the contribution of multi-tenure reserve networks to...
TRANSCRIPT
The Contribution of Multi-tenure Reserve Networks to Biodiversity
Conservation
by
James Andrew Fitzsimons BAppSci (Envir Mgt), BSc (Hons)
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Ecology & Environment Deakin University December 2004
iii
Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Associate Professor Geoff Wescott, for
continual wise counsel and support throughout this research. His immense knowledge
of protected area management and conservation policy was invaluable and his views on
the state of Australian Rules Football were insightful. Thanks Geoff!
A sincere thanks to my associate-supervisor, Dr Dianne Simmons, whose expertise in
geospatial analysis (particularly resolving crises when they arose) and knowledge of
vegetation classification and mapping significantly enhanced this project.
A number of other staff in the School of Ecology & Environment generously offered
their time and expertise, particularly Dr John White (statistical analysis), Dr Tara
McGee and Dr Kelly Miller (questionnaire design and analysis). Financial support for
this project was provided by a Deakin University Postgraduate Research Scholarship.
Chris Lewis, Rowena Scott and Jane Clifton provided technical and logistical support.
Colleagues from the Protected Area Establishment and Policy Branch and Biodiversity
Conservation Strategies Branch of the Victorian Department of Sustainability and
Environment provided encouragement, advice and information through the course of
this project. Particular thanks to Chris Ashe, Paul FitzSimons, Kim Lowe and James
Todd for sharing their ideas on biodiversity conservation policy and practice, and
specifically on Biosphere Reserves and Conservation Management Networks.
Elsewhere, informative discussions with Robyn Edwards, Penny Figgis, Paul Foreman,
Doug Humann, Mike Looker, Jim Muldoon, Suzanne Prober, James Ross, Kevin Thiele
and Chris Williams helped to crystallize and challenge many of my ideas regarding
landscape-scale conservation. Bruce Cummings, Lorraine Oliver, Rainer Rehwinkel,
James Todd and Cameron Williams generously provided important information or
clarifications when requested.
Representatives of the three networks studies in this thesis provided invaluable support
and information throughout the course of this project, without which it would not have
got off the ground. Particular thanks to Suzanne Prober, Kevin Thiele and Erica
iv
Higginson (Grassy Box Woodlands CMN), Robyn Edwards and Trish Fox (Gippsland
Plains CMN) and Ed Cottam and Mike Harper (Bookmark BR).
A sincere thanks to the landowners and land managers of sites within the Bookmark
Biosphere Reserve, Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network and Grassy
Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network, for providing important feedback
through the questionnaires but, more importantly, for your contribution to protecting
and managing these important natural areas.
Given that this project spanned three jurisdictions with numerous government and non-
government agencies and individual landowners, a large number of people (too
numerous to name) have contributed to its ultimate success. A number of organisations
supplied geospatial data for use in this research: Department of Sustainability &
Environment (Vic), Department of Infrastructure (Vic), NSW National Parks &
Wildlife Service, State Forests of NSW, Planning SA, National Parks & Wildlife SA,
Department for the Environment & Heritage (Commonwealth), and Geoscience
Australia. Benno Curth (NPWSA) went above and beyond the call in creating and
supplying data for the Bookmark BR at short notice.
The postgrads at the School of Ecology & Environment provided thought-provoking
discussions (sometimes) and a fun work environment (always) which made the write up
considerably more enjoyable, especially Grant Palmer, Hugh Robertson, Mark Antos,
Luke Shelley, Sadiqul Awal, Donna Clarke, Meghan Cullen, Angie Donaldson,
Rebecca Koss, Chris Tzaros and Lindy Lumsden. For those who have yet to finish,
good luck!
David Mercer, Hugh Robertson, Dianne Simmons, Geoff Wescott, Michaela Casey, the
Fitzsimons family and five anonymous referees kindly provided comments on drafts of
particular chapters of this thesis (and associated papers).
Thanks to the Fitzsimons family: Mum, Dad, Anthony and Jane for continual support
and encouragement throughout the course of this thesis.
