern-pastoral-industry-2007/639 protected areas. https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/wildlife/ [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] nature-refuges [Accessed 7 Nov 2019] 406. Gangalidda Garawa Native Title Aboriginal Corporation 2019. 423. Neldner VJ et al. 2019. Methodology for survey and mapping Developing projects to establish and support Gulf industries of regional ecosystems and vegetation communities in and which respect country and people. www.gangalidda- Queensland. Version 5.0. Updated 9 Apr 2019 (State of garawa.com.au/our-organisation/doing-business-with-us Queensland, Brisbane) 124. www.publications.qld.gov.au/ [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] dataset/redd/resource/6dee78ab-c12c-4692-9842-b7257c2511e4 407. Carpentaria Land Council Aboriginal Corporation 2019. About [Accessed 8 Nov 2019] the Normanton Rangers www.clcac.com.au/land-sea/rangers/ 424. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2016. normanton [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Western Queensland - Gulf Plains, Northwest Highlands, 408. Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations 2019. Mitchell Grass Downs and Channel Country Bioregions - Weaving grass into gold. www.oric.gov.au/publications/ Strategic Offset Investment Corridors. (State of Queensland, spotlight/weaving-grass-gold [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Brisbane). https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/__data/ 409. Queensland Government 2019. Queensland Indigenous assets/pdf_file/0031/89941/wq-soic-values-report.pdf Land and Sea Rangers - Invitation to partner in investment. [Accessed 8 Nov 2019] www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/conservation/ 425. Plant K & Crowley GM 2018. Fire management for the community/land-sea-rangers/partnership-prospectus Carpentarian Grasswren: Pase One project report. (Southern [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Gulf NRM, Mount Isa). www.southerngulf.com.au/wp-content/ 410. Altman J et al. 2012. ‘The Indigenous hybrid economy: can the uploads/2018/09/Fire-Management-for-the-Carpentarian- NATSISS adequately recognise difference’. pp. 163-92 in Survey Grasswren.pdf [Accessed 12 Nov 2019] Analysis for Indigenous Policy in Australia: Social Science 426. Environment Australia 2001. A directory of important wetlands Perspectives (ANU ePress Canberra). in Australia. 3rd Edition (Environment Australia., Canberra). 411. Burgess CP et al. 2005. Healthy Country: Healthy People? www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/ Exploring the health benefits of Indigenous natural resource directory-important-wetlands-australia-third-edition management. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public [Accessed 29 Sep 2019] Health. 29:117-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00060.x 427. Department of Environment and Science 2019. Biodiversity 412. National Native Title Tribunal 2015. About Indigenous Land Use planning assessments (reports for Gulf Plains and Mitchell Grass Agreements (ILUAs). www.nntt.gov.au/ILUAs/Pages/default.aspx Downs). [Accessed 17 Sep 2019] [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 428. Department of the Environment 2018. Directory of Important 413. Stevenson B 1997. The Wik decision and after. Research Bulletin Wetlands in Australia (DIWA) Spatial Database (Commonwealth No 4/97 (Queensland Parliamentary Library. Publications and of Australia, Canberra). https://data.gov.au/dataset/ Resources Section, Brisbane). www.parliament.qld.gov.au/ ds-dga-04cd73cc-24d9-4ae9-aeaa-046a022cb592/details documents/explore/ResearchPublications/researchBulletins/ [Accessed 29 Sep 2019] rb0497bs.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 429. Department of Environment and Science 2019. Environmental 414. Brennan F 2001. Pastoral leases, Mabo and the Native Title reports online. https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/report-request/ Act 1993. Issues Paper 1 (Australian Institute of Aboriginal environment [Accessed 12 Nov 2019] and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra) 2-5. http:// 430. Australian Department of the Environment 2012. Australia’s cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip94n1_australia_native_title.pdf Bioregions (IBRA). www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/science/ [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] ibra [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 415. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2014. 431. Harrington GA & Murphy SA 2013. In the line of fire... Ground Cover Disturbance IndexBrisbane). http://qldspatial. Australian Birdlife. (Birdlife Australia, Melbourne). http:// information.qld.gov.au/catalogue [Accessed 29 Sep 2019] birdlife.org.au/australian-birdlife/detail/in-the-line-of-fire 416. Crowley GM & Preece ND 2019. Does extreme flooding drive [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] vegetation and faunal composition across the Gulf Plains 432. Harrington GN & Murphy SA 2015. The distribution and of northeastern Australia? Austral Ecology. 44:1256-70. doi: conservation status of Carpentarian grasswrens (Amytornis 10.1111/aec.12803 dorotheae), with reference to prevailing fire patterns. Pacific 417. Crowley GM & Preece ND 2019. Catastrophic Queensland Conservation Biology. 21:291-7. doi: 10.1071/PC15021 floods killed 600,000 cattle and devastated native species. 433. Murphy BP et al. 2019. Introduced cats (Felis catus) eating The Conversation: 23 Aug 2019. https://theconversation.com/ a continental fauna: The number of mammals killed in catastrophic-queensland-floods-killed-600-000-cattle-and- Australia. Biological Conservation. 237:28-40. doi: 10.1016/j. devastated-native-species-120753 biocon.2019.06.013

