Seeking mechanisms for improved integration of biodiversity issues in regional natural resource...

Deakin Research Online This is the published version: Lowe, Kim W., Fitzsimons, James, Gleeson, Tony and Straker, Andrew 2006-03, Seeking mechanisms for improved integration of biodiversity issues in regional natural resource management planning, Australasian journal of environmental management, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 52-61. Available from Deakin Research Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30009013 Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner. Copyright : 2006, Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand

Seeking Mechanisms for Improved Integration ofBiodiversity Issues in Regional Natural

Resource Management PlanningKim W. Lowe, James A. Fitzsimons, Tony Gleeson and Andrew Straker *

This article reviews the literature on naturalresource management (NRM) planning in Australia,with particular consideration given to exploring

how regions might bet ter in tegrate b iodivers i tyconservation into catchment or regional planning in waysthat lead to improved biodiversity conservation practice inthe field. Many of the findings of the review are generic,affecting a range of NRM issues (including biodiversityconservation) and the NRM planning process itself, whilstother findings are specific to conservation of biodiversity.Factors affecting the integration of biodiversity include theorganisational characteristics of the regional NRM body,clarity in the region of the responsibilities across the threetiers of government, effective participation of stakeholders,existence of detailed NRM plans that include soundbiodiversity data and management principles, access tointerpreted information, use of a mix of policy instrumentscapable of delivering biodiversity goals, and effectivemonitoring frameworks and tools to track the return oninvestment. There is considerable variability in the waysthat NRM planning is practised across Australia, at theenterprise, regional or catchment levels. However, anoverarching issue is how well the planning caters fordifferences across space, time and human values and thisarticle attempts to identify the considerations that impacton that requirement.

regional catchment bodies – referred to in some States as

Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) - will be

responsible for developing regional plans through a

community consultation process for the region. The

regional plan is an overarching strategic planning

instrument that will provide a vision for the future

landscape of the region, be the foundation for investment

decisions in the region and will set out the regional

targets to be achieved for NRM issues (such as salinity,

water quality and associated water flows, stream and

terrestrial biodiversity) consistent with the national and

State/Territory policy and frameworks.

Regional planning and investment has become a central

tenet of national NRM policy and a range of principles

has gained currency amongst planners. However, there

are few, if any, reviews that have drawn together these

principles for use by planners and regional managers

(although see Paton et al. 2004). This article, therefore,

presents a review of the research and case study literature

with regard to elements which may improve the

integration of biodiversity conservation into NRM

planning and the implementation of those plans by

stakeholders.

Review of literature and case studies

Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) is a process

through which people can develop a vision, agree on

shared values and behaviours, make informed decisions

and act together to manage the natural resources of their

catchment (MDBMC 2001). ICM planning approaches

vary around Australia but they are fundamentally based

on the concepts of integration of ecological and technical

knowledge, organisational structure, policy objectives

and community involvement (Bellamy et al. 2002). There

has been a maturation of thinking in recent times to

deve lop more ho l i s t i c , sy s t ems-based s t r a t egy

implementation (Dovers and Wild River 2003).

We have structured our review around four somewhat

overlapping mechanisms by which the entire planning

cycle from drafting to implementation can be improved:

(i) biodiversity information gathering and goal setting;

(ii) stakeholder motivation-education-information

* Kim Lowe is with the Land and Catchments Division,Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2/8 NicholsonStreet, East Melbourne, Vic. 3002; James Fitzsimons is with theSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University,221 Burwood Highway, Burwood Vic. 3125; Tony Gleeson iswith Synapse Research and Consulting, PO Box 3746, SouthBrisbane, Qld. 4101; and Andrew Straker is with Resources andRegional Serv ices , Department o f Sus ta inabi l i ty andEnvironment, 402-406 Mair Street, Ballarat, Vic 3350. Contactauthor email: [email protected].

Introduction

The Commonwealth, States and Terri tories have

specified requirements for regional natural resource

management (NRM) plans (DEH 2004). Appropriate

52 AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT—Volume 13

53March 2006

dissemination; (iii) institutional change-penalties-

regulation; and (iv) financial incentives.

(i) Biodiversity information gathering and goal-setting

When considering improved integration of biodiversity

conservation into regional NRM planning, it is critical to

identify what outcomes for biodiversity are sought.

Australians in general have a low awareness of the term

biodiversity and a poor understanding of the concept and

issues confronting its conservation (AC Nielson 1999 in

Glanzig 2000). The literature indicates that regional

planning approaches need to include an overview of the

biodiversity issues that affect the region, and that they

provide a visual display of information (which makes

information more accessible to people without an

ecological background) (AWGNCPL 2001). Strategy(planning, coordination and direction to meet overall

objectives), tactics (implementing strategy through short-

term decisions), and vision (ability to see a goal towards

which efforts should be directed) are considered essential

for biodiversity conservation, and part of the failure to

date can be attributed to the lack of one of these elements

(Hobbs and Saunders 2000).