Finally, thanks to Michaela, for patience, encouragement and love throughout.
v
Table of Contents Candidate Declaration
ii
Acknowledgements
iii
Table of Contents
v
List of Figures
x
List of Tables
xii
Abbreviations
xiv
Abstract xv
CHAPTER 1 Introduction: Biodiversity Conservation on Public and Private Land 1 1.1 Introduction
1
1.2 Biodiversity conservation, protected areas and conservation outside of protected areas
2
1.2.1 Biodiversity conservation
2
1.2.2 Historical reserve selection and design
2
1.2.3 Conservation on private land in Australia
3
1.2.4 The national reserve system in Australia and the role of private conservation lands
5
1.2.5 Coordinated management of conservation lands
6
1.3 Mechanisms for integrating public and private conservation lands
7
1.3.1 Existing integrated networks of land managed for nature conservation: ‘Multi-tenure reserve networks’
7
1.3.2 The Biosphere Reserve concept
9
1.3.3 The Conservation Management Network concept
10
1.3.4 Other examples of existing networks and potential mechanisms in Australia
12
1.3.5 Recognition of multi-tenure concept through national and jurisdictional strategies
14
1.3.6 Implications for conservation
15
1.4 Objectives of the thesis
15
1.5 Thesis structure
16
vi
CHAPTER 2 The Classification of Lands Managed for Conservation: Existing and Proposed Frameworks
18
2.1 Introduction
18
2.2 Current international practice in the classification of conservation lands
19
2.2.1 Worldwide classification of protected areas
19
2.2.2 Classification of conservation lands in Australia
22
2.2.3 The treatment of private conservation lands within classification systems
24
2.3 A broader classification system for conservation lands
25
2.3.1 The need for a revised classification system for conservation lands
25
2.3.2 Developing a classification system for all conservation lands
26
2.4 The Conservation Lands Classification System: implications for conservation
34
CHAPTER 3 History and attributes of selected Australian multi-tenure reserve networks 35 3.1 Introduction
35
3.2 Australian examples of multi-tenure reserve networks
36
3.3 Methods
39
3.4 The formation and development of case study networks
40
3.4.1 Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
40
3.4.2 Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Network
45
3.4.3 Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network
49
3.4 Application of a standardised tenure and protection classification
53
3.5 Implications for biodiversity conservation 57
CHAPTER 4 Reserve Design and Landscape Connectivity in Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
59
4.1 Introduction
59
4.2 Background
60
4.2.1 Reserve selection and design
60
4.2.2 Landscape connectivity and inter-reserve distance
63
4.3 Methods
64
vii
4.3.1 Using a Geographic Information System as the platform for landscape and reserve analysis
64
4.3.2 Using a bioregional framework as the basis for analysis
65
4.3.3 Sources of data
69
4.3.4 Measurements of reserve design
70
4.3.5 Connectivity and inter-reserve distance
71
4.3.6 General mapping issues
72
4.4 Results
73
4.4.1 Bioregional reservation levels
73
4.4.2 Component size and shape
73
4.4.3 Network connectivity
76
4.4.4 Inter-component distances within networks
80
4.5 Discussion
81
4.5.1 Component size, shape and edge effects
81
4.5.2 Networks and surrounding conservation lands
86
4.6 Implications for conservation
87
4.6.1 Influence of network reserve design on other conservation planning projects
87
4.6.2 Use of boundary:area analysis as a measure for reserve integrity: identified limitations
89
4.6.3 Network model as a predeterminate for reserve design? 90
CHAPTER 5 Ecosystem Conservation in Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
92
5.1 Introduction
92
5.2 Background
92
5.2.1 Biodiversity: measurements for conservation planning
92
5.2.2 The use of threatened, umbrella or focal species in conservation planning
93
5.2.3 The use of vegetation types or other ecosystem units as surrogates for biodiversity
93
5.2.4 Frameworks for measuring and conserving biodiversity in Australia
95
5.3 Methods
97
5.3.1 Selecting and obtaining datasets for analysis
97
5.3.2 Spatial analysis
100
5.4 Results
100
5.4.1 Subregional vegetation types and their representation in multi-tenure reserve networks and public protected areas
100
5.4.2 Contribution of networks to ecosystem protection at the subregional scale
101
viii
5.4.3 Contribution of network components to ecosystem conservation
108
5.5 Discussion
113
5.5.1 Relative contribution of networks and their components to biodiversity conservation
113
5.5.2 Implications for conservation
116
5.5.3 The real and potential influence of vegetation classification on multi-tenure reserve networks
118
5.6 Conclusion 119
CHAPTER 6 Perceptions and Attitudes of Land Managers in Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
120
6.1 Introduction
120
6.2 Methods
122
6.2.1 Review of available methods and selection of method
122
6.2.2 Questionnaire design
123
6.2.3 Data collection
123
6.2.4 Data analysis
124
6.2.5 Limitations of data collected
124
6.3 Results and Discussion
125
6.3.1 Response rate and respondents
125
6.3.2 Motivators for involvement in the network and perceived aims of the network
127
6.3.3 Protected area classification and National Reserve System recognition
128
6.3.4 Attitudes towards involvement in the network
132
6.3.5 Awareness of other sites in the network and influence on management
133
6.3.6 Limitations and suggested improvements to the networks
134
6.4 Implications for conservation
138
