The Role and Contribution of Private Land in Victoria to Biodiversity Conservation and the Protected...

142 AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT—Volume 8

The Role and Contribution of Private Land in Victoria to Biodiversity Conservation and the

Protected Area SystemBy James Fitzsimons and Geoff Wescott*

The distribution and attributes of propertiesinvolved in three major programs for biodiversityprotection on private land in Victoria, Australia,

was investigated to determine their role in relation to thereserve system. Overlaying of datasets in a geographicinformation system, with particular emphasis on propertydistribution in relation to bioregions and populationcentres, was undertaken. Land for Wildlife agreementshad greater numbers of properties and total areaprotected in all bioregions throughout the State, yetaverage protected area sizes were lower than those ofconservation covenants and Trust for Nature reserves. Acombination of large bioregional area and humanpopu la t ion s i ze t ended to a t t rac t more pr i va teconservation properties and, to a lesser extent, the totalarea they protected. The potential contribution that suchproperties made to biodiversity conservation variedbetween bioregions. Inclusion of properties within anational reserve framework is proposed to improve thecoordination and effectiveness of conservation measures.

Strict protected areas have long been regarded as themost secure form of protection for biodiversity, and oftenthe most effective (e.g. Pressey et al. 1994; Pressey andLogan 1997). However, it is also increasingly recognisedthat strict reservation alone will not conserve all, or evenmost, biodiversity within a region. The coordinatedmanagement of all landclasses and tenures at a landscapescale and implementation of effective ‘off-reserve’conservation measures are needed to ensure the effectiveconservation of species, communities and ecosystems.

Vic to r i a i s cons ide red to have one o f the mos trepresentative and comprehensive conservation reservesystems in Australia (Wescott 1995). It is also thefounder of private land conservation programs such asLandcare and Land for Wildlife, which have been used asa model for other Australian States and Territories. InVictoria, there are three main forms of what have beentermed ‘private conservation properties’:

1) Reserves owned and managed by the Trust for Nature(Victoria);

2) Private properties with a Trust for Nature ConservationCovenant attached to the title; and

3) Private properties with a Land for Wildlife programaccreditation.

Brief descriptions of the distribution of Land for Wildlifepropert ies were documented by Plat t and Ahern(1995a,b), as were overall vegetation types protected inTrust for Nature covenants by Todd (1997). However, nostudy comparing the existing relationships of suchproperties with one another or with the public reservesystem has been undertaken. With many States andTerritories recently establishing or upgrading voluntaryprivate land conservation programs based on Victorianarrangements, the findings of this study may also be ofassistance in the development of these programs.

This article is also timely in light of the Commonwealthgovernment’s Natural Heritage Trust Fund supplyingfunds for both reserve purchase and for private landconservation programs, and commitments in the NationalStrategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biodiversityto establish a private land reserve system by 2005(Commonwealth of Australia 1996).

* Both authors are with the School of Ecology and Environment,Deakin University.

IntroductionWescott (1995) summarised the state of the Victorianterrestrial component of the national reserve (protectedarea) system as being “substantially complete” in termsof the extent of the public land protected. Fitzsimons(1999a) demonstrated that whilst this may have been truein general, it would be more accurate to note that it was“generally comprehensive” and not necessarily adequateand representative (sensu JANIS 1996). This is becauseseveral important components (e.g. grasslands and grassywoodlands) are only represented by relatively smallprotected areas.

Neither Wescott (1995) nor Fitzsimons (1999a) describedor discussed in detail the contribution of private land tothe reserve system in Victoria. This article examines therole and contribution of private land to biodiversityconservation and the protected area system in Victoria.

143September 2001

Background

Australia’s existing reserve system

As environmental planning and management was notm e n t i o n e d i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n C o n s t i t u t i o n , t h emanagement of Crown land has remained with the Statesand Territories since the 1890’s (Wescott 1991; Worboyset al. 2001). This has resulted in the development of nineseparate protected area systems, one in each of the sixStates and two self-governing Terr i tor ies , and aCommonwealth system.

Reserve selection in Australia has historically tended tob e o p p o r t u n i s t i c a n d a d h o c , f avo u r i n g a r e a s ,environments and habitat types with the least potentialfor extractive uses (Pressey 1994; Margules 1995). Evenwhen reserves have been chosen for the features theynecessarily contain, those features have usually been forscenic, recreational and wilderness values and not forbiodiversity (Whitehouse 1990; Pressey & Tully 1994;Margules 1995).

To achieve a more Comprehensive, Adequate andRepresentative (CAR) system of terrestrial protectedareas, two complementary processes, the NationalReserve System Program (NRSP) and Regional ForestAgreements (RFA), have been developed. Recognisingthe need for a bioregional framework to identify gaps andset priorities for the NRS, the Interim BiogeographicRegionalisation of Australia (IBRA) was developed andendorsed by State, Terri tory and Commonwealthenvironment agencies involved (Thackway and Cresswell1995; Thackway 1996).

While focusing mainly on the public reserve system, theNRSP also recognises that in some cases voluntaryagreements with private, leasehold property andindigenous property owners, will be needed to make up aCAR reserve system and has provisions for theirinclusion (Commonwealth of Australia 1999). Privatelandholders, councils or organisations can currently applyfor assistance for the establishment of protected areas onthe properties they currently own, although acceptance isin part based on whether the property is considered to filla gap in Australia’s existing reserve system (Lee andSzabo 1999).

One of the key planks of the RFA process was thedevelopment of a Nationally Agreed Criteria for theEstablishment of a CAR Reserve System for Forests inAustralia by JANIS1 which required 15 per cent of thepre-European distr ibution of each forest type be

represented in the reserve system. In those cases where itis not possible to achieve this criterion due to pastclearing, vulnerable and rare/endangered ecosystems areto have at least 60 per cent and 100 per cent respectivelyof their remaining extent reserved. Special considerationfor old-growth and wilderness areas are also addressed,while the need for a range of off-reserve biodiversityprotection measures is also recognised (JANIS 1996).This recognition varies between Agreements from simplystat ing the conservat ion of vegetat ion types notadequately represented in the public reserve systemshould be “encouraged through extension and support tolandholders” in East Gippsland (Commonwealth ofAustralia and State of Victoria 1997), to the PrivateForest Reserves project as part of the Tasmanian RFA.The Australian Guidelines for Establishing the NationalReserve System have incorporated the principles espousedin the JANIS process where appropriate, but are silent onthe issues of reservation targets (Commonwealth ofAustralia 1999).