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 51 434. Doherty TS et al. 2017. Impacts and management of feral 452. Government. Q 2019. Fire management guidelines. www.qld. cats Felis catus in Australia. Mammal Review. 47:83-97. doi: gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/ecosystems/fire- 10.1111/mam.12080 management [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] 435. Woinarski JCZ et al. 2017. Compilation and traits of Australian 453. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 2019. Pest bird species killed by cats. Biological Conservation. 216:1-9. doi: management planning. www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/ 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.09.017 biosecurity/invasive-plants-animals/pest-management-planning 436. Queensland Reconstruction Authority 2019. Queensland [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] floodplain assessment overlay. (State of Queensland, 454. Schulke B 2019. Use of fire in grazed woodlands – Queensland. Brisbane). http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue https://futurebeef.com.au/knowledge-centre/use-of-fire-in- [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] grazed-woodlands [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] 437. Wolfe N 2019. Flood-affected farmers witness entire 455. NAPCo 2019. Five Founders Beef. https://fivefounders.com.au cattle herds wiped out by catastrophic deluge. news. [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] com.au. 10 Feb, www.news.com.au/finance/economy/ 456. North Australian Pastoral Company 2018. Australian australian-economy/floodaffected-farmers-witness-entire- Government Carbon Neutral Program Public Disclosure cattle-herds-wiped-out-by-catastrophic-deluge/news-story/ Summary: 1 January 2018–31 December 2018. 8. www. f49ee8b2d5ed0cca27283afb45bf9477 environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/990369c3-3526- 438. Major T 2019. Cattle, infrastructure losses following Queensland 47a6-a361-ce35ab1bbedf/files/pds-napco-2018.pdf floods could near $2b, farm lobby says. ABC Rural News. www. [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-04-16/cattle-deaths-tallied-in-north- 457. Collier C & Walsh D 2013. Wet season spelling at Alexandria west-queensland/11002938 [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Station, Barkly Tablelands. In Proceedings, Northern Beef 439. Crockford T 2019. Queensland floods damage bill estimates top Research Update Conference, 2013, p. 125. $1 billion. Brisbane Times. 16 Feb, www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ 458. Clean Energy Regulator 2019. Emissions Reduction Fund project national/queensland/queensland-floods-damage-bill-estimates- register. www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/project-and- top-1-billion-20190216-p50ya1.html contracts-registers/project-register [Accessed 13 Nov 2019] 440. Plant K 2018. Wernadinga Wetlands case study: Integrating 459. Commonwealth of Australia 2017. Carbon Credits (Carbon pastoral and conservation management for improved Farming Initiative—Beef Cattle Herd Management) productivity and environmental outcome. (Southern Methodology Determination 2015 - Explanatory Statement. Gulf NRM, Mount Isa). www.southerngulf.com.au/wp- (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www.legislation. content/uploads/2018/09/Wernadinga-Wetlands.pdf gov.au/Details/F2015L01434/Explanatory%20Statement/Text [Accessed 7 Nov 2019] [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] 441. Mifsud G & Woolley PA 2012. Predation of the Julia Creek 460. Murrell G 2019. Getting methodologies to work for the northern dunnart (Sminthopsis douglasi) and other native fauna by cats beef industry. (Paraway Pastoral Holdings). and foxes on Mitchell grass downs in Queensland. Australian 461. Clean Energy Regulator 2017. Aggregation under the Emissions Mammalogy. 34:188-95. doi: 10.1071/AM11035 Reduction Fund. www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/ 442. Chudleigh P & Simpson S 2009. External review of MLA Want-to-participate-in-the-Emissions-Reduction-Fund/Planning- Northern Beef Communication and Research Adoption a-project/Aggregation-under-the-Emissions-Reduction-Fund Program 2009. Final report for project B.NBP.0513 (Meat and [Accessed 13 Nov 2019] Livestock Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/Research- 462. Baumber A et al. 2019. Promoting co-benefits of carbon farming and-development/Search-RD-reports/RD-report-details/ in Oceania: Applying and adapting approaches and metrics Productivity-On-Farm/External-Review-of-MLA-Northern-Beef- from existing market-based schemes. Ecosystem Services. Communication-and-Research-Adoption-Program-2009/931 39:100982. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100982 [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 463. Demand Manager 2019. Certificate prices. www. 443. Moravek T et al. 2017. Quantifying the effectiveness of extension demandmanager.com.au/certificate-prices delivery methods on practice change-the experience of the [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] Grazing BMP extension support project. Rural Extension and Innovation Systems Journal. 13:70-5. 464. Twidale S 2017. Global carbon prices must soar to meet Paris climate target: report. Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/ 444. Wegscheidl C et al. 2015. Evaluating the role of extension in us-climatechange-carbon-prices/global-carbon-prices-must- helping to improve water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. Rural soar-to-meet-paris-climate-target-report-idUSKBN18P0PN Extension and Innovation Systems Journal. 11:1-10. www.apen. [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] org.au/static/uploads/files/reis1501r1-wffallnarjht.pdf 465. Grice AC et al. 2013. Mosaic irrigation for the northern Australian 445. Southern Gulf NRM 2019. E-beef - A Smart farming partnership. Beef Industry. An assessment of sustainability and potential. www.southerngulf.com.au/project/e-beef-smart-farming-in- Technical report. (CSIRO, Brisbane). http://test.regional.gov. northern-queensland [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] au/regional/ona/files/mosaic_irrigation_technical_report.pdf 446. Desert Channels Queensland 2019. E-Beef Smart Farm. https:// [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] dcq.org.au/e-beef [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 466. Gramshaw D & Lloyd P 1993. Grazing the north. Creating 447. Northern Gulf Resource Management Group 2019. E-Beef wealth and sustaining the land. (Information Series, SmartFarming in Northern Queensland. https://mynortherngulf. QI92042. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, org/e-beef [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Brisbane). http://www.tropicalgrasslands.asn.au/Tropical%20 448. Future Beef 2017. GrazingFutures. https://futurebeef.com.au/ Grasslands%20Journal%20archive/PDFs/Vol_27_1993/ projects/grazingfutures [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Vol_27_03_93_pp251_251.pdf. 449. Southern Gulf NRM 2019. Regional Agriculture Landcare 467. Low Carbon Beef 2019. Low Carbon Beef website. www. Facilitator. www.southerngulf.com.au/project/regional- lowcarbonranch.com [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] agriculture-landcare-facilitator [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 468. Noone Y 2019. Carbon-neutral beef: Is it guilt-free steak for 450. Desert Channels Queensland 2019. Landcare. https://dcq.org. the environmentally-aware? SBS Online. www.sbs.com.au/ au/projects/landcare [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] food/article/2019/08/05/carbon-neutral-beef-it-guilt-free-steak- 451. Southern Gulf NRM 2019. Profitable Producers Creating Healthy environmentally-aware [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] Landscapes. www.southerngulf.com.au/project/profitable- 469. Li X et al. 2016. Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown producers-creating-healthy-landscapes [Accessed 12 Dec 2019] using climate friendly production practices. Food Policy. 64:93-

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 52 106. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.003 (Net Balance Foundation). https://carbonneutral.com.au/wp- 470. Polkinghorne R et al. 2008. Evolution of the Meat Standards content/uploads/2014/08/Net-Balance-CoBenefits_Report.pdf Australia (MSA) beef grading system. Australian Journal of [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] Experimental Agriculture. 48:1351-9. doi: 10.1071/EA07177 490. Landsberg J & Crowley GM 2004. Monitoring rangeland 471. Pasturefed 2019. Pasturefed Cattle Assurance System website. biodiversity: Plants as indicators. Austral Ecology. 29:59-77. doi: www.pcaspasturefed.com.au [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2004.01357.x 472. Lucio R 2019. Australia’s NAPCo launches carbon neutral beef in 491. Eyre TJ et al. 2015. BioCondition: A condition assessment Singapore. Inside FMCG. https://insidefmcg.com.au/2019/11/13/ framework for terrestrial biodiversity in Queensland. australias-napco-launches-carbon-neutral-beef-in-singapore Assessment manual. Version 2.2. In ‘Information Technology, [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] Innovation and Arts, Brisbane.’ (Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts: Brisbane). 473. Condon J 2019. NAPCo’s Five Founders beef extends brand www.qld.gov.au/environment/assets/documents/plants- claim boundaries. Beef Central. www.beefcentral.com/ animals/biodiversity/biocondition-assessment-manual.pdf trade/165287 [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] 474. Ariyawardana A et al. 2018. Consumer response to climate 492. Productivity Commission 2014. Overcoming Indigenous adaptation strategies in the food sector: An Australian disadvantage: Key indicators 2014. (Commonwealth of scenario. Ecological Economics. 154:383-93. doi: 10.1016/j. Australia, Canberra). www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/ ecolecon.2018.08.022 overcoming-indigenous-disadvantage/key-indicators- 475. Verley A et al. 2019. Carbon neutral livestock production 2014#thereport [Accessed 18 April 2014] — consumers want it and farmers say it is achievable. ABC 493. Carr B et al. 2017. CAPitalising on conservation knowledge: - Landline. www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-06-08/carbon- Using Conservation Action Planning, Healthy Country Planning neutral-livestock-achievable-by-2030-says-mla/11046592 and the Open Standards in Australia. Ecological Management & [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] Restoration. 18:176-89. doi: 10.1111/emr.12267 476. Ainge Roy E 2019. Ardern tells New Zealand farmers to cut 494. Genskow K & Prokopy LS 2009. Lessons learned in carbon emissions or face penalties The Guardian - Australian developing social indicators for regional water quality Edition. www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/24/ardern-tells- management. Society & Natural Resources. 23:83-91. doi: new-zealand-farmers-to-cut-carbon-emissions-or-face-penalties 10.1080/08941920802388961 477. United Nations 2019. Sustainable Development Goals. 495. Teys Australia 2019. Beef brands. www.teysaust.com.au/ https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 marketing/brands [Accessed 21 Nov 2019] [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] 496. Department the Environment and Energy 2019. Beef cattle 478. Gold Standard 2019. Gold Standard website. www. herd management. www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/ goldstandard.org [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] government/emissions-reduction-fund/methods/beef-cattle- 479. SocialCarbon 2019. SocialCarbon website. www.socialcarbon. herd-management [Accessed 20 Nov 2019] org [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] 497. Doran-Browne NA & Eckard RJ 2018. A greenhouse 480. Department of Environment and Energy 2018. Eligible Offset accounting framework for beef properties (B-GAF) based on Units: Appendix A to the National Carbon Offset Standard. Australian National Greehouse Gas Inventory methodology. www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/carbon- (University of Melbourne, Carlton). www.greenhouse.unimelb. neutral/publications/ncos-appendixa [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] edu.au/Tools.htm 481. CCBA 2019. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance website. 498. Queensland Government 2019. Forage. www.longpaddock.qld. www.climate-standards.org [Accessed 14 Nov 2019] gov.au/forage [Accessed 20 Nov 2019] 482. Kragt ME et al. 2016. Public willingness to pay for carbon 499. Beutel TS et al. 2019. VegMachine.net. online land cover farming and its co-benefits. Ecological Economics. 126:125-31. analysis for the Australian rangelands. The Rangeland Journal. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.018 41:355-62. doi: 10.1071/RJ19013 483. Fitch P 2019. Co-benefits and greenhouse gas abatement. 500. Future Beef 2017. Stocktake: balancing supply and demand. Digiscape Future Science Platform. (CSIRO, Melbourne). https:// https://futurebeef.com.au/workshops/sustainable-grazing/ research.csiro.au/digiscape/co-benefits-and-greenhouse-gas- stocktake-balancing-supply-demand [Accessed 20 Nov 2019] abatement [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] 501. Charles Darwin University 2018. NAFI: North Australian 484. Crowley GM 2016. Trends in natural resource management in fire information website. www.firenorth.org.au Australia’s Monsoonal North: The conservation economy. (The [Accessed 10 Jul 2018] Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia). 502. University of Canberra 2019. Regional Wellbeing Survey. www. http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/43625/1/Conservation_ canberra.edu.au/research/institutes/health-research-institute/ economy.pdf [Accessed 21 Apr 2016] regional-wellbeing-survey [Accessed 20 Nov 2019] 485. Queensland Government 2019. Land restoration fund. www.qld. 503. Meat and Livestock Australia 2019. Livestock Production gov.au/environment/climate/climate-change/land-restoration- Assurance program. www.mla.com.au/meat-safety-and- fund [Accessed 15 Nov 2019] traceability/red-meat-integrity-system/about-the-livestock- 486. Department of the Environment and Energy 2019. Tax production-assurance-program [Accessed 21 Nov 2019] concessions for landowners who enter into conservation 504. Future Beef 2017. Grazing BMP. https://futurebeef.com.au/ covenants. www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/ projects/grazing-bmp [Accessed 21 Nov 2019] covenants/tax-incentives [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] 506. Animal Health Australia 2019. Property biosecurity 487. Imperial College London 2014. Unlocking the hidden value of management planning. www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/ carbon offsetting. (International Carbon Reduction and Offset extension/aha-livestock-extension/property-biosecurity Alliance). www.icroa.org/Offsets [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] [Accessed 22 Nov 2019] 488. Crosier P et al. 2016. Accounting for Nature: A scientific method 507. SEQ Fire and Biodiversity Consortium 2018. Property fire for constructing environmental asset condition accounts. management planning kit. www.fireandbiodiversity.org.au/ (Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, Sydney). http:// publications.html [Accessed 22 Nov 2019] wentworthgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Wentworth- Group-2016-Accounting-for-Nature.pdf [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] 508. Department of the Environment and Energy 2014. Survey guidelines for nationally threatened species. www.environment. 489. Salisbury N et al. 2013. Benefiting from co-benefits in Australia. gov.au/epbc/publications [Accessed 22 Nov 2019]