CHAPTER 7 Governance and Coordination in Multi-tenure Reserve Networks 141 7.1 Introduction
141
7.2 Methods
144
7.2.1 Review of available methods and selection of method
144
7.2.2 Questionnaire design
144
7.2.3 Data collection and analysis
144
7.2.4 Subsequent changes to network structure 145
ix
7.3 Results and Discussion
145
7.3.1 Response to questionnaires
145
7.3.2
Objectives of the network and role of coordinating body 146
7.3.3 Entry requirements
148
7.3.4 Goals and measures of success
149
7.3.5 Limits to network extent and focus
150
7.3.6 Financial Arrangements
151
7.4 Developments in the structure of networks since questionnaires
153
7.4.1 Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
153
7.4.2 Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network
154
7.4.3 Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network
154
7.5 Implications for conservation
155
7.5.1 Operation, activities, policies of case study networks
155
7.5.2 Trends in governance arrangements 157
CHAPTER 8 Discussion and Conclusion
159
8.1 Introduction
159
8.2 The potential of multi-tenure reserve networks
159
8.2.1 Summary of major findings
159
8.2.2 The contribution of multi-tenure reserve networks to biodiversity conservation
161
8.3 Limitations to successful achievement of conservation objectives
165
8.3.1 The definition of a network
165
8.3.2 The Biosphere Reserve and Conservation Management Network models
166
8.3.3 Transparency in participation criteria, goals and targets
168
8.3.4 The ability for networks to assess biodiversity conservation efforts
169
8.3.5 Prioritising the location of networks
170
8.3.6 Long-term financial security
173
8.4
Recommendations for the advancement of multi-tenure reserve networks
174
8.5 Future directions for research
175
8.6 Conclusion 177 References
179
Personal Communication
232
Appendices 233
x
List of Figures Page
1. Theoretical Biosphere Reserve model
9
2. Various theoretical components of a Conservation Management Network
11
3. Prison Purposes Reserve near the Lamington National Park, south eastern Queensland: part of the World Heritage CERRA network
13
4. Relative security of protection mechanisms on land tenures in the Conservation Lands Classification
28
5. Location of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, Grassy Box Woodlands CMN and Gippsland Plains CMN in Australia
37
6. Location of components in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
41
7. Location of components in the Riverland area of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
42
8. Chronological development of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve since establishment
44
9. Location and components of the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN
47
10. Development of the number and area of components of the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN between 2000 and 2002
48
11. Location of components in the Gippsland Plains CMN
50
12. Development of the number and area of components of the Gippsland Plains CMN between 2000 and 2002
52
13. Land for sale at Fernbank as part of the Trust for Nature’s Revolving Fund program, February 2000
53
14. Proportion of number of components and total area protected in networks at January 2002. Bookmark BR, Gippsland Plains CMN, Grassy Box Woodlands CMN
56
15. IBRA V5.1 bioregions and subregions in which case study networks occur
67
16. Location of IBRA bioregions and subregions in which networks occur
68
17. Level of connectivity and isolation amongst network components
77
18. The River Murray divides Murtho Forest Reserve from the floodplains of Calperum Station – two components of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
78
xi
19. Perry River Public Land Water Frontage Reserve adjoining the Ponds Flora & Fauna Reserve, Gippsland Plains CMN
78
20. Lands managed for conservation which surround Bookmark Biosphere Reserve but not incorporate as part of the Biosphere Reserve
88
21. Pooginook Conservation Park near Waikerie, South Australia
88
22. Open mallee at Gluepot Station, Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
107
23. Plains Grassy Woodland at Swallow Lagoon Nature Conservation Reserve, Gippsland Plains CMN
107
24. Grassy White Box Woodland, Koorawatha Cemetery, Grassy Box Woodlands CMN
109
25. Willingness by managers to be part of a national reserve system and consideration of their sites to be a ‘protected area’ by Conservation Land Classification
131
26. The awareness of other sites by managers within the network (a), regular correspondence with other managers in the network (b), alteration of management regime since becoming part of their network (c) and the influence other sites on management decisions (d)
135
xii
List of Tables
Page
1. IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
20
2. Description and application of categories within the Conservation Lands Classification
29
3. Some other multi-tenure reserve networks operating in Australia
38
4. Number, area and type of components within the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
44
5. Number and total area of components within networks classified under the Conservation Lands Classification
55
6. IBRA V5.1 subregional reservation levels
73
7. Median area, perimeter and circularity index of network components
75
8. Number and average size of network components and protected areas
76
9. Number of legally separated or physically isolated blocks per component
76
10. Proportion of shared boundaries within networks
79
11. Boundary length and circularity index of network considered as a ‘single reserve’