Conservation on private land in Australia

As over two-thirds of Australia (approximately 500million hectares) is managed by private landholders, thereis a pressing need for a consistent and integratedapproach to nature conservation on all land types(Commonwealth of Australia 1993). Hence, it has beenincreasingly recognised that the public reserve system isnot, and will not, be adequate for Australia to retaincurrent levels of biodiversity and meet its obligationsunder the Convention on Biological Diversity (Burbidgeand Wallace 1995; Margules 1995; Commonwealth ofAustralia 1996; ANZECC Working Group on NatureC o n s e r va t i o n o n P r iva t e L a n d 1 9 9 6 ; I n d u s t r yCommission 1996 and many others).

Interestingly, the National Strategy for the Conservationof Australia’s Biodiversity anticipates that by the year2005 Australia would have “established a system ofvoluntary or cooperative reserves, or both, and othermanagement schemes on private lands to complement theprotection provided by the public estate in protectedareas” (Objective 7.1 (c)) (Commonwealth of Australia1996 p.42).

In Australia, agreements between a private landowner andpublic agency to conserve a particular area of vegetationon private land can be broadly divided into two forms -non-binding voluntary programs and voluntary legally-binding management agreements.

1. JANIS: Joint ANZECC (Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council)/MCFFA (Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Aquaculture)NFPS (National Forest Policy Statement) Implementation Subcommittee.


Non-binding programs require no legal undertaking on thepart of the landholder to participate for any period of timeand either party can withdraw from the agreement. Thesuccess of the program therefore relies on the enthusiasmand goodwill of the landholder, but the effectiveness ofsuch programs remains unclear (Young et al. 1996).

Binding agreements such as covenants and easementsessentially limit the current, and possibly future,landholder’s ability to exercise certain rights over theirland (Young et al . 1996). These may include theexclusion of grazing, clearing of native vegetation andsubdivision of property. They may be granted for a fixedterm or in perpetuity and are usually registered on thetitle, binding future owners of the property. The terms ofthe agreement can vary from property to property and caninclude requirements to manage the area to protect thedesired features.

Young (1995), believes that some schemes may enable amuch more precautionary approach to reserve selection tobe undertaken. For example, “it may be wiser” to place 5per cent of each ecosystem in a reserve and to protect afurther 20 per cent in conservation easements until moreinformation becomes available (Young 1995 p. 363).

As with protected area systems, each State and Territoryhas its own framework for nature conservation on privateland, which vary in their range of protection measures(see ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation onPrivate Land (1996) and Young et al. (1996)).

Several independent non-profit organisations have alsobeen formed in the last decade with the sole aim being topurchase or manage private land for the purpose ofconservation. These include the Australian Bush HeritageFund at a national level, and Wetlands and Wildlife,Bushland Conservation Pty Ltd and Habitat ConservationPty Ltd in South Australia.

On and off-reserve conservation in Victoria

As of 30 June 1998, Victoria had 35 national parks, 3wilderness parks, 32 state parks, 11 marine/coastal parksor reserves and 29 other parks and reserves protectedunder the National Parks Act 1975. The total area ofapproximately 3.07 million hectares represents 13.5 percent of the State and almost 35 per cent of all public land(State of Victoria 1997a). In addition, the Crown Land(Reserves) Act 1978, protects 415 nature conservationreserves totalling approximately 213,000 hectares, as wellas some 1,880 natural features reserves, totallingapproximately 200,000 hectares (Cresswell & Thomas1997). More recently, Regional Forest Agreements haveadded approximately 790,000 ha of informal Special

P r o t e c t i o n Z o n e s i n S t a t e Fo r e s t t o Vi c t o r i a ’sconservation estate.

While the protection figure of 90 per cent of plantcommunities represented in Victorian reserves (as of1990) is considered very high for both Australian andinternational standards (Wescott 1995), Traill (1997)believes Victoria’s reserve system is still not adequateand notes that part of the problem is a lack of explicitoutcomes set by either conservationists or governmentbureaucracies on what a ‘complete’ reserve systemshould do.

Significantly, two-thirds of Victoria (approximately15,000,000 hectares) remains under private ownershipand management, the highest amongst all States, and ofthis only 5 per cent retains its natural bushland cover(Woodgate and Black 1988; Bennett 1995). In certainregions, as much as 80-95 per cent of land is privatelyowned (e.g. Riverina, Victorian Volcanic Plain) becausemuch of the remaining public land is in the aridnorthwest and mountainous east of the State (Platt andAhern 1995a; NRE 1998).

As was the case with the rest of the country, Europeansettlement in Victoria has not been a random process,with those landsystems most suited to agriculture beingsettled first. This has not only resulted in the loss ordegradation of those habitats associated with these sitesof low altitude, high soil fertility and mesic climate butmeant the majority of the land remained in privateownership (Platt and Ahern 1995a). Primarily, it is thegrasslands, grassy woodlands, lowland riparian areas andshallow wetlands that remain underrepresented in theVictorian reserve system (Specht et al. 1995; State ofVictoria 1997b).

Trust for Nature (Victoria)

The Trust for Nature (Victoria) is a statutory corporationestablished under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act1972 formed to receive gifts, bequests and donations forconservation purposes as well as to establish conservationcovenants.

While it purchases and manages many of its ownreserves, the Trust has been an important body in addingto the public reserve system by transferring land to theCrown for conservation purposes. It has also acted tofac i l i t a t e l and purchase on beha l f o f S ta te andCommonwealth agencies where the Trust can negotiate asa private buyer, unhindered by government regulations(Whelan 1997).

The Trust’s conservation covenant program was initiatedin 1978. However, due to a lack of resources, it was not

145September 2001

until 1987 that the first covenant was registered (Todd1997). Conservation covenants are voluntary agreementsbetween the landholder and the Trust, and are placed onthe title of the property in perpetuity (Todd 1997). TheRevolving Fund, a relatively new instrument used by theTrust, involves purchasing a property with conservationsignificance, placing a permanent covenant on the landand then reselling the land to a private purchaser. Theproceeds from the sale then go back into the RevolvingFund for the process to be repeated. It is seen as animportant initiative as its funds are then available torespond quickly when a significant property enters themarket (Safstrom 1995; Whelan 1997).

Land for Wildlife Program

Land for Wildlife is a Victorian Government program forconserving flora and fauna on private land and is run bythe Department of Natural Resources and Environment(NRE) and the Bird Observers Club of Australia. It beganin 1981 and was substantially upgraded in 1990 (Platt andAhern 1995a; Young et al. 1996). The program, which isentirely voluntary, non-binding and initiated by thelandowner, has two main approaches. Firstly, the ownersof properties registered with the program form part of a‘club’, from which they are encouraged and keptinformed. Secondly, a broader program aims to assistlandowners find better solutions to management problemsthat involve the enhancement and protection of wildlifehabitat identified on their property (Platt and Ahern1995a,b). The program is inclusive, in that any farm, bushblock, council reserve, school ground, golf course,cemetery, and small or large property that can providevaluable habitat can be registered.

