Approach

The Land chapter assessed:

• the state of the land environment
• the pressures that impact the land environment
• how effectively we are managing the land environment.

The framing of the land theme is inspired by the growing national and global recognition of natural capital values (Brauman et al. 2020). Since the 2016 state of the environment report (SoE 2016), government and businesses are increasingly assessing and reporting on the status of natural capital by measuring the stocks and flows of natural capital, the services and benefits that flow from natural capital, and the degree to which these flows of services and benefits are sustainable. Global frameworks include Land Degradation Neutrality (Orr et al. 2017), the Natural Capital Protocol (NCC 2016), the Social and Human Capital Protocol (Social & Human Capital Coalition 2019) and the System of Environmental–Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounts (UNCEEA 2021). In Australia, we have many methods and frameworks for measuring, monitoring and reporting on natural capital, including the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation’s Core Benefits Verification Framework (ABC 2021), Accounting for Nature (Accounting for Nature 2021), a strategy and action plan for a common national approach to environmental–economic accounting (Interjurisdictional Environmental-Economic Accounting Steering Committee for the Meeting of Environment Ministers 2018), the Land Restoration Fund Co-benefit Standard (Land Restoration Fund 2020) and Land to Market Ecological Outcome Verification (Land to Market 2021).

For SoE 2021, the Land chapter is reporting the following parent assessments:

• environment
  • native vegetation extent and condition
  • soil health
  • above- and below-ground carbon
• pressures
  • pressures that degrade natural capital
• management
  • management of natural capital assets and pressures
• wellbeing
  • management of the terrestrial environment and resources to support human wellbeing.

The assessment approach is based on a synthesis of approaches from the 2011 and 2016 SoE reports, adapted to new changes in SoE 2021 more broadly.

The assessments were conducted by the authors by integrating and distilling scientific understanding, based on evidence from monitoring and other existing data, literature review, and consultation of experts.

Land-use intensity zones

Land-use intensity zones were defined using condition scores from the Habitat Condition Assessment System (HCAS) version 2.1 (see case study: Assessing condition of habitat consistently and nationally; Figure 6):

• The intensive land-use zone is where the mean HCAS scores are ≤0.7.
• The extensive land-use zone is where the mean HCAS scores are >0.7 and ≤0.8.
• The relatively natural zone is where the mean HCAS scores are >0.8.

Condition

The condition or state is assessed by assigning 1 of 4 grades, in terms of whether natural capital values are lost, reduced, maintained or enhanced relative to a relevant reference state. The assessment grades are defined and reported for 3 major types of natural capital in the land: native vegetation, soil and carbon. State is reported by specified land units.

State is the stock (amount) of natural capital, assessed as follows:

• Define the range of values and perspectives about the natural capital.
• For each perspective, then define a reference state for each perspective to be reported. This ‘minimum expected’ state changes depending on how the natural capital is to be used with which intended objectives and outcomes.
• Characterise the natural capital.
  • What is the extent (quantity) of the natural capital?
  • What is the condition (quality) of the natural capital?
• Define services associated with the natural capital.
  • What ecosystem services flow from the natural capital?
  • Are there intrinsic values?
• Assess benefits from those.
  • What are the benefits arising from the services the natural capital provides (monetary or nonmonetary valuation)?
• The overall assessment of state then answers the question
  • Do those benefits match the intended use from particular perspectives?
  • Are we managing the land sustainably so that these benefits are expected to continue?

Sustainability is here defined as maintaining the capacity of the natural capital in the land to deliver a bundle of ecosystem services and intrinsic values that people with multiple perspectives and values agree is appropriate.

Pressures

Pressures are ‘events, conditions or processes that result in degradation of the environment’. Pressures are assessed by assigning 1 of 4 grades for the level of impact, defined as a ‘degradation in state due to pressures’. The level is characterised by the severity (a measure of intensity of impact) and extent (an area of land affected by a given pressure).

Pressures are considered a ‘flow’ in that they are events or processes that cause a negative impact on a stock of natural capital. The overall assessment of pressures used the following process:

• Choose the values and perspectives and related ‘minimum expected’ state to define what negative impact is.
• For each pressure, identify what types of natural capital are potentially affected.
• Over what spatial extent does this pressure affect this natural capital? (large, moderate, small or none).
• With what degree of severity does this pressure affect this natural capital? (high, moderate, low, none).

Management effectiveness

Management effectiveness is assessed by assigning 1 of 4 grades for the level of improved natural capital due to land management practices.

Management is considered a ‘flow’ in that it comprises approaches and practices that mitigate the negative impact on a stock of natural capital, or cause a positive impact on a stock of natural capital. The overall assessment of management effectiveness used the following process:

• Choose the values and perspectives and related ‘minimum expected’ state to define what negative impact is.
• For each child assessment, identify what types of natural capital are potentially affected.
• Assess whether management improves or maintains the state, or if the state is still poor or continuing to decline.
• Assess whether land environment values are secured against pressures, or if pressures are significant and continue to degrade land environmental values.

Wellbeing

Land management itself can improve wellbeing, directly or indirectly. Wellbeing was assessed using evidence of impacts on wellbeing directly arising from individuals managing land.

Trend and confidence

The definitions of ratings for trend and confidence are the same for pressures, state and management effectiveness, as follows.

Trend

Improving: The situation has improved since the previous assessment (2016 state of the environment report).

Stable: The situation has been stable since the previous assessment.

Deteriorating: The situation has deteriorated since the previous assessment.

Unclear: It is unclear how the situation has changed since the previous assessment.

Confidence

Adequate: Adequate high-quality evidence to support the assessment.

Somewhat adequate: Reasonable evidence to support the assessment.

Limited: Limited evidence to support the assessment.

Low: Low or no evidence to support the assessment.