Developing useful goals and implementing them at an

appropriate scale, and the active involvement of

community groups, are key factors underlying the

eventual adoption of NRM plans (Williams 2000; Cohn

and Lerner 2003). Conceptual frameworks for developing

and implementing terrestrial biodiversity targets have

been developed but there are few practical applications in

NRM planning. Catchment targets for biodiversity have

been translated to enterprise targets using environmental

management systems in two pilots (Anderson et al. 2001;

Straker et al. 2003). James and Saunders (2001) suggest

that targets for terrestrial biodiversity planning need to be

developed, alongside those for water table control and

farm forestry, to achieve the best outcome for farming

communities and Australian society.

Cohn and Lerner (2003) demonstrate the importance of

sound scientific information and high quality data to

conservation planning, both for ecological protection and

to demonstrate to the public, political, scientific or legal

community the validity of a plan. Maps provide a

visually engaging way to present scientific and other

geographically related data, and good conservation

planning maps will show all land in the study area,

regardless of tenure.

Several reviews conclude that regional planning projects

have identified difficulties with data availability,

accessibility, integration and consistency (e.g. Williams

2000; Dore et al. 2003; Fleming et al. 2003). Regional

communities needed considerable time to understand the

purpose of regional-scale vegetation planning and

management, to identify priorities and then develop

management plans that have broad agreement (Williams

2000). Furthermore, Griffin/Alexandra & Associates

(2002, p. 17) concluded that ‘regional plans require

greater detail, increased spatial resolution, improved

ecological risk assessment and greater definition of

physical landscape types…’. Conversely, Paton et al.(2004) found that Regional Coordination Groups in

Queensland offered ready access to data and technical

skills to regional NRM groups.

Resulting from any goal-setting process is a requirement

to monitor progress towards targets (James and Saunders

2001; Theobald and Hobbs 2002). The Goulburn Broken

Catchment Management Authority (GBCMA 2003)

believes it appropriate to set simple targets before

refining them to complex targets that demand equally

complex (and therefore costly) monitoring processes and

that, when based on poor knowledge, contribute little to

evaluation. Thus the GBCMA (2003) also believes it is

critical to separate, but link, long-term from short-term

targets, monitoring and evaluation processes.

(ii) Motivation-education-information dissemination

Any improvement in NRM requires attention not only to

the biophysical context but also to the values, activities,

and capabil i t ies of resource s tewards and to the

institutional, social and economic frameworks within

which resource stewards operate. This must include, but

is not limited to, consideration of the globalised trading

market and all levels of domestic government and its

bureaucracies as these provide drivers and barriers for the

stewards. Cary et al. (2002) indicate that effective

catchment planning needs to take into account varying

capacities of land managers, reflected by differing socio-

economic (farm income, age, training, having a farm

plan, perception of financial security and community

Landcare membership) and locality features of individual

farms. There is a need to build on pro-environmental

values of landholders by promoting implementable,

sustainable practices with characteristics that encourage

more rapid adoption (e.g. landholders having experience

of them, being observable and able to be trialled, and of

low complexity).

In some instances, commentators have found excessive

emphasis on awareness raising activities related to an

assumption that this alone will lead to a change in

attitudes and, in turn, behaviour (Curtis et al. 1998;

Williams 2000). However, well-founded emphasis has


been placed in a number of studies on motivation-

educat ion-information disseminat ion to achieve

biodiversity outcomes (Curtis et al. 1998; Williams

2000; Wallace 2003).

Landholders’ responses can be driven by a range of

factors, which need to be taken into account. For

example, Wil l iams and Carey (2001) found that

landholder attitudes were more strongly driven by

aesthetics and agricultural orientation than perceived

ecological value and that education programs specifically

targeted toward native ecosystems are needed to promote

knowledge and community concern for individual

vegetation communities, such as grassy ecosystems

(Williams and Cary 2001). Straker and Platt (2002)

found that the drivers of wellbeing, relationships,

sustainability and wealth were key motivators for rural

landholders to incorporate native biodiversity into farm

management practices; while Hajkowicz et al. (2000)

suggest that familiari ty and/or understanding of

particular aspects of biodiversity may also influence

management decis ions which impact upon such

biodiversity components.

Familiarity can be improved by providing opportunities

to explore and have direct experience of natural

environments and can be an important way of fostering

an appreciation and value of native vegetation, especially

for more dense or unusual forms (Williams et al. 1998).

Indeed, application of such ‘learning by doing’ principles

in actual on-ground regional planning programs is well

documented (Dilworth et al. 2000; Davies and Christie

2001; Jensen 2002), providing evidence of substantial

benefits to management outcomes. The Living Systems

Project (Straker and Platt 2002), for example, included a

framework for enthusing people about native biodiversity

by incorporating opportunities for experiences in the

bush, increased understanding, mentoring and enhancing

spiritual feelings; the project showing improved results

compared to less-intensive approaches.

Other l i terature focuses on understanding ‘why’

landholders make changes that benefit or disadvantage

biodiversity. Farmer-Bowers (2002) describes this

through two interconnected models: a ‘drivers model’

and a ‘people-planet relationship model’. Agricultural

land-use practices tend to be shaped by ‘mega-drivers’

(such as the ‘development’ paradigm forces that run from

local and regional phenomenon through to globalisation).

Nested within this ‘mega-drivers’ system is a ‘personal-

drivers’ system in which individual people take land use

decisions for a plethora of personal reasons and

intentions, such as the quality of life for the family.

