sites ( pre-LDC Project practice change ) and new sites ( funded through the LDC Project ). Analysis over several years ( up to 8 years on some properties ) is showing that approximately half of the sites are improving in land condition over this period . It is recommended that these assessments are continued for as long as possible to allow long-term assessment .
• With more than 63 collaborative partners , the LDC Project implementation team relied on support from multiple stakeholders to provide technical input and advice to all components of delivery that leads to both direct ( i . e ., gully ) and indirect ( i . e ., knowledge building ) sediment savings throughout the catchment . The LDC Project implementation team relied heavily on collaborators for technical elements and built and supported the capacity , knowledge and skills of many providers and its own staff throughout this process .
• Some collaborators were mindful of the competitive nature of their industry and were reluctant to share data ( e . g ., information has been withheld / delayed or discontinued ). Reinforcing the collaborative intent of information collection at the beginning of a commercial agreement is important .
• Acknowledging every stakeholder for the technical contribution they make is imperative , from the landholders who know their land best , to the engineers and scientists who suggest treatment and monitoring methods , to the support teams who collect water samples and undertake regular maintenance . Communication products and genuine appreciation in daily conversations are both required and have been an outstanding success of the LDC Project .
• Table 14 shows the trends in adoption of improved land management indicating a significant increase in the number of engaged properties in the BBB ( from 61 % to 93 %), the number of properties committing to reportable practice changes ( from 60 to 155 properties ) and an overall increase in the reportable gully trials ( from 2 to 21 ) being implemented during the LDC Project . Interestingly however , the area of practice change by individual landholders was relatively smaller during the LDC Project than historical average areas contracted . This in part may be due to the increase in gully sites ( generally gully sites have a small overall ha but a higher sediment reduction per unit area ) in addition to many properties undertaking contracted practice changes for the first time , and smaller areas are commonly favored by landholders when trailing new practices . Project data also showed that a very small number of contracts within the BBB were applying two or more practice changes simultaneously , leaving an opportunity for stacking and enhancing the project areas with additional changes moving forward . It is also important to consider these factors in assessing the suitability of indicators for assessing program achievements , with a potentially increasing shift to smaller scale more intensive remediation activities that deliver large pollutant benefits and therefore project area is not necessarily a good indication of the potential water quality outcomes .
Table 14 . Adoption rates of large grazing properties in the BBB before and after LDC Project implementation . Derived from project data collated by NQDT .
Change
Up to 2017 ( Before LDC Implementation )
Accumulative at 2021 ( Post LDC Implementation )
Large grazing properties engaged |
61 % |
93 % |
Reportable practice change adoption |
~ 60 |
~ 155 |
Reportable gully trials implemented |
2 |
21 |
98