Other Victorian private conservation properties.

A small number of other agreements (Land ManagementCooperative Agreements and Wildlife ManagementCooperative Agreements) exist but awareness of theirexistence is poor (Platt and Ahern 1995a; Young et al.1996) and hence they have not been included in thisinvestigation. A few Public Authority ManagementAgreements protect significant remnants on other publicland such as cemeteries, while an Indigenous ProtectedArea also occurs at Yambuk, in western Victoria.

Methodology

The use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) wasconsidered to be the most appropriate medium foranalysing the distribution and attributes of privateconservation properties due to the flexible and efficientnature which desired datasets can be overlayed.Geographic Information Systems are used extensively by

nature conservation agencies and are an important tool inreserve design. Pressey and Logan (1997) used GIS tocompare geographically discrete off-reserve measureswith existing reserves in northeast New South Wales. TheArcView GIS Version 3.0 program, developed by theEnvironmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI),was used for this investigation due to both its availabilityand compatibility with the datasets used to undertake theproject.

Biogeographical regions were used by Specht et al.(1995) to assess the deficiencies of plant communities inthe reserve system and by Lockwood et al. (1997) as thebas i s fo r a p ro tec ted a rea se lec t ion p rocedure .Considering the NRSP uses the IBRA as a framework forassessing reservation levels, an assessment of thedistribution and reservation levels of private conservationproperties within this regionalisation was consideredappropriate.

Three digital geospatial dataset layers from the VictorianDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment’sCorporate Geospatial Library were used - InterimBiogeographic Regionalisation of Australia Version 4.0(polygons), Public Land Use (polygons) and Land forWildlife Properties (points). All were current as of July1998. A further three point layers for Trust for NatureReserves , Conservat ion Covenants and regionalpopulation centres were created in order to allowoverlaying with existing layers. Trust reserves, covenantsand Land for Wildlife point localities were overlayedover the three background layers - Public Land Use,IBRA regions, and Regional Centres of Population - todetermine possible relationships.

Statistical analysis was undertaken for properties withinIBRA regions and in relation to population centres. Thetotal area ‘protected’ for each of the three property typeswas determined, as was the median habitat size protectedin each IBRA region. The ‘protected area’ on Land forWildlife properties, was the total area set aside on eachproperty for wildlife conservation and included bothexisting retained habitat and habitat to be restored orrevegetated.

After initial examination of the distribution of privateconservation properties in relation to regional centres ofpopulation, it was decided that the distinctive pattern ofall three property types around the Greater Melbournearea warranted further investigation. Subsets of propertiesoccurring within a radius of 60 kilometres from theMelbourne Central Business District were taken, as thisdistance encompassed the majority of clustered propertiesin this region.


Analysis of vegetation types protected was limited toconservation covenants, due to a lack of accessibleinformation regarding Broad Vegetation Types( B V T s ) o n T r u s t r e s e r v e s a s w e l l a s t h eunavailability of the habitat classifications for Landfor Wildlife properties in the received dataset. Astatewide summary of habitats protected by Land forWildlife properties was obtained from NRE, to allowbroad comparisons to be made with covenants. Whileit would have been preferable to use the finer scaleEcological Vegetation Class (EVC) classification,mapping has not yet been completed for the whole ofthe State.2

Results and Discussion

Attributes of Private Conservation Properties inVictorian IBRA regions - Distribution and Area

In most b ioregions , Land for Wildl i fe had acomparatively greater number of properties thancovenants, which in turn were greater in number thanTrust reserves for most regions (Fig. 1). Despite thisdifference in number, similar trends are evident intheir distribution throughout the bioregions (Table 1).In particular there was relatively large numbers of allthree property types near the junction of theVictorian Midlands, South Eastern Highlands andSouth East Coastal Plain, and an absence ofproperties in the northeast of the Murray-DarlingD e p r e s s i o n , A u s t r a l i a n A l p s a n d F u r n e a u xbioregions.

The number and area ‘protected’ by Trust for Naturereserves and covenants and Land for Wildlifeproperties in each Victorian IBRA region can also beseen in Table 1.

The Victorian Midlands contained the largest numberof Land for Wildlife properties (1,333) and covenants(93) , and the equal h ighest number of Trustproperties (11). The South East Coastal Plain had thesecond la rges t number of Land for Wild l i feproperties (1,057) and Trust for Nature covenants(67) and third highest number of Trust for Naturereserves (10), while the South Eastern Highlands hadthe third largest number of Land for Wildlifeproperties (724) and Trust for Nature covenants (38),and equal highest number of Trust reserves (11). Thisrelationship is similar for most Victorian IBRAregions, with the exception of the Murray-DarlingDepression which had the fourth highest number of

Figure 1. Distribution of (a) Trust for Nature Reserves, (b)Conservation Covenants, and (c) Land for Wildlife Propertiesin Relation to Victorian IBRA Regions

2. A more detailed description of the methods used can be obtainedfrom James Fitzsimons, email [email protected]

a.

b.

c.

147September 2001

Trust for Nature reserves (4) and covenants (30) butseventh highest number of Land for Wildlife properties(128).

The Victorian Midlands, contained a Trust reserve area(1,727 ha) that was almost three times that of any otherbioregion and a Land for Wildlife area (45,590 ha),almost twice that of any other bioregion. In general, thea r e a s p r o t e c t e d f o r e a c h t y p e o f p r iva t e l a n dconservation property reflect the number of properties in

each IBRA region as shown in Table 1. However, thereare a few notable exceptions. The greatest area protectedby Trust covenants occurred in the Murray-DarlingDepression (3,255 ha), ahead of the Victorian Midlands.The Victorian Volcanic Plain had 11,211 hectares moreLand for Wildlife habitat area than the South EasternHighlands (more than twice as much), despite having351 fewer properties registered (almost half as many).

These trends are most clearly seen when displayed as a

Figure 2. (a) Number and (b) area protected by private conservation properties in each Victorian IBRA region(expressed as a percentage of the total number or area of property type)

a. b.

Table 1. Number and area reserved by private conservation properties in each Victorian IBRA region


Considering both Land forWildlife and Trust for Naturecovenants were updated at asimilar time in the late 1980’s,these results indicate that thevoluntary, non-binding natureof Land for Wildlife is possiblym o r e a t t r a c t i v e t o m a n ylandowners than a legally-binding agreement. However,Land for Wildlife should notnecessarily be judged as a moresuccessful program for habitatconservation, as the size of its‘ p r o t e c t e d ’ a r e a s w e r egenerally lower than covenants,w h i l e t h e l a c k o f l e g a lp r o t e c t i o n m e a n s t h ecommitment can be withdrawnat any time.