A broad conclusion of a review of behavioural theory and

psychology was that social norms and ways of doing

things are difficult to shift, thus identifying the need for

complex, multi-faceted campaigns to achieve change

(Proschaska et al. 1992; SRC and CAC 2001). Giving

information alone tends to be ineffective in changing

behaviour but such information can be useful within a

learning environment. Programs focusing on changing

attitudes will more likely lead to appropriate behavioural

change if accompanied by feedback, strategies to

maintain personal commitment, peer support, goal-

setting, incentives linked to commitment, and soundly

based community awareness campaigns.

The effectiveness of programs also depends upon a range

of factors, such as the way campaigns are implemented,

evidence of procedural and social justice and perceptions

of fairness, and the qualifications of those conducting the

programs (Moore et al. 2001; SRC and CAC 2001;

Wilshusen et al. 2002; Theobald and Hobbs 2002). The

key impor tance of ex tens ion of f icers who have

biodiversity knowledge and communication skills has

been found to be a key ingredient of success in all major

projects (e.g. Driver and Davidson 2000).

Issues such as the failure of attitude change to equal

action on the ground and the limitations of current

scientific research in addressing the broader social and

ecological dynamics of biodiversity conservation (Hobbs

and Saunders 2000) reflect the conclusions drawn above

in relation to NRM in general.

(iii) Institutional change, penalties and regulation

There is evidence that the current legal and institutional

arrangements are impeding effective biodiversity

conservation and are in need of major reform (e.g.

Williams 2000; Brunckhorst 2002; Farrier 2002; Gleeson

2002; Wescott 2002).

Wescott (2002) describes two levels at which integrated

NRM, particularly for coastal zones, should occur: 1)

Horizontal integration - greater integration of coastal

management institutional arrangements and practices into

other NRM arrangements (catchments and marine); and

2) Vertical integration - integration of Commonwealth

and State/Territory NRM policy. Wescott (2002) believes

that it is usually social, economic and cultural divisions,

rather than biophysical characteristics, that inhibit policy

integration. With no clear planning hierarchy, unclear

responsibilities and lack of transparency, community

partnerships that are vital in NRM are undermined

(Farrier 2002). Furthermore, a lack of coordination

between different spheres of government, different

55March 2006

government agencies and different regional organisations

is seen as wasteful of resources and a major impediment

to the attainment of environmental goals of sustainable

regional development (Dore and Woodhill 1999; Dore etal. 2003).

Incentives, education and extension in the absence of

regulation are not effective measures in conserving

s igni f icant vegeta t ion on pr iva te land , so lega l

instruments are required (Williams 2000; Doremus

2003). However, while regulations can be used to set

clear minimum conservation standards for property

owners, a creative and flexible portfolio approach to

private land conservation is likely to achieve the best

biodiversity conservation outcomes in different social

and geographic contexts (Doremus 2003).

Weak links between regional NRM plans and the

resource use activities of the private sector have been

identified (Environment Australia 1996), while many

others have concluded that, to generate meaningful

landscape-scale change, there is a need to inform, align,

and link public and private sector activities (e.g.

Griffin/Alexandra & Associates 2002; ACF/NFF 2000;

Allen Consulting Group 2001). The lack of formal

relationships between planning at bioregional or

catchment scales and implementation at local scales

makes rehabilitation works at the appropriate scale

difficult (Briggs 2001, 2002; Thackway et al. 2005).

Further, there remains a lack of consensus and clarity in

relation to the definitions of regional scales such as

‘catchment’ or ‘local’ (see Jennings and Moore 2000;

Lane et al . 2004), while other formalised human

activities and operations may occur at different scales

altogether (Saunders and Briggs 2002; Ewing 2003).

As formal approval processes that give authority to plans

is a feature linked to success with achieving outcomes,

the ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on

Private Land (AWGNCPL 2001) recommends that plans

be linked to formalised planning processes to guide local,

state and federal governments and statutory NRM bodies.

(iv) Financial incentives

There is substantial evidence that biodiversity is not

valued in commercial terms at property and regional

scales in the same way that water availability and quality,

soil function, and vegetation function are seen as

commercially relevant.

Griffin/Alexandra & Associates (2002) conclude that a

‘Duty of Care’ needs to be clearly defined and that, until

it is, incentives cannot be targeted to those who are

generating real social value (e.g. through biodiversity

conservation). Duty of care should define a point below

which land managers have to meet land management

obligations and above which they begin to provide public

services. Some argue that what is fair and reasonable will

vary from region to region, so duty of care is best defined

at the regional level, and that the emerging regional and

State NRM plans could become the main mechanism to

define duty of care (Industry Commission 1998).

Conserving remnant native vegetation may cost money

(i.e. the on-farm cash benefits derived by landholders

from fencing off and looking af ter bush may be

outweighed by the costs of fencing and other measures).

Herr et al. (2004) identified insufficient labour resources

to be a major limiting factor to the uptake of on-farm

conservation practices in Queensland. But there are also

benefits for farmers, and many would argue they have an

obligation to share at least a proportion of the cost. The

use of farm financial analysis has shown that significant

conservation gains could be made by changes in farm

management at no additional cost to the farm business

(Crosthwaite and Malcolm 2000). However, Lockwood etal. (2002, p. 86) suggest that farmers may not always be

economically rational in their response to incentive

opportunities, and they provide ‘self-image, lifestyle, and

peer group expectations’ as reasons why farmers would

not take up such payments.