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 53 509. Land for Wildlife South East Queensland Bushland management 523. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016. Conservation planing. Land for Wildlife: Note G3. www.lfwseq.org.au/wp- Advice Amytornis dorotheae carpentarian grasswren. content/uploads/2016/11/Bushland-Management-Planning.pdf (Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra). www. [Accessed 22 Nov 2019] environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/558- 510. Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation conservation-advice-05052016.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] 2016. BioCondition benchmarks for Regional Ecosystem 524. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2015. Conservation condition assessment for the Mitchell Grass Downs. (State of Advice Erythrotriorchis radiatus red goshawk. (Commonwealth Queensland, Brisbane). www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ of Australia, Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ file/0026/67409/mgd-benchmarks.pdf [Accessed 22 Nov 2019] threatened/species/pubs/942-conservation-advice-31102015.pdf 511. Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation [Accessed 28 Oct 2019] 2012. BioCondition benchmarks for Regional Ecosystem 525. Department of Environment and Resource Management 2012. condition assessment for the North West Highlands. (State of National recovery plan for the red goshawk Erythrotriorchis Queensland, Brisbane). www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ radiatus. Report to the Department of Sustainability, file/0028/67465/nwh-benchmarks.pdf [Accessed 22 Nov 2019] Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. 512. Department of Environment and Science 2019. BioCondition (State of Queensland, Brisbane). benchmarks for Regional Ecosystem condition assessment for 526. Crowley GM & Hill BM (eds) 2011. Management practices for the Gulf Plains. (State of Queensland, Brisbane). www.qld.gov. wildlife conservation in the Northern Territory. (Charles Darwin au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/92916/gup-benchmarks.pdf University, Darwin). [Accessed 22 Nov 2019] 527. Tidemann SC 1990. ‘Relationships between finches and pastoral 513. Conrick D 2007. Scoping Study for Monitoring Wetland Extent practices in Northern Australia’. pp. 305-15 in Pinowski and and Condition. (State of Queenslan, Brisbane). https:// Summers-Smith Granivorous birds in the agricultural landscape wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/resources/static/pdf/resources/ (PWN-Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw). reports/qw-scoping-study.pdf [Accessed 22 Nov 2019] 528. Lewis M 2007. ‘Foraging responses of the Endangered Gouldian 514. Burns E et al. 2016. ‘The environmental stewardship program: finch to temporal differences in seed availability in northern lessons on creating long-term agri-environment schemes’ Australian savanna grasslands’. pp. 218-35 in Temporal in Ansell et al. Learning from agri-environment schemes Dimensions of Landscape Ecology). doi: 10.1007/978-0- in australia: Investing in biodiversity and other ecosystem 387-45447-4_13 services on farms (ANU Press, Acton, ACT). www.oapen. 529. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016. Conservation org/download?type=document&docid=610749#page=61 Advice Erythrura gouldiae Gouldian finch. (Department of the [Accessed 25 Oct 2019] Environment and Energy, Canberra). www.environment.gov. 515. AEGN 2012. Giving green: A guide to environmental au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/413-conservation- grantmaking. (Australian Environmental Grantmakers advice-07122016.pdf [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Network, Melbourne). www.cbd.int/financial/charity/australia- 530. Legge S et al. 2015. A landscape-scale, applied fire management givinggreen.pdf [Accessed 19 Nov 2019] experiment promotes recovery of a population of the 516. Taylor MFJ 2017. Building Nature’s Safety Net 2016: The state threatened Gouldian Finch, Erythrura gouldiae, in Australia’s of Australia’s terrestrial protected areas 2010-2016. (WWF- tropical savannas. PLoS ONE. 10:e0137997. doi: 10.1371/ Australia, Sydney). www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/ journal.pone.0137997 committees/AEC/2017/rpt40-NatureConserv/submissions/02.pdf 531. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016. Conservation [Accessed 7 Nov 2019] Advice Pezoporus occidentalis night parrot. (Department of the 517. Nano CEM et al. 2007. National recovery plan for threatened Environment and Energy, Canberra). www.environment.gov. Acacias and Ricinocarpos gloria-medii in central Australia. au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/59350-conservation- (Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, advice-15072016.pdf [Accessed 28 Oct 2019] Alice Springs, Northern Territory). www.environment.gov.au/ 532. Murphy SA et al. 2018. Understanding and managing the threats biodiversity/threatened/recovery-plans/national-recovery-plan- to Night Parrots in south-western Queensland. Emu - Austral threatened-acacias-and-ricinocarpos-gloria-medii-central- Ornithology. 118:135-45. doi: 10.1080/01584197.2017.1388744 australia [Accessed 12 Nov 2019] 533. Murphy SA et al. 2017. Movements and habitat use of the night 518. Department of the Environment 2008. Approved Conservation parrot Pezoporus occidentalis in south-western Queensland. Advice for Cadellia pentastylis (Ooline). (Commonwealth of Austral Ecology. 42:858-68. doi: 10.1111/aec.12508 Australia, Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ 534. Garnett ST & Crowley GM 2002. Recovery plan for the Golden- threatened/species/pubs/9828-conservation-advice.pdf shouldered Parrot (Psephotus chrysopterygius) 2003-2007. [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] (Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane). www. 519. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016. Conservation environment.gov.au/node/15778 [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Advice Trisyntopa scatophaga antbed parrot moth. 535. Taylor R et al. 2007. ‘Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula (Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra, benghalensis australis’. pp. 187 in Woinarski et al. Lost from Australian Capital Territory). our landscape: Threatened species of the Northern Territory 520. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population (Northern Territory Government, Darwin). and Communities 2012. Approved Conservation Advice for 536. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016. Conservation Acanthophis hawkei (plains death adder). (Commonwealth of Advice Macrotis lagotis greater bilby. (Department of the Australia, Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/ Environment and Energy, Canberra). threatened/species/pubs/83821-conservation-advice.pdf [Accessed 28 Oct 2019] 537. Bradley K et al. (eds) 2015. 2015 Greater Bilby Conservation Summit and Interim Conservation Plan: an Initiative of the Save 521. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts the Bilby Fund. (IUCN SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist 2008. Approved Conservation Advice for Elseya lavarackorum Group, Apple Valley, MN). (Gulf Snapping Turtle). (Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/ 538. Lundie-Jenkins G & Findlay E 1997. Distribution and status pubs/67197-conservation-advice.pdf [Accessed 5 Nov 2019] of rock-wallabies in the Northern Territory. Australian Mammalogy. 19:175-82. 522. Harrington GN et al. 2017. The range and habitat of the Kalkadoon Grasswren ‘Amytornis ballarae’. Australian Field 539. Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016. Conservation Ornithology. 34:12-7. Advice Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus bare-rumped