Trust reserves are somewhat different entities in thatthey are selected by a single body, with propertiespurchased either to be managed by the Trust, donatedto the Crown for addition to the reserves system, orcovenanted and resold as a part of the Revolving Fund.The larger sizes of Trust reserves reflects the differencebetween an organisation purchasing or obtainingproperties which it believes are worthwhile andmanageable and individual landowners protecting anarea of habitat on their own property.

The potential ‘contribution’ that private conservationproperties could make to biodiversity conservation interms of area can be determined at three levels - i) totalarea protected for each property type; ii) area for eachproperty type as a percent of the bioregional area; andiii) private reserve area for each property type incomparison to public reserve area. It should be notedthat many covenants also contain a Land for Wildliferegistration, such that deriving a ‘total’ area for privateland conservation would constitute ‘double-counting’and has not been undertaken. Whilst it recognised thatthe extent of a bioregion protected in reserves (or onprivate land in this instance) is not necessarilyequ iva len t t o i t s e ff ec t iveness fo r p ro tec t ingbiodiversity (State of the Environment AdvisoryCouncil 1996), it is one criterion used by the NationalReserve System when assessing the representativenessof bioregions (Thackway & Cresswell 1995).

F i t zs imons (1999b) repor ted on the po ten t i a lcontribution that private conservation properties madeto the area ‘protected’ at a bioregional scale. The most

percentage of the total number of properties and areaprotected (Fig. 2).

Size of private conservation properties in Victorian IBRAregions.

In contrast to the number and total area, Trust reserveshad a greater median area than covenants in six of theeleven regions. In turn, covenant sizes exceeded those ofLand for Wildlife properties in almost every region inwhich they occurred. However, those trends observedbetween property types and individual bioregions in Table1 are not evident for the average size of properties. Thiswas in part due to the presence of only a small number ofquite large properties in some bioregions, which resultedin a relatively high median area protected. This was thecase for Trust reserves in the Victorian Volcanic Plain(252.5 ha), Land for Wildlife in the Australian Alps (30.5ha), and Trust covenants in the Naracoorte Coastal Plain(16.5 ha).

The Murray-Darling Depression had the largest sizedTrust covenants (48.3 ha) and second largest sized Trustreserves (73 ha) and Land for Wildlife (21 ha). TheVictorian Midlands had relatively high median sizes forTrust reserves (40.3 ha), medium sizes for covenants(16.2 ha) but small sizes for Land for Wildlife properties(6.0 ha). Significantly, the South Eastern Highlands andSouth East Coastal Plain, both highly represented by allthree types of properties, had some of the lowest mediansizes for all three property types. The remainingbioregions showed few notable trends between the variousproperty types.

Table 2. Median size of ‘protected areas’ for private conservation propertiesthroughout Victorian IBRA regions

149September 2001

no tab le examples a re r eco rded be low. (SeeFitzsimons (1999b) for more detailed backgroundinformation).

Properties in the Victorian Midlands and South EastCoastal Plain are considered to make the greatestcontributions to both the total area protected in thoseregions and area protected as a per cent of thebioregional area (Victorian Midlands - Land forWildlife 1.23 per cent, Conservation covenants 0.08per cent and Trust reserves 0.05 per cent of thebioregion; South East Coastal Plain - Land forWildlife 1.35 per cent, Conservation covenants 0.07per cent and Trust reserves 0.01 per cent of thebioregion). However, the influence of some verylarge properties should be taken into account whenconsidering the potential contribution that propertiesmake to the region in general. For example, the largetotal area for Land for Wildlife and Trust reserveswas significantly influenced by two large propertiesin the Victorian Midlands - the 20,000 hectarePuckapunyal Military Area which represented nearly50 per cent of the Land for Wildlife area in thisregion, and the Terrick Terrick grassland reserve(now part of the Terrick Terrick National Park) whichrepresented 74 per cent of the Trust reserve area.This was also the case for a large Land for Wildlifeproperty (10,821 hectare) in the South East CoastalPlain, which represented over 40 per cent of the totalLand for Wildlife habitat in that region.

On a different level, private conservation properties,which made up 0.90 per cent (Land for Wildlife),0.04 per cent (Trust covenants) and 0.01 per cent(Trust reserves) of the Victorian Volcanic Plain, alsomade a potentially significant contribution tobiodiversity conservation when considering thatpublic reserves constituted only 1.49 per cent of thatregion.

Private conservation properties and regional centresof population

Significant clusters of all three private conservationproperty types occur around the outer east andnortheast of the Greater Melbourne metropolitanarea, while notable concentrations of Land forWildlife properties also occur around the Morningtonand Bellarine Peninsulas, Ballarat, Bendigo andBairnsdale (Fig. 3). Trust for Nature covenantsappeared less clustered in other localities, perhaps asa result of their fewer numbers, but were still notablearound the Surf Coast area (south of Geelong),Stawell and Bendigo. Other than around the outer

Figure 3. Distribution of (a) Trust for Nature Reserves, (b)Conservation Covenants, and (c) Land for Wildlife Propertiesin Relation to Regional Centres of Population in Victoria

a.

b.

c.


east and north-east of Melbourne, Trust for Naturereserves showed no obvious distribution pattern inrelation to regional centres.

Those properties occurring within a 60km radius of theMelbourne CBD consist of a relatively large proportion ofthe statewide occurrence (Table 3), varying from 28.6 percent of Trust reserves to 18.4 per cent and 16.4 per cent ofcovenants and Land for Wildlife, respectively. Also ofnote is the relatively low median size of all three propertytypes in this region in comparison to the IBRA regions.For example, more Trust reserves (12) were recorded inthe Greater Melbourne region than in any bioregion,while the median property sizes were lower aroundMelbourne than in any bioregion for both Trust reserves(7.5 ha) and Land for Wildlife properties (2.3 ha).

The high number of small-sized properties recordedaround Melbourne is likely to impact on the number, totalarea and size of properties recorded in the three IBRAregions (Victorian Midlands, South East Coastal Plain andSouth Eastern Highlands) which occur to the outer eastand northeast of Melbourne.

The large number of people l iving in and aroundMelbourne (3.3 million) and other large regional centressuch as Ballarat and Bendigo (150,000 people betweenthem) suggests that there is likely to be an increasednumber of people willing to nominate their properties forprotection in a relatively small area. However, there are anumber of other social and environmental factors that arelikely to have contributed to this trend.

Firstly, the clusters usually occur on the outskirts of theresidential area, where vegetation is still present but inprivate ownership. Property sizes generally fall betweenthe smaller subdivisions of the suburban areas and largerallotments of the agricultural districts beyond them.Secondly, and importantly for many landholders in theseareas, relatively easy access to the city and inner suburbsis available, particularly for employment purposes. Thissuggests that salary earners can afford to keep theirproperties for conservation whilst farmers need to usetheir land for a livelihood. The recent expansion of areas

devoted to rural living andhobby farms, especiallyw i t h i n c o m m u t i n gdistance of Melbourne,Bend igo and Ba l l a ra t(State of Victoria 1997b),m a y a l s o h a v e a ni n f l u e n c e o n t h i sdistribution.