Key conc lu s ions f rom a r ev i ew o f 13 r eg iona l

biodiversity planning processes across Australia

(AWGNCPL 2001) are that cost-sharing of investment

(e.g. strategies to promote equitable cost sharing for

implementa t ion , ident i f ica t ion of who pays for

environmentally damaging practices or threatening

processes , compensat ion or incent ives) was not

necessarily addressed by all plans. Recent innovations,

including the fledgling investigations of environmental

management systems (Anderson et al. 2001; Straker et al.2003) and vegetation banks, are examples of linkages that

may be needed (Alexandra & Associates 2002; Buffier

and Allen Consulting 2002).

Many others have concluded that, to generate meaningful

landscape-scale change, there is a need to inform, align,

and link public and private sector activities. Cork et al.(2002) suggest that the ecosystem services approach be

used as a complement rather than an alternative to

decision-making based on economics and policy, and

they believe that farmers, other land managers and the

general public who are concerned about environmental

issues find the framework useful for working towards

practical solutions. Rural landholders value landscapes

for production (i.e. economic arguments are more


effective at changing attitudes than ecological arguments)

and programs should emphasise the economic value of

understorey species and link ecological diversity to

concepts of naturalness (Williams et al. 1998).

The BushTender trials in Victoria (see Stoneham et al.2003) have tested the willingness of land managers to

enter into ‘dutch auctions’ and contracts for payments for

delivering nature conservation services above ‘duty of

care’. This approach focuses on overcoming some of the

market failure issues relating to conservation of native

biodiversity and the trials have shown that the auction

approach is more efficient and transparent than ‘fixed

price’ incentive schemes. The BushTender approach

enables tight specification of the biodiversity services

that government wishes to purchase and gives strong

activity targeting to meet these values.

Experience in the United Kingdom (DEFRA 2002) shows

that a high proportion of the population values the rural

environment and most respondents to attitude surveys say

they would support paying farmers to regenerate

threatened landscapes or habitats. A key barrier to

conservation in rural Australia may be overcome by

establishing pluralistic brokerage schemes between urban

consumers and rural farmers, based on the BushTender

process, as a prime means of paying for delivery of the

services desired by the public.

What can go wrong

Poor program management is an important factor

affecting project success, including over commitment of

project managers’ time and poorly developed or overly

ambitious objectives or methodologies (Curtis et al.1998). A focus on process rather than goals hinders

achievement whereas the use of clear goals emphasises

realistic targets, highlights barriers to goal achievement

and facilitates the development of well-targeted actions

(Wallace 2003). Further, Paton et al. (2004) identified an

excessive focus on outputs rather than outcomes to be a

major flaw in regional NRM funding programs such as

the Natural Heritage Trust 2. Regional plans are difficult

to use in guiding enterprise management and target

setting because they are not explicitly designed for use at

enterprise level (Griffin/Alexandra & Associates 2002).

Planning processes that are explicitly designed for

enterprise level are generally within the statutory

planning instruments and these only come into effect

when development approval is required (i.e. property by

property at different times). To achieve NRM goals,

stringent requirements should apply simultaneously to all

properties across the region (William and Walcott 1998;

Griffin/Alexandra & Associates 2002).

Putting theory into practice through theVictorian Biodiversity Action Planning Program

The Victorian Biodiversity Action Planning (BAP)

program is an example of how biodiversity has been

‘informally’ integrated into catchment management

planning. BAP is a structured approach to planning

c u r r e n t l y b e i n g a p p l i e d a c r o s s a l l C a t c h m e n t

Management Authority regions in Victoria. The purpose

is to identify priorities and to map significant areas for

native biodiversity conservation at the landscape and

bioregional scales (Platt and Lowe 2002). The BAP

program attempts to take a strategic approach to

conservation of threatened and declining native species,

vegetation communities, wetlands and rivers using

scientific principles from landscape ecology.

The BAP program follows a hierarchical framework for

biodiversity conservation from the statewide Victorian

Biodiversity Strategy (State of Victoria 1997) through to

specific Local Area Plans (Figure 1). A series of whole of

bioregion (IBRA sub-region1) summaries of the natural

and social capital, the conservation significance (as

defined by legislation and policy) of the species and

ecosystems, and threats to these have been produced to

guide reg iona l NRM planning . This conceptua l

framework and resource material is used in community

engagement programs within bioregions to develop

operational plans that are funded by the community and

government (e.g. Robinson and Howell 2003; Walker and

Park 2003) and to guide investment through the Regional

Catchment Strategy.

Park et al. (2004) describe the BAP approach being taken

by the North Central CMA to incorporate biodiversity

considerations into multiple natural resource management

planning projects, and describe how BAP has influenced

the integration of biodiversity, salinity and waterway

management. For example, combining simulations of

water- table r ise and associated sal ini ty with the

conservation status (i.e. depletion levels) of vegetation

types enables the setting of conservation targets in the

priority salinity areas (Park and Alexander 2005). Park etal. (2004) highlight the ‘mature’ state of this regional

body after seven years of evolution, the willingness

1. The Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) is a framework for conservation planning and sustainable resource management within a bioregional

context (Thackway and Cresswell 1995; Environment Australia 2000).