80
12. Inter-component distances within networks
80
13. Distance extremes within networks
81
14. Number and area or vegetation types represented in subregions, public protected areas and networks
102
15. The subregional area, reservation levels, and network area of Structural Vegetation Types for the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
104
16. The subregional area and reservation levels of Floristic Vegetation Types occurring in the Bookmark BR
105
17. The subregional area and reservation levels of Ecological Vegetation Classes occurring in the Gippsland Plains CMN
106
18. Area of Structural Vegetation Types protected within Conservation Lands Categories and number of components protecting the vegetation type in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
110
19. Area of Floristic Vegetation Types protected within Conservation Lands Categories and number of components protecting the vegetation type in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
111
xiii
20. Area of Ecological Vegetation Classes protected within Conservation Lands Categories and number of components protecting the vegetation type in the Gippsland Plain CMN
112
21. Overstorey species and understorey structure represented in Grassy Box Woodlands CMN components
113
22. Response rate for each network to the mail survey
125
23. Number of responses from managers of various tenure and protection mechanisms
126
24. Primary reason for involvement in the network; Primary management objectives for their sites; and perceived aims of the network
129
25. Number of managers considering their sites to be protected areas and willing to have their sites be recognised as part of a national reserve system of land managed for conservation
130
26. Attitudes of managers to involvement in networks
132
27. Perceived major limitations of the networks and suggested improvements to networks
138
28. Funding received as a result of the network
138
29. Perceived importance of various objectives to network coordinators
147
xiv
Abbreviations ACT Australian Capital Territory ANZECC Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council BR Biosphere Reserve CAR Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (Reserve System) CLC Conservation Lands Classification CMN Conservation Management Network DEH Department for the Environment and Heritage (Commonwealth) DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria) ECC Environment Conservation Council EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(Commonwealth) EVC Ecological Vegetation Class GBWCMN Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network GPCMN Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network GIS Geographic Information System ha Hectares IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia IPA Indigenous Protected Area IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources 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
km Kilometres NGO Non-government organisation NHT Natural Heritage Trust NRMMC Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council NSW New South Wales NPWS New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service NPWSA National Parks and Wildlife South Australia NRE Department of Natural Resources & Environment (Victoria) NRS National Reserve System NRSP National Reserve System Program RFA Regional Forest Agreement SA South Australia TFN Trust for Nature UNESCO United Nations Environmental, Social and Cultural Organisation USA United States of America Vic Victoria WCPA IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
xv
Abstract
A consistent and integrated approach to nature conservation across the landscape and
regardless of tenure is widely recognised as essential in ensuring the effective
conservation of biodiversity. ‘Multi-tenure reserve networks’, which incorporate
public and private lands managed for conservation, are considered a means of
achieving landscape scale conservation. Biosphere Reserves (BR) and Conservation
Management Networks (CMN) are characteristic models in Australia.
This thesis aims to evaluate the role of such networks in protecting biodiversity,
specifically by: (1) analysing the spatial configuration (size, shape, connectivity) of
networks and their individual components; (2) evaluating the contribution of networks
(in real terms and in reporting procedures) to biodiversity conservation objectives; (3)
analysing the influence of the attitudes and perceptions of land managers on the
functionality of networks; and (4) evaluating the influence of coordinating bodies on
network functionality.
In order to account for deficiencies in existing classifications of conservation lands, a
new classification system was developed for this thesis – the Conservation Lands
Classification. This classification incorporates conservation mechanisms on public
and private lands and forms the basis for comparing network components in three
Australian case studies – the Bookmark BR located in the Murray Mallee of South
Australia, the Gippsland Plains CMN on the eastern Gippsland Plains of Victoria and
the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN across the inland slopes of New South Wales. The
spatial configuration of individual components within networks was measured using
spatial analysis techniques within a geographic information system (GIS). GIS was
also used to measure the contribution that networks made to a comprehensive,
adequate and representative reserve system through the ecosystems they protected.