T h e p r e s e n c e a n deffectiveness of regional coordinators is also likely toinfluence the distribution of Land for Wildlife propertiesand conservation covenants. The distribution of Trustreserves in the Melbourne area may be a combination ofbequea thed l and and /o r t he pas t acqu i s i t i on o fimmediately threatened remnants.

The concentration of private conservation properties and,to a lesser extent, the total area they protect is related to acombination of large bioregional area and population size.The high percentage of public land in some regions (e.g.Australian Alps and Furneaux) has also influenced thedistribution of private conservation properties.

Impact of property size

While the optimal size of conservation reserves dependsnot only upon the taxa in question but also on the absolutescale of the geographic region of interest (Lynch 1987),the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment(OCE, 1991) considered remnants under 10 hectares to betoo small to be self-sustaining, to be almost invariablyweedy, and to be structurally different from the originalvegetation. Small and isolated patches of habitat generallysupport fewer species of wildlife, and their populationstend to be more prone to disturbance and extinction thanthose of larger patches (Bennett 1991). Ford and Barrett(1995) proposed that patches of 20 hectares or largerwould be an achievable and wor thwhi le a im forconservation on private properties. Small remnants dohowever, provide habitat for individual species of floraand fauna, and although these are usually the morecommon and robust species (Loyn 1987), rare orthreatened taxa will sometimes survive only in these areas(OCE 1991). Lindenmayer (2000), more recently foundthat small patches (0.5-3 ha) support considerably higherlevels of vertebrate fauna than might be expected.

It is, however, important to note that in seven of the tenIBRA regions containing Land for Wildlife properties,average habitat sizes were less than 10 hectares.Furthermore, while the South Eastern Highlandscontained a relatively high number of properties, theaverage protected habitat for all three property types in

Table 3. Attributes of private conservation properties within and outside a 60 km radiusof the Melbourne Central Business District

151September 2001

this region was below 10 hectares. The Murray-DarlingDepression was the only region where median sizes forall three property types were above 20 hectares. Thissuggests that the potential contribution from privateproperties to biodiversity conservation in the long-termmay differ between bioregions based on the size andviability of the protected area.

This, in turn, presents the somewhat vexed problem ofwhether there should be a focus on establishing privateconservation properties in areas which have largeremnants and greater ecological integrity, but which havevegetation types already well-represented in the reservesystem, or whether there should be more focus on highlyunderrepresented ecosystems or IBRA regions, despitethe size and or quality of the remnant. The targeting ofboth of these types of remnants for conservation assuggested by Gilfedder and Kirkpatrick (1995) forTasmania, is likely to be needed to achieve the mostdesirable return for the private land conservation networkin Victoria.

This issue also highlights the significant underlyingproblem in attempting to establish a comprehensive,adequate and representative reserve system. While eachecosystem may be represented in the reserve system,even to a desired level (e.g. 15 per cent of original extentor 90 per cent of current extent for rare and endangeredecosystems), ensuring that adequately-sized self-sustaining areas are included in regions where only smallremnants remain will be almost impossible.

However, the size and shape of private conservationproperties should not be the only measure of ecologicalintegrity and their value should also be judged in relationto their placement within the landscape and quality ofvegetation and ecological processes present. Privatereserves would almost certainly increase the protection ofgene t ic d ivers i ty and ecosys tem var ia t ions no trepresented in the public reserve system. Private reservesmay also provide habitat or linkages for seasonallymigratory species or extensive-habitat species. Theability to effectively manage these private properties fordesired conservation goals both in the short and longterm is the next major challenge.

Possible influence of financial incentives

The need to provide financial incentives for privatelandholders for the conservation of significant remnantvegetation has been widely recognised (e.g. Crosthwaite1995; Farrier 1995; Binning and Young 1997; Todd 1997;Lockwood and Walpole 2000; Lockwood et al. 2000,Worboys et al. 2001 and many others). With the exceptionof South Australia, where financial assistance of over $75

million has been provided by the South AustralianGovernment for the management and fencing of areascovered by Heritage Agreements from 1987-1997(Industry Commission 1997), strategic financialassistance from government has only relatively recentlybeen implemented (e.g. Private Forest Reservescomponent of the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement- see Smith 2001).

The absence of incentives offered to Trust covenantorsis seen as a particularly big hurdle in rural districtswhere the areas for covenanting are often large, thedistrict sentiment is often anti-conservation and theproperty has been held by the one family for severalgenerations (Crosthwaite 1995; Landy pers. comm. inSafstrom 1995). Safstrom (1995) and Todd (1997) notelandowners are generally unwilling to set aside sectionsof their properties for nature conservation if there is nofinancial relief from the land rates incurred. Lockwoodet al. (2000) suggest a combination of funding forfencing, management plans, rate relief and, in the caseo f b i n d i n g a g r e e m e n t s , a n n u a l p a y m e n t s f o rmanagement costs. While a number of municipalcouncils in Victoria have begun to introduce rate rebatesfor owners with a conservation covenant on theirproperty it remains to be seen whether it is enough toencourage higher rates of protection. Whelan (1997)believes that while the total cost for each individuallandholder is not high, it is a sufficient deterrent toprevent many landowners f rom enter ing in to aconservation covenant. This situation ultimately favoursthose landowners that do not earn a living from theirproperty and may in part account for the distribution ofproperties around metropolitan population centres.Furthermore, this may result in a bias away fromunderrepresented habitats occurring on agricultural land,such as grasslands and grassy woodlands.

The introduction of incentives may ultimately improvethe influence of Trust for Nature or Land for Wildlifeextension officers when actually seeking out andnegotiating the protection of specific underrepresentedhabitats on properties, and would allow greater directionfor the private reserve network.

Private conservation properties and Broad VegetationTypes (BVTs)

Moist and Dry Foothill Forests were recorded on thegreates t number of Trust covenants (53 and 50respectively). However their distribution was not spreadevenly throughout the IBRA regions, with properties inthe Victorian Midlands accounting for the bulk of DryFoothill Forest and properties in the South Eastern


Highlands accounting for the majority of the MoistFoothill Forest (Table 4).

Those bioregions which had high numbers of covenantstended also to have a high diversity of BVTs protected,namely the Victorian Midlands, Murray-Darl ingDepression and South East Coastal Plain. Of those BVTsdesignated as high priority for protection by the Trust forNature, Plains Grassy Woodland occurred on 22c o v e n a n t s , S w a m p S c r u b o n 1 5 , Wi m m e r aMallee/Woodland on 9 and Grassland on 3.