57March 2006

within the organisation to integrate across program areas,

and the central place that biodiversity planning can have

in driving the integration.

Through the provision of locally relevant data and maps,

BAPs aim to support landscape planning for biodiversity

by ensuring landholders are able to visualise and value

biodiversity assets (Park and Alexander 2005). In

particular, the production of locally specific project area

maps, guidelines and field guides (e.g. Robinson et al.2003) is considered to increase landholder interest in the

program. Nevill and Morison (2002) evaluated the trial

BAP community engagement pilots and concluded that

community participation and consultation is a medium- to

long-term, intensive process, and requires significant

commitment of material, time and staff resources to

achieve a successful outcome.

Critical factors affecting integration ofbiodiversity conservation into NRM planningand practice

This l i te ra ture review has canvassed

published information on the components of

the NRM planning cycle and matrix. Many

of the findings of the review are generic,

affecting a range of NRM issues (including

biodiversity conservation) and the NRM

planning process itself, whilst other findings

are specific to conservation of biodiversity.

Our review of the literature and ongoing

work through the BAP Program suggests

that the key to successful regional natural

resource management is to bring together

the various knowledge sources (Brown

2 0 0 5 ) , s u c h a s s t r a t e g i c k n o w l e d g e

( g o v e r n m e n t p r i o r i t i e s ) , t e c h n i c a l

knowledge (science), and individual and

local knowledge (community engagement),

to develop options and approaches to

change the way people interact with the

landscape. Much of this is about managing

change and ensuring adequate support for

regional planning and implementation

processes. It is also about the effectiveness

of associated organisational processes and

the presence of leaders and champions to

drive change.

Whilst integrating biodiversity conservation

into NRM plans requires best-practice

approaches central to the four mechanisms

around which this review is structured, in

our experience, there is also a specific need

to incorporate the following eight points:

1. Recognition of the ‘evolutionary stage’ of the regionalN R M b o d y . A c t i v e i n v o l v e m e n t o f a r a n g e o f

stakeholders over an extended period of time is required

to build trust, understanding and decision-making

abilities. Where this evolutionary pathway is relatively

immature and where it is most advanced, it may be more

effective to embed considerations of biodiversity

conservation in NRM planning generally rather than to

deal with it explicitly as a discrete issue.

2. Commitment and ability to integrate biodiversity intoNRM plans. There is evidence that regional bodies

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r N R M p l a n n i n g h a v e v a r i a b l e

commitment, interest and expertise in integrating

biodiversity into their NRM processes.

Figure 1. Biodiversity Action Planning hierarchy in Victoria.


3. Clarity of responsibilities. To achieve biodiversity

ou tcomes , the re i s a need fo r co-opera t ion and

collaboration between the people responsible for NRM

planning activities in all three tiers of government.

4. Effective participation of stakeholders. Targeted

strategies, tactics and processes are needed to effectively

engage the range of stakeholders, with an emphasis on

effective communication.

5. Detailed NRM plans (i.e. practical application oftarget setting for biodiversity). NRM plans need to be

sufficiently detailed and specific regarding biodiversity

so as to guide individual enterprises, and such plans need

to be devised in ways that enhance their adoption by land

managers . Some s ta tement on the def in i t ion of

biodiversity, at least those components which the plan

aims to conserve, is also warranted (e.g. strictly local

provenance or otherwise). Inevitably this will require the

establishment and clear statement of biodiversity

conservat ion goals and s t ra tegies by individual

enterprises (i.e. the unit of decision-making) or groups of

co-located enterprises guided by broader considerations

of the needs for biodiversity conservation, i.e. practical

application of target setting for biodiversity.

6. Ease of access to information. Ease of access to

useable (interpreted) biodiversity data and management

information (e.g. biodiversity assets, threats to the

services they deliver, ways to mitigate these threats) is

required at an appropriate scale (i.e. from enterprises to

catchments).

7. Effective monitoring. There is a need for monitoring

frameworks and act ivi t ies covering the range of

biodiversity asset classes (e.g. native vegetation, species,

wetlands, rivers) that ensure balance between the power

of the data coming from the monitoring and minimization

of the costs of data collection. Methods for monitoring

each biodiversity asset type at suitable scales (e.g.

catchment, bioregion, landscape, property) will need to

be developed, similar to the ‘Habitat Hectares’ approach

(see Parkes et al. 2003).

8. A mix of instruments. A will ingness to use an

appropriate mix of policy instruments capable of

harnessing the dynamic relationship between public

policy and private enterprise decisions.

Conclusion

Our experience working across NRM institutions leads us

to suggest that structured and targeted programs can be

put in place to address the barriers we have summarised

here. Such programs can improve the achievement of

stated policy goals that are intended to be delivered

through regional planning processes. We believe that

there is value in experimenting with these capacity

building programs and in using well designed evaluation

to test how effectively the issues we have identified are

being overcome.

