State of the Environment

2001

Biodiversity Theme Report

Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report)
Prepared by: Dr Jann Williams, RMIT University, Authors
Published by CSIRO on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2001
ISBN 0 643 06749 3

Roles and Responsibilities (continued)

Involving the community in conservation

Community involvement in biodiversity conservation [BD Indicators 13.3 and 25.2]

In recent years, there has been a strong trend towards community-based or participatory approaches to biodiversity policy and planning. As attention shifted from reservation and the management of the reserve estate to off-reserve areas and management of biodiversity across tenures and landscapes, the broader involvement of groups and individuals is necessary. Broadly, the justifications for increased community participation are: a democratic ideal that people should be involved in policy and management that affects them, the greater likelihood of lasting and more effective management strategies when these are subject to wider support in the community, and that managing biodiversity involves public and private sector and community decisions.

Against this, there is a tension perceived by some commentators that community-based programs may replace, rather than build on or complement, government's own efforts, with the latter declining through cost shifting or reduction in traditional public sector activities at state and territory level.

community-based Citizens Wildlife Corridor project, Northern Tablelands of New South Wales

Community-based Citizens Wildlife Corridor project, Northern Tablelands of New South Wales.
The series of 1:100 000 map sheets show native vegetation in the Armidale region and the properties that are part of the wildlife corridor scheme.

By far the greatest emphasis has been on community-based groups such as Landcare and Waterwatch, and these are discussed below. However, organised community groups and individuals may participate in biodiversity policy, management and practice in a much wider variety of ways, including:

Since the mid-1990s, representatives of major interest groups have been closely involved in development of major policies, such as the NSCABD, Oceans Policy and National Principles and Guidelines for Rangelands Management. Public participation in the RFA process varied widely across jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, standing and rights to object to development proposals have been curtailed. Development of a clearer mutual understanding of expectations of and roles in policy development processes between interest groups and governments may be desirable as part of the ongoing evolution of partnership arrangements.

Most jurisdictions have created arrangements whereby interest groups have ongoing input into biodiversity policy, whether this is ad hoc or through statutory arrangements. The EPBC Act enables broader input through continuation of BDAC and through a Threatened Species Scientific Committee and Indigenous Advisory Committee. This participation is, however, largely expertise based rather than representative.

The Commonwealth undertakes community education programs through Environment Australia, and supports the community biodiversity network (CBN) (see Community Biodiversity Network).

Community Biodiversity Network: Adding value to community efforts

Around Australia, thousands of community groups and organisations are working to increase community understanding of biodiversity and involvement in its conservation. The NSCABD (ANZECC 1996) recognises that these initiatives can be catalysed by integrated measures that increase awareness and involvement. In line with this, in 1995 the Humane Society International, with the support of the Commonwealth government environment department, established the CBN.

The CBN is a national network of hundreds of organisations, which aims to increase community understanding, support for, and involvement in biodiversity conservation, and to provide easier access to biodiversity conservation information.

Each year the CBN works with over 100 organisations to stage 'Earth Alive! Biodiversity Month' in September. Biodiversity month provides a national community and mass media focus to highlight the value of Australia's rich biodiversity, relate biodiversity to lifestyle and welfare, and encourage people to become more involved in conserving the habitat of local native species and ecosystems (see photo).

This includes relating biodiversity to simple household actions, such as creating a habitat garden and keeping pets indoors to keep them and native wildlife safe, as well as the major biodiversity conservation issues, such as ongoing habitat loss. Local community events include bush regeneration days, nature walks, seminars and school working bees to create habitat gardens. To highlight the positive efforts of thousands of Australians in conserving wildlife habitat, the CBN also awards EcoHero Awards during Biodiversity Month.

Biodiversity Month Patron, Sir William Deane, (former) Governor-General of Australia, plants a local native plant in his backyard with help from children

Biodiversity Month Patron, Sir William Deane, (former) Governor-General of Australia, plants a local native plant in his backyard with help from children.

Source: Grant Ellmers, CBN

To help groups avoid 'reinventing the wheel' when developing community education products, and to provide 'one stop shop' information resources, the CBN has developed a range of tools including the:

The CBN also produces a range of reference, news and community education products, such as its Earth Alive Home Guide, LifeLines bulletin, television and radio community service announcements, and various booklets and fact sheets. Many of these are available on the CBN website http://www.cbn.org.au .