Todd (1997), noted that most Trust covenants representedcommunities already well represented in the existingreserve system. However, the results of this study, whilemeasuring only the presence and not the area ofvegetation types on a covenant, do not necessarilysupport this, especially when considering the JANIS

criteria for a CAR reservesystem (JANIS 1996).

Of the six Broad VegetationTypes (BVTs) occurring onmore than 20 covenants,only two, Moist FoothillForest and Dry Foothil lForest have over 15 percent of their pre-Europeane x t e n t r e p r e s e n t e d i nconservation reserves at astatewide level (Appendix1 ) . Two o t h e r s , P l a i n sGrassy Wood lands andBox-Ironbark Forest haveh a d t h e i r p a s t e x t e n tsignificantly depleted andare thus severely under-r e p r e s e n t e d i n p u b l i crese rves a t a s t a tewidelevel. The occurrence ofo ther ex t remely under-r e p r e s e n t e d B V T s o nc ove n a n t s va r i e d f r o mi n t e r m e d i a t e ( S w a m pScrub) to low (Grassland).

L a n d f o r Wi l d l i f eproperties also contained anumber of ecosystems thatare not well represented inthe reserve system. Themost notable of these wereB o x - I r o n b a r k F o r e s t(20,000 ha), Grasslands

(nearly 8,500 ha), and Red Gum Woodland (6,800 ha). Thelarge area of Box Ironbark Forest is strongly influenced bythe presence of the Puckapunyal Military Area, while therepresentat ion of Grasslands by Land for Wildlifeproperties is proportionally much higher than on covenantsand suggests a possible reluctance to permanently protectpotentially high value agricultural land.

However, the complementarity and/or duplication of BVTsrepresented on covenants and in the reserve system is moreaccurately assessed at the bioregional level.

In largely cleared bioregions, such as the Riverina andVictorian Volcanic Plain, almost all BVTs are severelyunderrepresented in the public reserve system (NRE 1998)(see Appendix), and any representation in covenants thusincreases the representativeness of the system. Conversely,nine of the sixteen BVTs in the South East Corner IBRA

Table 4. Number of Trust for Nature covenants containing Broad Vegetation Types ineach Victorian IBRA region

153September 2001

region are adequately represented in the reservesystem, most significantly so, and covenants add littleto those underrepresented BVTs. In the VictorianMidlands, South East Coastal Plain, and Murray-Darling Depression, only a few covenants containedadequately protected BVTs, while significantlyunderrepresented BVTs had relatively high occurrenceson covenants.

It should be noted, however, that current privateconservation properties only protect a small amount ofthe total remnant vegetation and associated fauna thatcurrently exist on private land. These ‘unprotected’remnants still make a major contribution to biodiversityconservation in Victoria.

Limitations to results

The results obtained in this project are a snapshot intime, with the numbers of both covenants and Land forWildlife properties expected to increase (Platt andAhern 1995a). The Trust’s property estate is unlikely toincrease at the same rate, particularly with the adventof the Revolving Fund.

The broad nature of the BVT classification, where anumber of different communities or EVCs can occurunder one BVT, does prevent accurate conclusionsregarding protection within the public and privatereserve system. It is also important to note thatmapping of the finer scale EVCs as part of the RFAprocess in Victoria has identified a number ofvegetation types which are considered a ‘high priority’for increased protection on private land. This willinf luence the focus of pr ivate land protect ionmechanisms in the future.

Reserve and off-reserve selection processes

A s w a s t h e c a s e i n s o m e b i o r e g i o n s i n t h i sinvestigation, Pressey et al. (1996) found that thoseecosystems covered by all mappable off-reserveprotection measures in northeast New South Wales wasmore strongly biased away from vulnerable ecosystemsthan strict reservation alone. The ad hoc manner inwhich reserves have been selected had been similarlyapplied to off-reserve measures in this instance, withsimilar disadvantages (Pressey and Logan 1997).

Pressey and Logan (1997) believe that this pattern isthe result of a lack of regional coordination betweenoff-reserve management as well as the under-use ofsome forms of protection due to political or economicreasons. Pressey and Logan (1997) also note thatreserve selection processes, which have been developedin recen t years to more sys temat ica l ly se lec t

conservation reserves, can be applied to off-reservemeasures to increase their effectiveness.

However, it is important to note that some forms of off-reserve conservation, such as the voluntary conservationof habitat, are often the result of the landowner making anapplicat ion for property registrat ion and not thecoordinating body selecting the properties. Nonetheless,as the results of this study into one facet of off-reserveconservation indicate similar trends in distribution andsize between the three main types of private conservationproperties in Victoria, there may be a need for bettercoordination of these, and other off-reserve conservationmeasures in future. It also highlights the need to considerboth public and private reserves as part of a single‘system’.

Concluding RemarksThe above results suggests three trends:

1) The distribution and median sizes of three quitedifferent types of private conservation properties found inVictoria show a distinct relationship throughout the Stateand its IBRA regions, despite having markedly differentproperty numbers.

2) The presence of private conservation propertiesappears to be influenced by the size and distribution ofhuman population centres and by the extent of public landin a bioregion. When it is realised that denser populationcentres supported smaller private conservation properties,this is significant. The absence of financial incentives forprivate land habitat protection and the ‘all-inclusive’nature of both Land for Wildlife and Trust for Naturecovenants are likely to be underlying influences of this.

3) While private conservation properties have notnecessarily accounted for the deficiencies in the publicprotected area system in Victoria, some bioregions, suchas the highly-disturbed Victorian Volcanic Plain,po ten t i a l ly con t r ibu te s ign i f i can t ly to bo th thecomparative area and vegetation types protected.However, further research is required at a finer scale todetermine the influence that quality of habitat, positionwithin the landscape, and management regimes have ontheir overall effectiveness for biodiversity conservation.

The findings of this study lead us to suggest thefollowing:

■ There is a need for greater coordination of on and off-reserve conservation through some mechanism whichreports and quantifies the contribution that private landis making to conservation. Models such as thoseproposed by Binning and Young (1997) and Thiele and


Prober (2000) would be useful at a local or ecosystemscale, and the incorporation of existing covenants andTrust reserves into a national reserve system of publicand private conservation land (if the property owner sodesired) would allow more accurate reporting of landprotected. Thackway and Cresswell (1995) noted thatinformation on alternate conservation measures wasnecessary for integrating the NRS with other fundingprograms and off-reserve initiatives. Without includingthese private conservation properties within a nationalreserve system an integrated approach is not takingplace, possibly to the detriment of existing publicp ro tec ted a reas . Whi le the p r imary means o fdeveloping the NRSP is through the land purchase ofunderrepresented habitats for addition to the publicreserve estate (Thackway and Cresswell 1995;Thackway 1996), property purchases made without aknowledge of what is already protected in the privatereserve network are less than ideal for planning.