Acknowledgments

This review was funded by the Victorian Department of

Sustainability and Environment, the Commonwealth

Department of Environment and Heritage (Natural

Heritage Trust) and Synapse Research and Consulting as

part of a project identifying how best the Commonwealth

Government might assist regions to integrate biodiversity

conservation into catchment and regional planning. The

full literature review from which the article is drawn is

available in Lowe et al. (2003). Thanks to Heather

Anderson for assistance in preparation of the figure. We

thank Steve Dovers, Jenny Tomkins, Nelson Quinn, Tein

McDonald and an anonymous referee for comments on

drafts of the manuscript.

ReferencesAC Nielson. 1999. Phone Poll to gauge awareness of the term,

biodiversity. Commissioned by Environment Australia.

Alexandra & Associates. 2002. Landscape Change in theGoulburn Broken Catchment. Final report. Alexandra and

Associates Pty. Ltd., Melbourne.

Allen Consulting Group. 2001. Repairing the Country:Leveraging Private Investment. Allen Consulting Group,

Melbourne.

Anderson, S., Lowe, K.W., Preece, K. and Crouch, A. 2001.

Incorporating Biodiversity into Environmental ManagementSystems for Victorian Agriculture: A Discussion Paper.Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private

Land (AWGNCPL). 2001. A Review of Best Practice Attributes– Regional Biodiversity Management Planning. Draft Report.

ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private

Land, Canberra.

Australian Conservation Foundation and National Farmers

Federation (ACF/NFF). 2000. National Investment in RuralLandscapes. ACF/NFF, Melbourne.

Bellamy, J., Ross, H., Ewing, S. and Meppem, T. 2002.

Integrated Catchment Management: Learning from theAustralian Experience for the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO

Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.

Briggs, S.V. 2001. Linking ecological scales and institutional

f rameworks for landscape rehabi l i ta t ion . EcologicalManagement & Restoration, 2: 28-35.

Briggs, S.V. 2002. Integrating people and nature for landscape

conservation. In: Lunney, D., Dickman, C. and Burgin, S. (eds),

59March 2006

A Clash of Paradigms: Community and Research-BasedConservation, pp. 64-73. Royal Zoological Society of New

South Wales, Mosman, New South Wales.

Brown, V.A. 2005. Knowing: Linking the knowledge cultures

of sustainability and health. In: Brown, V.A., Grootjans, J.,

R i t c h i e , J . , T o w n s e n d , M . a n d V e r r i n d e r , G . ( e d s ) ,

Sustainability and Health: Supporting Global EcologicalIntegrity in Public Health, pp. 131-161. Allen and Unwin,

Crows Nest, New South Wales.

Brunckhorst, D.J. 2002. Institutions to sustain ecological and

social systems. Ecological Management & Restoration, 3: 108-

116.

Buffier, B. and Allen Consulting. 2002. Environmental andCommercial Outcomes through Agroforestry – Policy andInvestment Options. A report for the RIRDC/Land and Water

Australia/FWPRDC/MDBC Joint Venture Agroforestry

Program. Rural Industr ies Research and Development

Corporation, Canberra. Online at http://www.rirdc.gov.au/

reports/AFT/02-057.pdf (accessed 12 June 2003).

Cary, J . , Webb, T. and Barr , N. 2002. UnderstandingLandholders’ Capacity to Change to Sustainable Practices.Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Cohn, J.P. and Lerner, J.A. 2003. Integrating Land UsePlanning and Biodiversity: Workshop Discussion. Defenders of

Wildlife, Washington D.C.

Cork, S.J., Proctor, W., Shelton, D., Abel, N. and Binning, C.

2002. The ecosystem services project: Exploring the importance

of ecosys tems to people . Ecolog ica l Management &Restoration, 3: 143-146.

Crosthwaite, J. and Malcolm, B. 2000. Looking to the FarmBusiness - Approaches to Managing Native Grassland in South-eastern Australia. Research Report 5/00. National Research and

Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and

Conservation of Remnant Vegetation, Land and Water

Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Curtis, A., Robertson, A. and Race, D. 1998. Lessons from

recent evaluations of natural resource management programs in

Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 5:

109-119.

Davies, R. and Christie, J. 2001. Rehabilitating western

Sydney’s bushland: Processes needed for sustained recovery.

Ecological Management & Restoration, 2: 167-178.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

(DEFRA). 2002. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming andFood. DEFRA, London.

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH). 2004. NaturalR e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t . D E H , C a n b e r r a . O n l i n e a t

http://www.nrm.gov.au/ (accessed 8 February 2004).

Dilworth, R., Gowdie, T. and Rowley, T. 2000. Living

landscapes: The future landscapes of the Western Australian

wheatbelt? Ecological Management & Restoration, 1: 165-174.

Dore, J . and Woodhil l , J . 1999. Sustainable RegionalDevelopment. Executive Summary of the Final Report.

Greening Australia, Canberra.

Dore, J., Woodhill, J., Andrews, K. and Keating, C. 2003.

Sustainable regional development: Lessons from Australian

efforts. In: Dovers, S. and Wild River, S. (eds), ManagingAustralia’s Environment, pp. 154-180. Federation Press,

Sydney.

Doremus, H. 2003. A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity

protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6:

217-232.

Dovers, S. and Wild River , S. (eds) . 2003. ManagingAustralia’s Environment. Federation Press, Sydney.

Driver, M. and Davidson, I. 2000. Extending that little bit

further. Ecological Management & Restoration, 1: 3-9.