The attitudes and perceptions of landowners and managers within the networks were
obtained using questionnaires. Questionnaires were also sent to network coordinators.
Statistical and descriptive analysis was conducted on the results.
xvi
The sizes of individual components varied markedly between the three networks,
however within each network public reserves were on average larger than private
conservation lands. Although levels of physical connectivity varied between
networks, Bookmark BR and Gippsland Plains CMN showed greater similarity to
each other than to the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN. The findings raise important
questions about the real and perceived differences in the BR and CMN models.
All networks, and particularly those components outside the public protected area
estate, contributed to enhancing the protection of ecosystems unrepresented or under-
represented in the reserve system, although the extent of this contribution varied
between networks. Trade-offs between reserve design efficiency and a contribution to
a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system were evident between
networks. Bookmark BR was characterised by high connectivity, strong reserve
design integrity but a lower contribution to protecting under-reserved ecosystems,
whereas the opposite was evident in the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN.
Over 88% of managers considered their involvement in multi-tenure reserve networks
to be a positive or very positive experience. A lack of resources and time for
management were considered major limitations of these networks. The majority
(80%) of private land managers within networks were willing to be included in a
national reserve system of conservation lands. This has important implications for the
Australian National Reserve System, which currently incorporates mostly public land.
The changing nature of the network coordination arrangements suggests an organic
fluid evolution of network structures is likely, contrasting with the desire for legalistic
and administrative rigidity promoted by government agencies.
The thesis concludes that all the networks studied contribute in varying degrees to
biodiversity conservation. The key factors influencing the current and potential
contribution that such networks make are: (1) the aims, directions and restrictions set
by or imposed upon the coordinating body; and (2) the biophysical nature of the
surrounding bioregion and resultant historical land use and tenure pattern. Although
the successful operation of such ‘multi-tenure’ networks ultimately relies on the
willing participation of private landholders, ongoing institutional support is likely to
xvii
be required for maintaining networks in the longer term. Considering networks are
increasingly formed outside of the influence of government institutions, this presents
a significant challenge for effective coordinated conservation.
1
CHAPTER 1�
Introduction: Biodiversity Conservation on Public and Private Land
�
1.1 Introduction
The conservation of terrestrial biodiversity faces a number of key challenges ranging
from habitat clearance and degradation to the overexploitation of species and
ecosystems and to the impacts of introduced species (Balmford et al. 1998). One
response has been for governments to protect samples of natural habitats by setting
aside areas in national parks or conservation reserves. Increasingly private individuals
and organisations are either purchasing land or actively managing all or part of their
properties for nature conservation.
Thus a new challenge arises: How do we coordinate the myriad of approaches to in situ
biodiversity conservation, and in particular the management and protection of natural
areas across various tenures?
This thesis addresses this challenge. It presents an evaluation of the effectiveness of
networks of lands managed for conservation under a variety of owners and tenures,
collectively termed ‘multi-tenure reserve networks’. The ultimate aim is to evaluate the
role of multi-tenure reserve networks in protecting biodiversity.
The research problem addressed in this thesis arose from previous research into the role
of private land in nature conservation in Victoria, Australia (Fitzsimons 1999a). That
research highlighted a distinct lack of integration between public and private lands
managed for nature conservation, and the resultant limitations for effective conservation
planning.
2
Within this thesis the term ‘conservation lands’ is applied to all lands, both public and
private, where nature conservation is a primary aim of management. The use of
‘protected area’ has been more strictly applied to (mainly) public lands reserved
primarily for nature conservation and managed in accordance with the International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources’ (IUCN) definition of the term
(IUCN 1994).
�
�
1.2 Biodiversity conservation, protected areas and conservation
outside of protected areas
1.2.1 Biodiversity conservation
A key component of the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) was a commitment
by the 157 signatory countries, including Australia, to establish protected area systems
to conserve biological diversity. Importantly, it also committed signatories to the
regulation or management of biological resources important for the conservation of
biological diversity, whether they are within or outside of protected areas. While many
countries had systems of protected areas prior to the Convention, it was the impetus for
an increased and more strategic focus on reserving viable and representative examples
of all ecosystems, and for a more concerted effort in implementing ‘off-reserve’
conservation strategies.