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 54 sheathtail bat. (Department of the Environment and Energy, floristic insights. Austral Ecology doi: 10.1111/aec.12776 Canberra). www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ 548. Smith NM 2002. Weeds of the wet/dry tropics: a field guide. species/pubs/66889-conservation-advice-07122016.pdf (Environment Centre NT, Darwin). [Accessed 28 Oct 2019] 549. Hannan-Jones M & Weber J 2016. Invasive plant risk 540. Lloyd P et al. 2013. Targeted trapping surveys shed new light on assessment: Aleman grass Echinochloa polystachya. (State of the distribution and habitat characteristics of the Carpentarian Queensland, Brisbane). www.daf.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/ pseudantechinus (Pseudantechinus mimulus), a threatened pdf_file/0020/52256/IPA-Aleman-Grass-Risk-Assessment.pdf dasyurid marsupial. Australian Mammalogy. 35:220-3. doi: [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] 10.1071/AM12027 550. Csurhes S & Hannan-Jones M 2016. Invasive plant risk 541. Woinarski JCZ et al. 2014. The action plan for Australian assessment: Gamba grass Andropogon gayanus. (State of mammals 2012. (CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood). Queensland, Brisbane). www.daf.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/ 542. Groves RH et al. 2003. Weed categories for natural and pdf_file/0017/58004/IPA-Gamba-Grass-Risk-Assessment.pdf agricultural ecosystem management. (Bureau of Rural Sciences, [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] Canberra). www.researchgate.net/publication/235980851_ 551. Hannan-Jones M & Csurhes S 2012. Invasive species Weed_categories_for_natural_and_agricultural_ecosystem_ risk assessment: Para Grass Urochloa mutica. (State of management [Accessed 18 Nov 2019] Queensland, Brisbane). www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/ 543. Grice AC 2002. Weeds of significance to the grazing industries pdf_file/0004/65254/IPA-Para-Grass-Risk-Assessment.pdf of Australia. Final report COMP.045 (Meat and Livestock [Accessed 21 Oct 2019] Australia, North Sydney). www.mla.com.au/research-and- 552. Stobbs TH 1971. Quality of pasture and forage crops for development/search-rd-reports/final-report-details/Productivity- dairy production in the tropical regions of Australia. Tropical On-Farm/Weeds-of-Significance-to-the-Grazing-Industries-of- Grasslands. 5:159-70. http://tropicalgrasslands.info/public/ Australia/1747 [Accessed 18 Oct 2019] journals/4/Historic/Tropical%20Grasslands%20Journal%20 544. Martin TG et al. 2006. Weeds of Australian rangelands. The archive/titles%20only/early%20vol%20pdfs/Vol%205%20 Rangeland Journal. 28:3-26. doi: 10.1071/RJ06017 No%203/Vol%205%5b3%5d%20Paper%203%20stobbs%20 545. Humphries SE et al. 1991. Plant invasions: The incidence of 159-170.pdf environmental weeds in Australia. (Australian National Parks 553. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 2019. Pest distribution and Wildlife Service, Canberra). maps. www.daf.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/biosecurity/ 546. Thorp JR & Lynch R 2000. The determination of Weeds of invasive-plants-animals/pest-mapping/distribution-maps National Significance. (National Weeds Strategy Executive [Accessed 6 Nov 2019] Committee, Launceston). 554. Atlas of Living Australia 2019. Atlas of Living Australia. www.ala. 547. Osunkoya OO et al. A risk-based inventory of invasive plant org.au [Accessed 6 Nov 2019] species of Queensland, Australia: Regional, ecological and

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 55 APPENDIX 1. Summary of biodiversity values and threats in north-west Queensland bioregions

Mitchell Source or Year of North-West Grass further Bioregion measurement Highlands Gulf Plains Downs Total details Area (km2) 2019 73,436 219,109 241,623 534,168 Threatened plants 2019 1 9 19 27 Appendix 2 Threatened animals 2019 13 10 14 25 Appendix 2 Near threatened plants 2019 1 6 4 10 Appendix 2 Near threatened animals 2019 - 1 1 2 Appendix 2 Rare and threatened animals 2019 9 4 4 11 Appendix 2 threatened by extensive wildfire Grazing sensitive plants 2019 69 70 66 72 Appendix 3 Grazing sensitive animals 2019 13 14 11 16 Appendix 3 Regional Ecosystems – all 2019 86 153 60 299 257 Regional Ecosystems – Endangered 2019 4 5 1 10 Appendix 4 Regional Ecosystems – Of Concern 2019 22 45 5 72 Appendix 4 Area highly modified by overgrazing 2016 18 43 20 29 257 Area within 3 km of stock waterpoints 2006 17 20 62 39 7 Weeds – prohibited or 2013-2018 23 16 21 26 Appendix 5 restricted plants Weeds – other 2013-2016 26 28 27 36 Appendix 5 Nature refuges (%) 2016 2.7 1.7 0.1 1.1 516 All protected areas (%) 2016 7.8 4.8 1.5 3.7 516

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 56 APPENDIX 2. Significant terrestrial and freshwater species of north-west Queensland

Source of threat information NCA EPBC Over- Extensive Species Common name status * status * NWH † GUP † MGD † grazing wildfire Plants Acacia armitii a wattle NT - + - 342 Acacia crombiei Pink gidgee V V - + + 275 Acacia peuce Waddy-wood V V - - + 275 275,517 Acacia spania Western rosewood NT - - + Cadellia pentastylis Ooline V V - - + 518 518 Calotis suffruticosa a shrub En - - + Cerbera dumicola a small tree NT - - + Cycas cairnsiana Cairns cycad V V - + - Cycas couttsiana Glen Idle blue cycad V - + - 341 Dendrobium johannis Brown antelope orchid V V - + - Drummondita calida a shrub V - + - Eragrostis fenshamii a grass En - - + Eremophila stenophylla a shrub V - - + Eremophila tetraptera Gypsum bush V - - + Eriocaulon carsonii Salt pipewort En En - + - 341 Eryngium fontanum Blue devil En En - - + 341 Fimbristylis micans a fringe rush V - + - Fimbristylis sp. (Elizabeth a fringe rush V - - + Springs R.J.Fensham 3743) Labichea brassii a shrub NT - + - Leptospermum pallidum a paperbark NT - + - Macropteranthes montana Antique wood V V - + - Myriophyllum artesium Artesian milfoil En - - + 341 Nyssanthes impervia a shrub V - - + Nyssanthes longistyla a shrub V - - + Oldenlandia polyclada a scrambling herb NT - - + Oldenlandia spathulata a scrambling herb En - + - Picris barbarous a daisy V - - + Ptilotus brachyanthus a pussy tail En - - + 341 Ptilotus maconochiei a pussy tail NT + - + Rhaphidospora bonneyana a spiny shrub V V - - + Sclerolaena blakei a spiny shrub V V - - + Solanum carduiforme a spiny shrub V + - + Solanum unispinum a spiny shrub En - - + Stemona angusta a twining herb NT - + - Stylidium trichopodum a trigger plant NT - + - Trachymene glandulosa a herb NT - + - Vittadinia decora a daisy En - - +