Environment Australia. 1996. Subsidies to the Use of NaturalResources in Australia. Environmental Economics Research

Paper No. 2. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Environment Austral ia . 2000. Revision of the InterimBiogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) andDevelopment of Version 5.1 - Summary Report. Department of

Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Online at http://www.

deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/ ibra/version5-1/summary-report/

pubs/ibrav5-summary-report.doc (accessed 12 June 2003).

Ewing, S. 2003. Catchment management arrangements. In:

Dovers, S. and Wild River, S. (eds), Managing Australia’sEnvironment, pp. 393-412. Federation Press, Sydney.

Farmer-Bowers, Q. 2002. Achieving biodiversity gains in

conjunction with land use change. Proceedings of the RuralLand-Use-Change — YES! — But will biodiversity be OK?conference, July 2002, Attwood, Victoria. Department of

Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

Farrier, D. 2002. Fragmented law in fragmented landscapes:

The slow evolution of integrated natural resource management

legislation in NSW. Environmental and Planning Law Journal,19: 89-108.

Fleming, N.S., McGregor, C. and Pearson, L. 2003. Australianand International Practice in Asset-based Planning for NaturalResource Management . Repor t to the Depar tment o f

Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Sinclair Knight

and Mertz, Melbourne.

Glanzig, A. 2000. Australians Current Awareness andUnderstanding of Biodiversi ty Issues Confront ing i tsConservation. Community Biodiversity Network. Online at

http://www.cbn.org.au/member/cbn/projects/Communicators

Centre/Comm_Aust.html (accessed 12 June 2003).

Gleeson, T. 2002. Governance and creativity: Working together

to improve environmental management. Paper presented to the

Sustaining our Communities International Local Agenda 21

C o n f e r e n c e , 3 - 6 M a r c h 2 0 0 2 , A d e l a i d e . O n l i n e a t

http:/ /www.regional.org.au/au/soc/2002/2/gleeson.htm

(accessed 12 June 2003).

Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Author i ty

(GBCMA). 2003. Draft Regional Catchment Strategy.GBCMA, Shepparton, Victoria.

Griffin/Alexandra & Associates. 2002. The Ecovine Project:From Agricultural Environmental Management Systems toRegional Outcomes. Summary Report. Prepared for Land and


Water Australia, Southcorp and the Australian Conservation

Foundation (ACF). ACF, Melbourne.

Hajkowicz, S., Young, M., Wheeler, S., MacDonald, D.H. and

Young, D. 2000. Supporting Decisions: Understanding NaturalResource Management Assessment Techniques. A report to the

Land and Water Resources Research and Development

Corporation, Canberra.

Herr, A., Greiner, R. and Stoeckl, N. 2004. Understanding

adoption of on-farm conservation practices in the Burdekin Dry

Tropics, Queensland. Australasian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 11: 278-288.

Hobbs, R. and Saunders, D. 2000. Nature conservation in

agricultural landscapes: Real progress or moving deckchairs?

In: Craig, J.L., Mitchell, N. and Saunders, D.A. (eds), Nature

Conserva t ion 5 : Nature Conserva t ion in Produc t ionEnvironments – Managing the Matrix, pp. 1-12. Surrey Beatty

and Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales.

Industry Commission. 1998. A Full Repairing Lease. Inquiryinto Ecologically Sustainable Management. Report No. 60.

Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

James, C. and Saunders, D. 2001. A Framework for TerrestrialBiodiversity Targets in the Murray Darling Basin. Report to the

Murray Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Jennings, S.F. and Moore, S.A. 2000. The rhetoric behind

regionalisation in Australian natural resource management:

Myth, reality and moving forward. Journal of EnvironmentalPolicy & Planning, 2: 177-191.

Jensen, A. 2002. Repairing wetlands of the Lower Murray:

Learning from restoration practice. Ecological Management &Restoration, 3: 5-14.

Lane, M.B., McDonald, G.T. and Morrison, T.H. 2004.

Decentralisation and environmental management in Australia:

A comment on the prescriptions of The Wentworth Group.

Australian Geographical Studies, 42: 103-115.

Lockwood, M., Hawke, M. and Curtis, A. 2002. Potential of

revegetation incentives to meet biodiversity and salinity

objectives: A study from the Goulburn Broken Catchment.

Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 9: 79-88.

Lowe, K., Fitzsimons, J., Straker, A. and Gleeson, T. 2003.

Mechanisms for improved integrat ion of biodiversi ty

conservation in regional natural resource management planning

within Australia – Literature Review. In: Pathways forBiodiversity Conservation. Report for Land and Water Australia

by Synapse Research and Consulting and Associates, Brisbane.

Online at http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/final_reports/

SYN5_lit_review.pdf (accessed 8 February 2004).

Moore, S.A., Jennings, S. and Tracey, W.H. 2001. Achieving

sustainable natural resource management outcomes on the

ground: The key elements of stakeholder involvement.


Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MDBMC). 2001.

Integrated Catchment Management in the Murray–DarlingBasin 2001–2010: Delivering a Sustainable Future. MDBMC,

Canberra.

Nevill, G. and Morison, P. 2002. Living Systems CommunityPlanning Project Report. Department of Natural Resources and

Environment, Bendigo, Victoria.