Source: Andreas Glanznig, CBN.

Community-based programs [BD Indicator 25.2]

In Australia, involvement in the protection of biodiversity by individuals and community groups is encouraged by both federal and state governments. The number and size of these programs, and even more so of the activities and groups funded through them, render consistent reporting of activities impossible in the absence of large-scale surveys of all groups across all jurisdictions. Very often, particular groups or landholders will access support from more than one program over time to achieve different goals (see On-farm biodiversity conservation). Table 63 identifies a selection of recent state and territory government activities and programs encouraging or funding community participation.

On-farm biodiversity conservation: 'Millpost'

On 31 August 2000, the Director-General of the NSW NPWS, Brian Gilligan, launched the State's new Community Assistance Program (CAP) at 'Millpost', a 1100 ha fine wool sheep property run by David Watson and Judith Turley on the southern tablelands of New South Wales. Acknowledging the results of 20 years of planning and management to combine production and conservation, Mr Gilligan said:

the property contains a wide variety of highly significant wildlife habitats, which have been maintained and enhanced while retaining a successful and viable agricultural enterprise. 'Millpost' is a significant wildlife haven hosting native animals including a truly remarkable bird life, many of which are declining elsewhere. The property is a testament to the land management abilities of the Watsons and a fine demonstration that agricultural production can and does coexist with the conservation of biodiversity.

The philosophy behind the management of 'Millpost' combines rotational grazing practices, permaculture design principles and a belief that economic viability requires maintenance of the integrity of the biological resource base.

Since 1979, tens of thousands of trees have been planted, from direct seeding and raised tube stock. The plantings have been for wildlife habitat, catchment protection and windbreaks, with most being local species such as Eucalyptus viminalis, E. mannifera, E. pauciflora and E. stellulata, and Acacia rubida and A. dealbata. Tree plantings are complemented by understorey plantings for habitat, including Bursaria, Grevillea, Callistemon and Melaleuca. Extensive areas, including a sizeable wetland area, are excluded from grazing pressure.

'Millpost' has seen production as well as conservation benefits from planned revegetation. An increase in bird life has been the most noticeable change, especially of smaller species not previously common in the area (i.e. honeyeaters, pardalotes and whistlers). Increased shelter for stock, and a prolonged growing season from greater retention of soil moisture in spring and early summer, have benefited the grazing enterprise.

While the great bulk of the investment and work over the last 20 years has been by the owners, they acknowledge various forms of assistance, such as from Greening Australia, the National Tree Program and the National Afforestation Program. The latest assistance, in August 2000, came when workers from the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers, under the CAP and funded through the NSW government's Environment Trust, helped with new planting and maintenance work on existing plantings. Such partnerships between private landholders, community groups and government are seen as crucial to on-farm biodiversity enhancement.

As for the future, Mr Watson and Ms Turley acknowledge that, even after 20 years of progress, achieving a balance between production and conservation is a long-term task. Further challenges include dryland salinity, weeds such as Serrated Tussock and St John's Wort, the breakup of surrounding farmland under non-productive uses and, above all, the overall viability and decline of rural communities and economies.

The Natural Heritage Trust

At the Commonwealth level, the NHT is the mechanism for funding different community involvement programs that involved over 305 000 individuals in 1999 (Figure 58; see Government spending on biodiversity). The NHT is not in itself a community-based program, but rather a public finance mechanism through which a variety of programs are funded. The largest number of participants are involved in Landcare (33%), followed by Waterwatch (23%), Bushcare (18%) and the Murray-Darling 2001 Program (13%). These four programs account for 87% of the total community participation under NHT funds. There are around 1500 Waterwatch groups monitoring water quality and aquatic biodiversity, and over 4000 Landcare groups.

Figure 58: The percentage of participants in Natural Heritage Trust programs, 1996 to 2000.