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 57 Source of threat information NCA EPBC Over- Extensive Species Common name status * status * NWH † GUP † MGD † grazing wildfire Insects Trisyntopa scatophaga Antbed parrot moth En En - + - 519 Fish Chlamydogobius micropterus Elizabeth Springs goby En En - - + 341 Chlamydogobius squamigenus Edgbaston goby En V - - + 341 Reptiles Acanthophis antarcticus Common death adder V - + - + 341 Acanthophis hawkei Plains death adder V V + - + 520 Ctenotus schevilli Scheville’s ctenotus NT - - - + Elseya lavarackorum Gulf snapping turtle V En - + - 521 Emydura subglobosa worrelli Diamond head turtle NT - - + - Birds Amytornis ballarae Kalkadoon grasswren LC - + - - 341 522 Amytornis dorotheae Carpentarian grasswren En En + - - 341 432,523 Falco hypoleucos Grey falcon V - + + + Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red goshawk En V + + - 341,523 524526 Erythrura gouldiae Gouldian finch En En + + - 527,528 529,530 Grantiella picta Painted honeyeater V V + - + 275 Lophochroa leadbeateri Major Mitchell’s cockatoo V - - - + Malurus coronatus Purple-crowned fairy-wren V - + + - 341,345 Neochmia Crimson finch (white- En En - + - 277 277 phaeton evangelinae bellied subspecies) Pedionomus torquatus Plains-wanderer V CR - - + Pezoporus occidentalis Night parrot En En + - + 531533 Psephotus chrysopterygius Golden-shouldered parrot En En - + - 260,534 Rostratula australis Australian painted snipe V En + + + 341 276,535 Mammals Dasyuroides byrnei Kowari V V - - + 341 Macroderma gigas Ghost bat En V + 341 Macrotis lagotis Greater bilby En V - - + 341 536,537 Petrogale xanthopus celeris Yellow-footed rock-wallaby LC V - - + 341 Petrogale purpureicollis Purple- V - + - - 347 538 necked rock-wallaby Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V - - - + Pseudantechinus mimulus Carpentarian antechinus - - + - - 539,540 539,541 Rhinonicteris aurantia Orange leaf-nosed bat V - + - - Petauroides volans Greater glider LC V - + - Sminthopsis douglasi Julia Creek dunnart En V - + + 341

* EPBC and NCA status codes: LC, Least Concern; NT, Near Threatened; V, Vulnerable; En, Endangered; CR, Critically Endangered. † Bioregional codes: NWH, North-West Highlands; GUP, Gulf Plains; MGD, Mitchell Grass Downs.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 58 APPENDIX 3. Grazing-sensitive species in north-west Queensland

Common name Species NWH * GUP * MGD * Source Plants Grasses Black spear grass Heteropogon contortus + + + 33,340 Brush threeawn Aristida obscura + + + 308 Bull Mitchell grass Astrebla squarrosa + + + 339 Bunched kerosene grass Aristida contorta + + + 337,338 Cotton panic grass Digitaria brownii + + + 336 Curly bluegrass Dichanthium fecundum + + + 33 Delicate lovegrass Eragrostis tenellula + + + 33 Desert bluegrass Bothriochloa ewartiana + + + 33,50 Disagreeable wiregrass Aristida ingrata + + - 50 Downs sorghum Sarga timorense + + + 339 Feathertop threeawn Aristida inaequiglumis + + + 33 Finger grass Dactyloctenium radulans + + + 339 Forest bluegrass Bothriochloa bladhii + + + 50 Hoop Mitchell grass Astrebla elymoides + + + 339 Kangaroo grass Themeda triandra + + + 33,336,340 Limestone grass Enneapogon polyphyllus + + + 33,308,339 Long-flowered wiregrass Aristida longicollis + + + 33 Native millet Panicum decompositum + + + 33,336 Northern wanderrie grass Eriachne obtusa + + + 33 Pernicious wiregrass Aristida perniciosa - + - 50 Queensland bluegrass Dichanthium sericeum + + + 50 Rattail grass Sehima nervosum + + + 33 Ribbon grass Chrysopogon fallax + + + 33,340 Schultze’s wiregrass Aristida schultzii - + - 50 Sheda grass Dichanthium annulatum + + + 33 Silky browntop Eulalia aurea + + + 33,339 Slender Flinders grass Iseilema fragile + + + 339 Slender wiregrass Aristida gracilipes + + + 50 Soft spinifex Triodia pungens + + + 337 Sedges Brown’s sedge Scleria brownii + + - 33 Herbs Australian carrot Daucus glochidiatus + + + 308 Bindi-eye Calotis cuneifolia + + + 308 Birdsville indigo Indigofera linnaei + + + 339 Blue heronsbill Erodium cygnorum + + + 308 Camel bush Trichodesma zeylanicum + + + 33,339 Coghlan’s spurge Euphorbia coghlanii + + + 339 Common joyweed Alternanthera nodiflora + + + 339

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 59 Common name Species NWH * GUP * MGD * Source Common white sunray Rhodanthe floribunda + + + 308 Cow vine Ipomoea lonchophylla + + + 339 Flemingia Flemingia pauciflora + + - 339 Frosted goosefruit Chenopodium desertorum - - + 309 Long stalk water-fire Bergia pedicellaris + + + 33 Madras leaf-flower Phyllanthus maderaspatensis + + + 339 Mueller’s necklace pea Desmodium muelleri + + + 33 Mitchell’s caustic plant Euphorbia mitchelliana + + + 33 Mountain rattlepod Crotalaria montana + + + 33,339 Pin sida Sida fibulifera + + + 33 Pink tongues Rostellularia adscendens + + + 33 Pink twining pea Galactia tenuiflora + + - 336 Red spinach Trianthema triquetrum + + + 339 Red tails Ptilotus spicatus + + + 33 Roly-poly tar vine Boerhavia paludosa + + + 33 Selenium weed Neptunia gracilis + + + 33 Serrated goodenia Goodenia cycloptera + + + 308 Short-flowered gomphrena Gomphrena breviflora + + + 33 Slender pigweed Portulaca filifolia + + + 308 Spike centaury Schenkia australis + + + 336 Streptoglossa Streptoglossa bubakii + + + 33 Tall sensitive plant Neptunia monosperma + + + 33 Tar vine Boerhavia coccinea + + + 339 Trefoil rattlepod Crotalaria medicaginea + + + 33 Twin-head goodenia Goodenia berardiana + + + 308 Upright zornia Zornia muriculata + + + 33 Vernonia Cyanthillium cinereum + + + 33 Shrubs Crimson turkey bush Eremophila latrobei + + + 309 Currant bush Carissa spinarum + + + 33 Desert lantern Abutilon leucopetalum + - + 309 Ruby saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa + + + 309 Dwarf lantern flower Abutilon fraseri + + + 308 Bladder saltbush Atriplex vesicaria + + + 308 Spiny saltbush Rhagodia spinescens + + + 308 Green copperburr Sclerolaena decurrens + + + 308 Animals Reptiles Leopard ctenotus Ctenotus pantherinus + + + 338 Lined rainbow-skink Carlia jarnoldae - + - 343 Lively rainbow skink Carlia vivax - + - 343 Birds Chestnut-breasted quail-thrush Cinclosoma castaneothorax - + - 310 Double-barred finch Stizoptera bichenovii + + + 344 Grey shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica + + + 310 Grey-crowned babbler Pomatostomus temporalis + + + 343 Nankeen kestrel Falco cenchroides + + + 339 Purple-crowned fairy-wren Malurus coronatus + + - 345