Park, G. and Alexander, J. 2005. Integrate or perish – lessons in

integrated NRM from North Central Victoria. AustralasianJournal of Environmental Management, 12 (Supplement): 47-

56.

Park , G. , Rid ley , A. and Lowe, K. 2004. In tegra t ing

biodiversity and salinity outcomes in the Victorian North

Central Catchment Management region. In: Ridley, A.,

Feikema, P., Bennet, S., Rogers, M.J., Wilkinson, R. and Hirth,

J. (eds), Proceedings of the conference Salinity Solutions:Working with Science and Society, 2-5 August 2004, Bendigo,

Victoria. CD ROM. CRC for Plant-Based Management of

Dryland Salinity, Perth.

Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D. 2003. Assessing the

quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach.

Ecological Management & Restoration, 4: S29-S37.

Paton, S., Curtis, A., McDonald, G. and Woods, M. 2004.

Regional natural resource management: Is it sustainable?

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 11: 259-

267.

Platt, S.J. and Lowe, K.W. 2002. Biodiversity Action Planning:Action Planning for Native Biodiversity at Multiple Scales –Catchment, Bioregional, Landscape, Local. Department of


Proschaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C. and Norcross, J.C. 1992. In

search of how people change: Applications to addictive

behavior. American Psychologist, 47: 1102-1114.

Robinson, D. and Howell, M. 2003. Longwood Zone Trial,Local Biodiversity Planning, Biodiversity Action Planning.

Department of Sustainability and Environment; Goulburn

Broken Catchment Management Authority and Trust for

Nature, Melbourne.

Robinson, D., Stothers, K. and Howell, M. 2003. A WildlifeGuide for Landholders in the Plains and Box-Ironbark Regionsof the Goulburn Broken Catchment . Goulburn-Broken

Catchment Management Authority, Shepparton, Victoria.

Saunders, D.A. and Briggs, S.V. 2002. Nature grows in straight

lines - or does she? What are the consequences of the mismatch

between human-imposed linear boundaries and ecosystem

boundaries? An Australian example. Landscape and UrbanPlanning, 61: 71-82.

State of Victoria. 1997. Victoria’s Biodiversity - Directions inManagemen t . Depar tmen t o f Na tu ra l Resources and

Environment, Melbourne.

Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A. and Strappazzon, L. 2003.

Auctions for conservation contracts: An empirical examination

of Victoria’s BushTender t r ial . Australian Journal ofAgricultural and Resource Economics, 47: 477-500.

Straker, A., Lowe, K.W., McQueenie, J. and Platt, S. 2003.

Native Biodiversity Resource Kit – for EnvironmentalManagement in Agriculture. Department of Sustainability and

Environment, Melbourne.

61March 2006

Straker, A. and Platt, S. 2002. Living Systems Resource Kit –Biodiversity in Property Management Planning. Department of


Synapse Research and Consulting and Capital Ag Consulting

(SRC and CAC) . 2001 . Improv ing Natura l ResourceManagement Behaviour at the Farm and Regional Levels.Online at ht tp: / /www.synapseconsult ing.com.au/docs/

improving_natural_resource_management.pdf (accessed 12

June 2003).

Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (eds). 1995. An InterimBiogeographic Regionalisation for Australia: A Framework forSetting the Priorities for the National Reserve SystemCooperative Program, Version 4.0. Australian Nature

Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Thackway, R., Davey, S., Hoare, J. and Cresswell, I.D. 2005.

Strategies for an integrated approach to ecologically sustainable

land management. Australasian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 12: 66-76.

Theobald, D.M. and Hobbs, N.T. 2002. A framework for

evaluat ing land use planning al ternat ives: Protect ing

biodiversity on private land. Conservation Ecology, 6(1): 5.

Online at http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art5 (accessed 12

June 2003).

Walker, M. and Park, G. 2003. The Redbank Biodiversity ActionPlan. North Central Catchment Management Authority, Huntly,

Victoria.

Wallace, K.J. 2003. Confusing means with ends: A manager’s

reflections on experience in agricultural landscapes of Western

Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration, 4: 23-28.

Wescott, G. 2002. Integrated natural resource management in

Australia: The opportunity offered by a National Coastal Policy.


William, R. and Walcott, J. 1998. Environmental benchmarks

for agriculture? Clarifying the framework in the federal system

– Australia. Land Use Policy, 15: 149-163.

Williams, J. 2000. Managing the Bush – Research Findingsfrom the LWA National Remnant Vegetation R&D Program.Research Report 4/00. Land and Water Australia, Canberra.

Williams, K. and Cary, J. 2001. Perception of native grassland

in southeastern Austral ia . Ecological Management &Restoration, 2: 139-144.

Williams, K., Cary, J. and Edgar, R. 1998. Perception of NativeVegetation in Rural Landscapes. University of Melbourne,

Melbourne.

Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L. and West,

P .C. 2002. Beyond the square wheel : Toward a more

comprehensive understanding of biological conservation as a

social and political process. Society and Natural Resources, 15:

41-64.

Seeking mechanisms for improved integration of biodiversity issues in regional natural resource...

Documents

Transcript of Seeking mechanisms for improved integration of biodiversity issues in regional natural resource...