Figure 58: The percentage of participants in NHT programs, 1996 to 2000

Source: Environment Australia

It is difficult to ascertain precisely the relevance of thousands of different activities to biodiversity, but broad programs can be classified as more directly or indirectly targeted. Of the four largest programs, Bushcare and Waterwatch are the most clearly relevant, although the other major participatory programs may produce biodiversity benefits. Bushcare facilitators operate at state, territory and regional level to liaise with landholders and community groups. However, as Curtis (1998) suggests, the ability of some programs targeted at other issues such as Landcare and land degradation to deliver biodiversity benefits on private land should not be overestimated. The most biodiversity-specific of the NHT programs, the NRSP and ESP, involve far fewer people as they are not as clearly community based.

Commonwealth government funding for mostly community-based NHT projects is administered through the Environment and Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry portfolios. In 1999-2000, $299.4 million was provided (Table 63). In contrast to the number of participants involved, the largest amount of funding was provided to Bushcare ($81.6 million), followed by Landcare ($49.2 million), Murray-Darling Basin 2001 ($43 million) and then the Coasts and Clean Seas Initiative ($28.1 million).

Voluntary agreements

These programs essentially involve voluntary contributions by individuals who have an interest in environmental issues usually local to their areas. Programs also exist where private landholders can be encouraged to enter into voluntary agreements with governments to put aside land specifically for the purposes of wildlife conservation (Williams & Sutherland 2000). Such programs include Voluntary Conservation Agreements, wildlife refuges and Land for Wildlife (see Selected government programs encouraging private landholder and community programs).

The Genaren Hill Sanctuary near Peak Hill, central-western New South Wales, is a 400 ha remnant on private land

The Genaren Hill Sanctuary near Peak Hill, central-western New South Wales, is a 400 ha remnant on private land.
The Genaren Hill Landcare Group installed 86 km of predator-proof fencing and have reintroduced the Brush-tailed Bettong (Bettongia penicillata ogilbyi) and Bridled Nailtail Wallaby (Onychogale fraenata), which were both regionally extinct.

Source: JE Williams

Selected government programs encouraging private landholder and community programs, 1998 to 1999

New South Wales

Australian Capital Territory (1999-2000)

Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia
Legislative mechanisms

Governments also have legislative means by which landholders can contribute to biodiversity conservation, in the form of property and conservation agreements and covenants. These allow agencies of the State to make legal agreements with private landholders or with other public sector agencies for resource management. The agreements may provide financial incentives for meeting the objective of conservation on private land (e.g. assistance for fencing) and involve a contractual arrangement and may in some cases attach to the title of the land so as to bind future owners. Some earlier legislation includes agreements more targeted at land degradation but which may also yield biodiversity benefits. Acts under which voluntary conservation or resource protection agreements and covenants can be made include:

In New South Wales, some 600 wildlife refuges have been declared, and over 80 Voluntary Conservation Agreements made over individual properties. In a move that links landholder and community efforts, the NSW NPWS in 2000 launched the CAP. The CAP is funded from the NSW Environment Trust, run by the NPWS and the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers and involves volunteers assisting with biodiversity conservation projects on properties subject to a Voluntary Conservation Agreement.

Number of interest groups involved in protected area planning [BD Indicator 13.3]

Interest group involvement is usually voluntary, may contribute to protected area planning in a consultative capacity and some may even be involved in preparation of management plans.

The basis and intent of interest group involvement in protected area planning and management varies. Interest groups identified as being 'explicitly involved' in protected area management and planning by the Victorian government illustrate this, including environmental groups (e.g. ACF and Birds Australia), recreational user groups (e.g. Australian Anglers' Association, Victorian Association of 4WD Clubs, Sporting Shooters Association of Australia) and industry associations (e.g. Tourism Council, Victorian Apiarists Association, Victorian Fishing Industry Association). This illustrates the range of interests increasingly involved in negotiating multiple values and uses of protected areas.

Community participation has become more central to the strategic planning and operations of nature conservation agencies. For example, in Queensland, the EPA (including the QPWS) describes detailed plans for consultation in its 'Agency Consultation Plan 1999-2000'. This sets out, for example, across a wide range of programs and reserves, the kind of consultation planned, time period, groups to be consulted and budget requirements. Groups identified include local residents, environmental groups, Indigenous organisations, industry interests, local government and other state agencies.