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 60 Common name Species NWH * GUP * MGD * Source Red-backed fairy-wren Malurus melanocephalus + + + 339,344 Striated pardalote Pardalotus striatus + + + 343 Variegated fairywren Malurus lamberti + + + 344 Yellow honeyeater Stomiopera flava + + - 343 Mammals Common planigale Planigale maculata + - + 346 Desert mouse Pseudomys desertor + - + 80 Long-tailed planigale Planigale ingrami + + + 339

* Bioregional codes: NWH, North-West Highlands; GUP, Gulf Plains; MGD, Mitchell Grass Downs.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 61 APPENDIX 4. Endangered and Of Concern Regional Ecosystems of north-west Queensland

Regional Description VMA Biodiversity Ecosystem class* status* North-West Highlands 1.3.7 Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodland on channels and levees LC En 1.3.9 Forest or woodland fringing perennial watercourses and on associated alluvium OC OC 1.3.10 Mixed tussock grassland on shallow alluvium OC OC 1.3.12 Terminalia bursarina open woodland on recent levees OC OC 1.5.10 Mixed shrubland on older sandy alluvium OC OC 1.5.12 Triodia longiceps hummock grassland on older alluvium OC OC 1.5.18 Corymbia capricornia low open woodland on red sands around low metamorphic hills OC OC 1.6.1 Mixed forbland with Acacia stipuligera on linear sand dunes and associated sandplains OC OC 1.7.3 Triodia pungens hummock grassland on ferricrete and on silcrete OC OC 1.7.4 Triodia brizoides and/or T. molesta hummock grassland on ferricrete and on silcrete OC OC 1.9.7 Eucalyptus pruinosa low open woodland on shale hills OC OC 1.9.8 Spring wetlands on undeformed fine-grained sedimentary rock OC OC 1.9.9 Acacia cambagei low woodland on clays developed on Cambrian limestones OC OC 1.9.10 Sink holes with low open forest of Celtis strychnoides and Ficus spp. OC OC 1.9.12 Triodia pungens hummock grassland on Cambrian limestones OC OC 1.10.2 Eucalyptus miniata woodland on sandstone plateaus LC OC 1.10.6 Springs mostly associated with quartzose sandstone OC OC 1.10.9 Acacia spp. and/or Calytrix exstipulata open shrubland on rock pavement OC OC 1.11.5 Springs associated with metamorphic rocks OC OC 1.11.7 Acacia cambagei low woodland on metamorphic hills OC OC 1.11.9 Eucalyptus odontocarpa open shrubland on siliceous metamorphics OC OC 1.11.13 Grassland on clays derived from metamorphic rocks OC En 1.11.14 Acacia cambagei on clay soils derived from metamorphic rocks OC En 1.12.4 Acacia cambagei woodland on igneous hills OC OC 1.12.5 Mixed tussock grassland on basic igneous rocks OC En 1.12.6 Hummock grassland on basic igneous rocks OC OC Gulf Plains 2.1.5 Tidal lagoons on coastal mud flats OC OC 2.2.1 Casuarina equisetifolia +/- Thespesia populneoides, Hibiscus tiliaceus woodland on OC OC beaches and foredunes 2.2.4 Chrysopogon elongatus, Eriachne spp., Perotis rara and Aristida holathera in mixed OC OC tussock grasslands on coastal dunes 2.2.5 Melaleuca dealbata woodland in swales associated with coastal dunes OC OC 2.2.6 Mixed sedgelands or tussock grasslands in closed depressions in the swales of OC OC coastal dunes 2.3.5 Lysiphyllum cunninghamii woodland on plains of calcareous clays OC OC 2.3.6 Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Terminalia platyphylla, Corymbia bella and E. microtheca in OC OC mixed woodlands fringing minor watercourses in Cretaceous mudstone landscapes

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 62 Regional Description VMA Biodiversity Ecosystem class* status* 2.3.9 Lysiphyllum cunninghamii and/or Eucalyptus microtheca +/- Corymbia confertiflora low LC OC open woodland on active Quaternary alluvial plains (outer zones of river deltas) 2.3.12 Eucalyptus microtheca and/or Excoecaria parvifolia open woodland on seasonally LC OC flooded plains/depressions with numerous distributary channels 2.3.13 Acacia stenophylla low open forest in seasonal swamps on active Quaternary OC OC alluvial plains 2.3.14 Duma florulenta shrubland in channelled depressions in floodplains OC En 2.3.15 Eucalyptus microtheca woodland to low open woodland with Sarga spp. in seasonally OC OC flooded depressions on gleyed podsolics 2.3.16 Billabongs (abandoned channels) on active Quaternary alluvial plains, fringed with LC OC Eucalyptus spp., Corymbia spp., and Melaleuca spp. 2.3.17 Eucalyptus microtheca +/- Excoecaria parvifolia, Lysiphyllum cunninghamii, Atalaya LC OC hemiglauca woodland fringing channels in fine-textured alluvial systems 2.3.18 Atalaya hemiglauca, Grevillea striata, Vachellia sutherlandii and Eucalyptus microtheca in LC OC mixed low woodlands on active Quaternary alluvial plains 2.3.19 Eucalyptus tectifica +/- Corymbia confertiflora woodland on old alluvial plains (recent OC OC Pleistocene surface) 2.3.20 Corymbia bella, Eucalyptus pruinosa, C. terminalis, Lysiphyllum cunninghamii in mixed LC OC woodlands on active levees and alluvial plains in the west 2.3.22 Corymbia polycarpa and Melaleuca spp. woodland on sandy channels and levees LC OC 2.3.24 Melaleuca spp. woodland-open forest on sands in channels and on levees LC OC 2.3.26 Eucalyptus camaldulensis +/- Melaleuca spp. woodland fringing sandy, seasonal channels LC OC 2.3.27 Eucalyptus leucophylla and Corymbia terminalis woodland in depressions on OC OC podsolic soils 2.3.31 Melaleuca spp. low woodland in depressions and valley bottoms on fine-textured LC OC yellow earths 2.3.32 Aristida spp., Eriachne glauca tussock grassland in depressions and valley bottoms in the LC OC Donors Plateau subregion 2.3.33 Eucalyptus microtheca open woodland and sedges in circular depressions in sand plains, LC OC on cracking clays 2.3.37 Eucalyptus platyphylla and E. brownii woodland in shallow depressions on plateaus, on OC OC podsolics and earths 2.3.38 Seasonal swamps. Mixed grasslands and sedgelands in closed depressions with OC En Eucalyptus camaldulensis fringes on plateau surfaces 2.3.39 Springs on recent alluvium OC En 2.3.40 Eucalyptus microtheca and/or E. microneura and/or Lysiphyllum spp. open woodland on LC OC active Quaternary alluvial plains 2.3.41 Aristida dominii, Eriachne spp., Chloris lobata +/- Eragrostis basedowii, Iseilema sp. LC OC tussock grassland on active Quaternary alluvial plains of major watercourses 2.3.42 Eucalyptus microtheca +/- Excoecaria parvifolia, Lysiphyllum cunninghamii, Melaleuca LC OC spp. open woodland on Quaternary alluvial plains with coarse-grained parent material 2.3.43 Sporobolus mitchellii +/- Cyperus bifax, Astrebla elymoides, Chenopodium auricomum OC OC tussock grassland on seasonally inundated alluvial plains and drainage depressions 2.3.47 Vachellia ditricha low open woodland on active Quaternary alluvial plains of the OC OC Mitchell River delta 2.3.48 Shallow, seasonal hypersaline lakes with a fringe of Eucalyptus camaldulensis on OC OC Mesozoic sandstone plateaus 2.3.49 Seasonal swamps. Mixed herblands and/or low shrublands with a fringe of Eucalyptus OC OC microtheca in closed depressions on silty, active Quaternary alluvial plains in the west of the bioregion 2.3.53 Evergreen notophyll vine forest on fringes and levees of major watercourses OC OC 2.3.57 Panicum trachyrhachis closed tussock grassland in shallow depressions on old alluvial OC OC plains (recent Pleistocene surface)