■ There is a need to set more specific aims and targets inorder to judge the relative success of the private reservesystems. While an often stated function of off-reserveconservation measures is “to complement the publicreserve system” (e.g. National Strategy for theConservation of Australia’s Biodiversity 1996 p. 42),the term ‘complement’ is rarely defined. ‘Complement’could mean; a) to protect those ecosystems or featuresunderrepresented in the existing public reserve system;b) to provide further replication and greater geneticrepresenta t ion of habi ta t s a l ready adequate lyrepresented in the existing system; or c) to provide abuffer around or link existing reserves. However,fulfilling one of these definitions of ‘complement’ willnot necessarily ensure the achievement of the others.

To summarize, an integrated approach to the NationalReserve System which considers the public and privateland components together is likely to lead to a betteroutcome for biodiversity than the current view that theprivate system is only ‘complementary’ to the publicprotected area network.

AcknowledgmentsTrust for Nature (Victoria) for supply of property locationand attribute data, and Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment for the supply of GIS datasets andreservation level data. Comments made by MichaelLockwood, Michael Ryan and Eric Anderson enabled usto make substantial improvements to an earlier draft ofthe paper.

ReferencesANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on PrivateLand. 1996. Nature Conservat ion on Pr iva te Land:Commonwealth, State and Territory Legislation and Programs.ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on PrivateLand, Canberra.

Bennett, A.F. 1991. Is the reserve system enough? Wildlifeconservation on private land. Victoria’s Flora and Fauna: Canit survive the greenhouse effect? Proceedings of the Conferenceof Sunday 3 March 1991. pp. 39-41. Victorian National ParksAssociation, Melbourne.

Bennett, A.F. 1995. Wildlife conservation and management onprivate land - facing the challenge. In: Bennett, A, Backhouse,G. & Clark, T. (eds) People and Nature Conservation:Perspectives on private land use and endangered speciesrecovery. pp. 119-127. Surrey Beatty & Sons, ChippingNorton.

Binning, C.E. and Young, M.D. 1997. Motivating People:Using management agreements to conserve remnantvegetation. Paper 1/97, National Research and DevelopmentProgram on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation ofRemnant Vegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Burbidge, A.A. and Wallace, K.J. 1995. Practical methods forconserving biodiversity. In: Bradstock, R. A., Auld, T. D.,Keith, D. A., Kingsford, R. T., Lunney, D. & Sivertsen D. P.(eds) Conserving Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions. pp. 11-26. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Commonwealth of Australia. 1993. National Strategy forEcologically Sustainable Development. Australian GovernmentPublishing Service, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia. 1996. National Strategy for theConservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. Departmentof Environment, Sport & Territories, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia. 1999. Australian Guidelines forEstablishing the National Reserve System. EnvironmentAustralia, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia and State of Victoria. 1997. EastGippsland Regional Forest Agreement. Commonwealth ofAustralia and State of Victoria.

Cresswell, I.D. and Thomas, G.M. 1997. Terrestrial andMarine Protected Areas in Australia (1997). EnvironmentAustralia, Biodiversity Group, Canberra.

Crosthwaite, J. 1995. A review of potential financial incentivesto achieve nature conservation goals on private and leaseholdland. In: Bennett, A, Backhouse, G. & Clark, T. (eds) Peopleand Nature Conservation: Perspectives on private land use andendangered species recovery. pp. 191-200. Surrey Beatty andSons, Chipping Norton.

Farrier, D. 1995. Policy instruments for conserving biodiversityon private land. In: Bradstock, R. A., Auld, T. D., Keith, D. A.,Kingsford, R. T., Lunney, D. and Sivertsen D. P. (eds)Conserving Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions. pp. 337-59.Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Fitzsimons, J.A. 1999a. Reservation Status of Broad VegetationTypes in Victorian IBRA Regions -1999. Report for Parks, Flora

155September 2001

and Fauna, Department of Natural Resources and Environment,Melbourne.

Fitzsimons, J.A. 1999b. Habitat conservation on private land:roles and relationships in Victoria. Honours thesis. School ofEcology and Environment, Deakin University, Melbourne.

Ford, H.A. and Barrett, G. 1995. The role of birds and theirconservation in agricultural systems. In: Bennett, A, Backhouse,G. and Clark, T. (eds) People and Nature Conservation:Perspectives on private land use and endangered speciesrecovery. pp. 128-134. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Gilfedder, L. and Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1995. Improving theconservation of vegetation remnants in Tasmania. In: Saunders,D.A., Craig, J.L. and Mattiske, E.M. (eds) Nature Conservation4: The Role of Networks. pp. 613-621. Surrey Beatty & Sons,Chipping Norton.

Industry Commission. 1997. A Full Repairing Lease: Inquiryinto ecologically sustainable land management. IndustryCommission, Canberra.

JANIS. 1996. Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishmentof a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative ReserveSystem for Forests in Australia. JANIS, Canberra.

Lee, G. and Szabo, S. (1999) The Private Lives of ProtectedAreas: Private Land in the National Reserve System. Paperprepared for Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia,Canberra.

Lindemayer, D. (2001) Islands in a Sea of Pines: A summary ofstudies from the Tumut Fragmentation Experiment (August2000) . Research Repor t 6 /00 , Nat ional Research andDevelopment Program on Rehabilitation, Management andConservation of Remnant Vegetation, Land and Water Resourcesand Development Corporation, Canberra.

Lockwood, M., Bos, D.G. and Glazebrook, H. 1997. Integratedprotected area selection in Australian biogeographic regions.Environmental Management 21 (3): 395-404.

Lockwood, M. and Walpole, S. 2000. Economic assessment ofremnant native vegetation conservation. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Management 7: 237-245.

Lockwood, M., Walpole, S. and Miles, C. 2000. Economics ofRemnant Native Vegetation Conservation on Private Property.Research Report 2/00, National Research and DevelopmentProgram on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation ofRemnant Vege ta t ion , Land and Wate r Resources andDevelopment Corporation, Canberra.

Loyn, R.H. 1987. Effects of patch area and habitat on birdabundances, species numbers and tree health in fragmentedVictorian forests. In: Saunders, D.A, Arnold, G.W., Burbidge,A.A. and Hopkins, A.J.M. (eds) Nature Conservation: The Roleof Remnants of Native Vegetation. pp. 65-77. Surrey Beatty andSons, Chipping Norton.