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 63 Regional Description VMA Biodiversity Ecosystem class* status* 2.3.58 Eriachne glauca var. glauca, Oryza australiensis and Eulalia aurea tussock grassland in OC OC shallow alluvial depressions in the Doomadgee Plains subregion 2.3.62 Eucalyptus camaldulensis +/- Corymbia polycarpa, Melaleuca viridiflora woodland on OC OC abandoned stream channels and upper drainage areas in lateritic landscapes 2.3.64 Eucalyptus melanophloia open woodland on infrequently flooded Quaternary En En alluvial plains 2.3.65 Neofabricia mjoebergii +/- Melaleuca spp., Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa low open OC OC woodland on abandoned levees on Quaternary deposits (recent Pleistocene surface) 2.3.67 Dinebra neesii, Panicum trachyrhachis, Dichanthium sericeum and Oryza spp. in mixed OC OC tussock grasslands in shallow depressions on Tertiary clay plains 2.3.68 Eucalyptus platyphylla, E. brassiana, Corymbia polycarpa and E. leptophleba in OC OC mixed open forests on active Quaternary alluvial plains in sandstone landscapes in the north-east 2.3.71 Eucalyptus microneura +/- E. leptophleba and Corymbia confertiflora woodland on active OC OC Quaternary alluvial plains of watercourses from the Einasleigh Uplands bioregion 2.5.2 Atalaya hemiglauca and Ventilago viminalis low open woodland on plains on red OC OC and brown earths 2.5.4 Callitris intratropica woodland on sandsheets overlying sandstone plateaus OC OC 2.5.21 Semi-evergreen vine thicket on sandy, Tertiary remnants overlying lateritised OC En Cretaceous mudstones 2.5.27 Acacia torulosa, Corymbia setosa and A. platycarpa in mixed tall shrublands on degraded OC OC residuals of inland sand dunes 2.5.29 Acacia shirleyi +/- Eucalyptus spp., Corymbia spp. woodland on Tertiary sand sheets OC OC 2.5.40 Corymbia polycarpa and/or C. bella +/- Lysiphyllum cunninghamii, C. curtipes woodland OC OC on abandoned levees on Tertiary clay plains 2.5.41 Eucalyptus cullenii +/- Corymbia confertiflora, E. chlorophylla, Erythrophleum OC OC chlorostachys woodland on Tertiary sand sheets overlying Cretaceous mudstones Mitchell Grass Downs 4.3.13 Eragrostis setifolia and Marsilea drummondii +/- Chenopodium auricomum open OC OC grassland in drainage depressions 4.3.21 Acacia peuce low open woodland on alluvium OC OC 4.3.22 Springs on recent alluvia and fine-grained sedimentary rock OC En 4.7.3 Archidendropsis basaltica, Acacia aneura low open woodland OC OC 4.9.15 Acacia harpophylla tall shrubland with scattered emergent Atalaya hemiglauca +/- OC OC Eucalyptus spp. on Cretaceous sediments 4.9.17 Acacia harpophylla +/- A. cambagei low woodland on undulating clay plains OC OC

* VMA class (under Vegetation Management Act 1999) and Biodiversity status codes: LC, Least Concern; OC, Of Concern; En, Endangered.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 64 APPENDIX 5. Weeds with significant biodiversity impacts in north-west Queensland

Common name Scientific name Class * Pastoral Biodiversity NWH † GUP † MGD † Source of impacts impacts impact information Afghan melon Citrullus lanatus Yes + + + 542544 African boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum R3 Yes Yes Minor Minor 542547 Aleman grass Echinochloa polystachya Gr Yes + 542549 Asparagus fern Asparagus spp. R3 Minor Minor 547 Athel pine Tamarix aphylla R3 Yes Yes Minor Minor Minor 542547 Bathurst burr Xanthium spinosum Gr + + 547 Bellyache bush Jatropha gossypiifolia R3 Yes Yes Minor Minor Minor 490,542548 Blue heliotrope Heliotropium amplexicaule Gr + + 547 Broadleaved pepper tree Schinus terebinthifolius R3 Yes Minor Minor 547 Buffel grass / Cloncurry Cenchrus ciliaris / Cenchrus 194197,199,542, Gr Yes Major Moderate Major buffel grass pennisetiformis 544,545,548 Candle bush Senna alata + 547 Cat’s claw creeper Dolichandra unguis-cati R3 Minor Minor 547 Century plant Agave americana Yes + + + 543545 Chinee apple Ziziphus mauritiana R3 Yes Yes Moderate Moderate Moderate 490,542548 Chinese celtis Celtis sinensis R3 Minor Minor 547 Coastal morning glory Ipomoea cairica + + + 547 Coffee senna Senna occidentalis Yes + + + 542544,548 Coolatai grass Hyparrhenia hirta Gr Yes + 542545 Date palm Phoenix dactylifera + + 278 Devil’s claw Martynia annua Yes + + + 542544,548 Duranta Duranta erecta + 547 Fierce thorn-apple Datura ferox Yes + + + 542,544,547 Flannel weed Sida cordifolia Yes + + + 542,544,546,548 Gamba grass Andropogon gayanus R3, Gr Yes Yes Minor 490,542548,550 Giant rubber bush Calotropis gigantea Yes Minor 542,544,548 Grader grass Themeda quadrivalvis Yes 490,541548 Harrisia cactus Eriocereus spp. Pr, R3 Yes Yes Minor 542,543,544,547 Kapok bush Aerva javanica + + + 547 Lantana Lantana camara R3 Yes Yes Minor 490,542548 Lesser swinecress Lepidium didymum Yes + + 542544 490,542,544,

Leucaena Leucaena leucocephala Gr Yes + + + 545,547,548

Mesquite Prosopis spp. Pr, R3 Yes Yes Moderate Minor Moderate 542,543,545548 Mimosa bush Vachellia farnesiana + + + 547 Mother-of-millions Bryophyllum spp. R3 Yes Yes Minor Moderate 490,542544,546,547 Neem tree Azadirachta indica Yes + + + 542,543,544,547,548 Noogoora burr Xanthium strumarium Yes Minor Moderate Minor 490,543,546,547 Olive hymenachne Hymenachne amplexicaulis R3, Wet Yes + + + 490,542,544548 Pr, R2, Opuntioid cacti (incl. Opuntia spp. / Cylindropuntia R3, R4, Yes Yes Minor Major 542544,547 prickly pear) spp. R5 Para grass Urochloa mutica Gr, Wet Yes + + + 542,544,545,548,551 Parkinsonia Parkinsonia aculeata R3 Yes Yes Moderate Major Moderate 199,490,542548

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 65 Common name Scientific name Class * Pastoral Biodiversity NWH † GUP † MGD † Source of impacts impacts impact information Parthenium Parthenium hysterophorus R3 Yes Yes Minor Minor Moderate 490,543,544,546548 Phalsa Grewia asiatica Yes + + 542,544 Pimelea Pimelea elongata + + 547 Praxelis Praxelis clematidea Yes + + + 490,54244 Prickly acacia Vachellia nilotica R3 Yes Yes Moderate Major Moderate 199,542548 Rat’s tail grasses Sporobolus spp. R3 Yes Yes Minor Minor Minor 490,542544,546548 199,542,543,

Rubber bush Calotropis procera Yes Moderate Moderate Minor 545,546,548

Rubber vine Cryptostegia grandiflora R3 Yes Yes Moderate Major Major 199,490,542548 Pr, R3, Salvinia Salvinia molesta Yes Yes Moderate 199,490,542548 Wet Scarlet flower Ipomoea hederifolia + 547 Shrubby stylo Stylosanthes scabra Gr Yes + + + 542,544,545 Sicklepod Senna obtusifolia R3 Yes Yes Minor Moderate Minor 490,542544,546548 Singapore daisy Sphagneticola trilobata R3 + 547 Snakeweed Stachytarpheta cayennensis + 547 Spear thistle Cirsium vulgare Yes + + + 542545 Spiny-head sida Sida acuta Yes + + + 490,542544,546,548 Star burr Acanthospermum hispidum + + + 547 Sticky florestina Florestina tripteris Yes Moderate 547 Thatch grass Hyparrhenia rufa Gr Yes + 542,544,545,548,552 Water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes R3, Wet Yes Yes Minor Moderate 199,490,543548 Yellow bells Tecoma stans R3 Minor Minor Minor 547 Yellow oleander Cascabela thevetia R3 Yes Minor Minor Minor 544,545,547,548

* Class codes: Gr, plants introduced as pasture species; Pr, plants listed as Prohibited under the Queensland Biosecurity Act (BA) 2014, and which must be reported within 24 hours, must not be imported, grown for any purpose, or allowed to propagate or spread; R2, plants listed as Restricted Category 2 under BA 2014, and which must be reported within 24 hours and controlled using all reasonable measures; R3, plants listed as Restricted Category 3 under BA 2014, and which must not be intentionally spread; R4, plants listed as Restricted Category 4 under BA 2014, and which must not be moved; R5, plants listed as Restricted Category 5 under BA 2014, and which must not be kept; Wet, wetland species. † Bioregional codes: NWH, North-West Highlands; GUP, Gulf Plains; MGD, Mitchell Grass Downs. + indicates present, but abundance not assessed for this report. Sources of distribution data: Queensland Pest distribution maps 553 and Atlas of Living Australia 554.

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 66 APPENDIX 6. Australian Beef Sustainability Framework’s on-farm measures

Adapted from: Sustainability Steering Group (2019) 27. Indicators Sub-measures Applicable Applicable Source of monitoring data to BCHM to BCHM National BCHM Plus Animal welfare 1. Enhance animal wellbeing 1.1 Competent livestock handling 1.1a The percentage awareness of the -  LPA LPA Australian Animal Welfare Standards for Cattle 1.3 Animal husbandry techniques 1.3a The percentage of the national cattle   Breed ERF report herd with poll gene associations /EA report & genetics laboratories 1.3b Percentage of industry regularly using -  Producer EA report pain relief when undertaking husbandry survey practices 2. Promote animal health 2.1 Maintain healthy livestock 2.1a Vaccination rates for clostridial diseases   Producer ERF report/ survey EA report 2.2 Minimise biosecurity risk 2.2a The percentage of national cattle herd -  LPA LPA/ covered by a documented biosecurity plan EA report Economic resilience 3. Enhance profitability and productivity 3.1 Profitability across value chain 3.1a Rate of return to total capital for beef Rolling 5-year average for 2014-2018 - - ABARES n/a * farms covering specialist beef producers 3.2 Farm, feedlot and processor productivity 3.2a Total factor productivity Ratio of a market outputs index to a - - ABARES n/a * market inputs index, expressed as a five-year rolling average 3.2b Cost of beef produced on Australian - - Agri n/a * farms benchmark Environmental stewardship 5. Improve land management practices 5.1 Minimise nutrient and sediment loss 5.1a Number of days per year soil covered - - TBA Impracticable by vegetation 5.1b Soil health - - TBA Impracticable 5.1c Water quality - - TBA Impracticable 5.2 Balance of tree and grass cover

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 67 Indicators Sub-measures Applicable Applicable Source of monitoring data to BCHM to BCHM National BCHM Plus 5.2a Area of land managed for Percentage of cattle-producing -  ABS EA report environmental outcomes land set aside for conservation or protection purposes Area of land managed by beef -  QDES EA report producers for conservation outcomes through formal arrangements Percentage of cattle-producing land -  MLA survey EA report managed by beef producers for environmental outcomes through active management 5.2b Change in vegetation Annual woody change (both +/-) for - - NGA N/A † >20% canopy cover (forest) Annual woody change (both +/-) for -  NGA JRSRP 5-20% canopy cover (woodland) Percentage of regions achieving -  JRSRP JRSRP healthy ground cover thresholds 6. Mitigate and manage climate change 6.1 Manage climate change risk 6.1a kg C02e emitted per kg liveweight when   MLA LCA ERF report raising beef 6.1d Carbon sequestration - - TBA N/A ‡ 6.1e Percentage total C02-e reduced by the ANIR ERF report beef industry from a 2005 baseline 6.2 Climate change adaptation and preparedness 6.2a Producer confidence in having the -  TBA EA report information, tools, technologies and resources (both business and biophysical) to be able to adapt to change over time 6.3 Efficient use of water 6.3a Litres of water used per kg liveweight -  MLA LCA EA report for raising cattle People and community 9. Build workplace capacity 9.1 Education and training 9.1a Number of traineeships and -  NCVER EA report apprenticeships enrolled and completed 9.1b On-the-job training completed -  TBA EA report 9.1c Percentage of industry participants -  ABS EA report with a higher education qualification 9.2 Diversity in the workforce 9.2a The percentage of women and men in -  GEA EA report the workforce 9.2b The age breakdown of the workforce -  ABS EA report 9.2c The percentage Indigenous -  ABS EA report representation in the workforce 10. Ensure health, safety and wellbeing of people in the industry 10.1 Health and safety of people in the industry 10.1a Notifiable fatalities -  SWA EA report 10.2 Wellbeing of people in the industry 10.2a Global Life Satisfaction Index -  UCWS EA report

Abbreviations: ABARES, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences; ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics; ANIR, Australian National Inventory Report; BCHM, Beef Cattle Herd Management emission reduction methodology; EA, Enterprise Accreditation; ERF, Emission Reduction Fund; GEA, Gender Equity Agency; JRSRP, Joint Remote Sensing Research Program; LCA, Life Cycle Analysis; LPA, Livestock Production Assurance accreditation; MLA, Meat and Livestock Australia; N/A, not applicable; NCVER, National Centre for Vocational Education Research; NGA, National Greenhouse Accounts; QDES, Queensland Department of Environment and Science; SWA, Safe Work Australia; TBA, to be advised; UC, University of Canberra Wellbeing Survey. Symbols: *, Financial viability indicator; †, Minimal forest cover in north-west Queensland precludes measurement of this indicator; ‡, Extensive remnant vegetation in north-west Queensland cover limit options for sequestering carbon in vegetation (see Woody vegetation cover), and unproven technology limits options for sequestering carbon in soil (see Soil carbon).

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 68 APPENDIX 7. Sustainable Development Goals and Targets relevant to Beef Cattle Herd Management projects with multiple co-benefits

Sustainable Development Goal 2. No hunger resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and Target 2.4 By 2030, ensure sustainable food production environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that with all countries taking action in accordance with their increase productivity and production, that help maintain respective capabilities ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to Sustainable Development Goal 10. climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other Target 10.2 By 2030, empower and promote the social, disasters, and that progressively improve land and soil quality economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, Sustainable Development Goal 4. Quality education sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic Target 4.3 By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and or other status men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and Sustainable Development Goal 11. Sustainable cities tertiary education, including university and communities Target 4.4 By 2030, substantially increase the number of Target 11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical world’s cultural and natural heritage and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and Sustainable Development Goal 12. Responsible consumption entrepreneurship and production Sustainable Development Goal 6. Clean water and sanitation Target 12.2 By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and Target 6.3 By 2030, improve water quality by reducing efficient use of natural resources pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of Target 12.8 By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of the relevant information and awareness for sustainable untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling development and lifestyles in harmony with nature and safe reuse globally Sustainable Development Goal 13. Responsible consumption Target 6.4 By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency and production across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals Target 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity Sustainable Development Goal 14. Life below water Target 14.2 By 2020, sustainably manage and protect Target 6.6 By 2020, protect and restore water-related marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take aquifers and lakes action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and Sustainable Development Goal 8. Decent work and productive oceans economic growth Target 14.5 By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal Target 8.2 Achieve higher levels of economic productivity and marine areas, consistent with national and international through diversification, technological upgrading and law and based on the best available scientific information innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors Sustainable Development Goal 15. Life on the land Target 15.1 By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration Target 8.4 Improve progressively, through 2030, global and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater resource efficiency in consumption and production and ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under degradation, in accordance with the 10-year framework of international agreements programmes on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead Target 15.3 By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, Target 8.5 By 2030, achieve full and productive employment drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land and decent work for all women and men, including for young degradation-neutral world people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value Target 15.5 Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity Target 8.6 By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of youth not in employment, education or training threatened species Sustainable Development Goal 9. Industry, innovation and infrastructure Target 9.4 By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased

Leaders in regional natural resource management southerngulf.com.au 69