Lynch, J.F. 1987. Responses of breeding bird communities toforest fragments. In: Saunders, D.A, Arnold, G.W., Burbidge,A.A. and Hopkins, A.J.M. (eds) Nature Conservation: The Roleof Remnants of Native Vegetation. pp. 123-146. Surrey Beatty &Sons, Chipping Norton.

Margules, C. 1995. Principles for planning reserve networks.Management of Relict Lowland Grasslands. Proceedings of a

Workshop and Public Seminar. pp. 18-28., ACT Parks andConservation Service, Canberra.

NRE. 1998. Broad Vegetation Type summary for VictorianIBRA regions . Depar tment of Natura l Resources andEnvironment. Unpublished data.

OCE. 1991. Agriculture and Victoria’s Environment: 1991 Stateof the Environment Report. Office of the Commissioner for theEnvironment, Melbourne.

Platt, S.J. and Ahern, L.D. 1995a. Nature conservation on privateland in Victoria, Australia - the role of Land for Wildlife. In:Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. and Mattiske, E.M. (eds) NatureConservation 4: The Role of Networks. pp. 300-311. SurreyBeatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Platt, S.J. and Ahern, L.D. 1995b. Voluntary nature conservationon private land in Victoria - evaluating the Land for Wildlifeprogramme. In: Bennett, A, Backhouse, G. and Clark, T. (eds)People and Nature Conservation: Perspectives on private landuse and endangered species recovery. pp. 211-216. SurreyBeatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.

Pressey, R.L. 1994. Ad hoc reservations: forward or backwards teps in deve lop ing represen ta t ive r e se rve sys tems?Conservation Biology 8 (3): 662-668

Pressey, R.L. and Tulley, S.L. 1994. The cost of ad hocreservation: A case study in western New South Wales.Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 375-384.

Pressey, R.L., Johnson, I.R. and Wilson, P.D. 1994. Shades ofirreplaceability: towards a measure of the contribution of sites toa reservation goal. Biodiversity and Conservation. 3: 242-262.

Pressey, R.L., Farrier, S., Hager, T.C., Woods, C.A., Tully, S.L.and Weinman, K.M. 1996. How well protected are the forests ofnor th-eas tern New South Wales? - analyses of fores tenvironments in relation to tenure, formal protection measuresand vulnerability to clearing. Forest Ecology and Management85 (1-3): 311-333.

Pressey, R.L. and Logan, V.S. 1997. Inside looking out: findingsof research on reserve selection relevant to “off-reserve” natureconservation. In: Hale, P. & Lamb, D. (eds) ConservationOutside Nature Reserves. pp. 407-418. Centre for ConservationBiology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Safstrom, R. 1995. In trust; working with people to achieveconservation on private land in Victoria. In: Saunders, D.A.,Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M. (eds) Nature Conservation 4: TheRole of Networks. pp. 293-99. Surrey Beatty & Sons, ChippingNorton.

Smith, S. 2001. Getting paid to keep your native forests! Paperpresented to National Forum - Taking Care of the Bush: NatureConservation on Private Land, Perth 21-23 March 2001.Ava i l a b l e o n l i n e : h t t p : / / w w w. n t w a . c o m . a u / f o r u m /paperSSmith.pdf

Specht, R.L., Specht, A., Whelan, M.B. and Hegarty, E.E. 1995.Conservation Atlas of Plant Communities in Australia. Centrefor Coastal Management, Southern Cross University, EastLismore.

State of the Environment Advisory Council. 1996. State of theEnvironment, Australia 1996. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,Melbourne.


State of Victoria. 1997a. National Parks Act 1975 AnnualReport. Department of Natural Resources & Environment,Melbourne.

State of Victoria. 1997b. Victoria’s Biodiversity - Directions inM a n age m e n t . D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s &Environment, Melbourne.

Thackway, R. and Cresswell, I.D. (eds). 1995. An InterimBiogeographic Regionalisation for Australia: a framework forsett ing the priorit ies for the national reserve systemcooperative program, Version 4.0. Australian NatureConservation Agency, Canberra.

Thackway, R. 1996. The National Reserve System - Towards arepresentative system of ecologically based reserves. Available:http://www.ea.gov.au/parks/nrs/ibraimcr/cnppa/index.htm

Thiele, K. and Prober, S. 2000. Conservation ManagementNetworks - a model fo r coord ina ted pro tec t ion andmanagement of remnant vegetation. In: Barlow, T. &Thornburn, R. (eds) Balancing Conservation and Production inGrassy Landscapes, Proceedings of the Bushcare GrassyLandscapes Conference, Clare, South Australia 19-21 August1999. pp 58-63. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Todd, J.A. 1997. Victoria’s conservation covenant program:How effec t ive has i t been in achieving pr iva te landconservation? In: Hale, P. & Lamb, D. (eds) ConservationOutside Nature Reserves. pp. 173-175. Centre for ConservationBiology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Traill, B.J. 1997. Gaps in the terrestrial system. Victoria’sNational Parks - The Next Century. Conference Proceedings.pp. 68-71. Victorian National Parks Association, Melbourne.

Wescott, G.C. 1991. Australia’s distinctive national parks.Environmental Conservation 18 (4): 331-340.

Wescott, G. 1995. Victoria’s national park system: can thetransition from quantity of parks to quality of management besuccessful? Australian Journal of Environmental Management2 (4): 210-223.

Whelan, B.R. 1997. The advantages of a Trust in Conservationfor private land owners. In: Hale, P. & Lamb, D. (eds)Conservation Outside Nature Reserves. pp. 190-195. Centre forConservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Whitehouse, J.F. 1990. The future of nature conservationreserve establishment programmes. Australian Zoologist 26 (2):96-100.

Woodgate, P. and Black, P. 1988. Forest Cover Changes inVictoria. Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands,Melbourne.

Worboys, G., Lockwood, M. and De Lacy, T. 2001. ProtectedArea Management: Principles and Practice. Oxford UniversityPress, Melbourne.

Young, M.D. 1995. Some socio-economic and ecologicalimplications of alternative biological diversity conservationstrategy options. In: Bradstock, R. A., Auld, T. D., Keith, D.A., Kingsford, R. T., Lunney, D. and Sivertsen D. P. (eds)Conserving Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions. pp. 360-364.Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Young, M.D., Gunningham, N., Elix, J., Lambert, J., Howard,B., Grabosky, P. and McCrone, E. 1996. Reimbursing theFuture: An Evaluation on Motivational, Voluntary, Price-based,Property-right, and Regulatory Incentives for the Conservationof Biodiversity. Parts 1&2. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 9.Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

157September 2001

Appendix. Percent of Pre-European Extent of Victorian Broad Vegetation Types in ConservationReserves

The Role and Contribution of Private Land in Victoria to Biodiversity Conservation and the Protected...

Documents

Transcript of The Role and Contribution of Private Land in Victoria to Biodiversity Conservation and the Protected...