1.2.2 Historical reserve selection and design
Protected areas have long been regarded as one of the most secure, and often the most
effective, forms of protection for biodiversity (Pressey et al. 1994, Noss et al. 1999,
Shafer 1999, Margules & Pressey 2000). In Australia, as with other parts of the world,
the selection of conservation reserves has historically tended to be opportunistic and ad
hoc, favouring areas, environments and habitat types with the least potential for
extractive uses (Pressey et al. 1993, Pressey 1994, 1995). Even when reserves have
been chosen for the features they contain, those features have often been for scenic,
recreational and wilderness values, and not specifically for biodiversity (e.g.
Whitehouse 1990, Pressey & Tully 1994, Margules 1995). Criteria for measuring
progress in reservation are not well developed in Australia, relying mainly on protecting
3
‘representative’ samples of biodiversity (Pressey et al. 2000, Woinarski et al. 2000).
Importantly, a number of new measures of ‘effectiveness’ have been devised to assist in
the development of reserve systems, with particular emphasis on those components of
biodiversity most vulnerable to continued threat (see Pressey et al. 2002).
It is now widely recognised that reserve systems on public land alone are not and will
not be adequate if Australia is to retain current levels of biodiversity and meet its
obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (e.g. Commonwealth of
Australia 1996, Margules & Pressey 2000). As over two-thirds of Australia
(approximately 500 million hectares) is managed by private landholders there is a
pressing need for a consistent and integrated approach to nature conservation on all land
tenure types (Commonwealth of Australia 1993).
1.2.3 Conservation on private land in Australia
Since the early 1990s, a number of government reports and inquiries have recognised
the need for protection of species and habitats outside public reserves in Australia,
namely the Inter-Government Agreement on the Environment (Council of Australian
Governments 1992), the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development
(Commonwealth of Australia 1993), National Strategy for the Conservation of
Australia’s Biological Diversity (Commonwealth of Australia 1996) and the Industry
Commission’s inquiry into Ecologically Sustainable Land Management (Industry
Commission 1997).
Importantly, the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological
Diversity anticipated that by the year 2005 Australia would have “established a system
of voluntary or cooperative reserves, or both, and other management schemes on private
lands to complement the protection provided by the public estate in protected areas”
(Objective 7.1 (c); Commonwealth of Australia 1996 p. 42). However, no definition is
provided for what form this ‘system’ would take to successfully achieve this objective.
As with public protected area systems, each State and Territory has its own framework
for nature conservation on private land. These vary in their range of protective measures
(ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private Land 1996, Young et al.
1996, Productivity Commission 2001). Furthermore, several independent organisations
4
also purchase private land for the purpose of conservation in Australia. These may
operate at a national level (e.g. Australian Bush Heritage Fund, Australian Wildlife
Conservancy, Earth Sanctuaries Ltd, Birds Australia), State level (e.g. Trust for Nature
(Victoria) and other land trusts established under state legislation) or at a more localised
level (e.g. Wetlands and Wildlife, Bushland Conservation Pty Ltd). However, the
strategic purchase of conservation lands for protection by independent bodies is still a
relatively recent trend and the total land conserved is relatively small when compared to
that protected by The Nature Conservancy and various land trusts in the USA (Lees
1995) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Bird’s in the United Kingdom (Barrett
1997).
While few doubt the importance of encouraging conservation on land outside the
reserve system, particularly private land, opinions vary as to how much resources
should be directed towards such programs, particularly if it is at the expense of funding
for new or existing public protected areas. For example, Young (1995), believes that
some private land conservation schemes may enable a much more precautionary
approach to reserve selection suggesting that placing 5% of each ecosystem in a reserve
and protecting a further 20% in conservation easements until more information becomes
available, might be a more practical option.�
Interestingly, Young et al. (1996) also believe that there is general agreement that non-
binding voluntary mechanisms to date have not adequately protected biodiversity,
provide no clear guarantee of long-term protection and lack sufficient dependability to
be relied upon as an exclusive instrument to achieve biodiversity conservation.
Likewise, the inclusion of private protected areas into a national reserve system has
raised some concerns regarding long-term security and protection from threats such as
mining (CEM 1999, Figgis 1999). However, when considering recent examples in
Victoria of an excision from the Alpine National Park for the purpose of ski-
development (Coffey 2001) and of boundary movement and logging in State Forest
Special Protection Zones (Miller 2000a,b), issues of security apply to all lands managed
for conservation, regardless of tenure or the perceived strength of protective
mechanisms.
�
5
Pressey and Logan (1997) believe that reserve selection processes can be applied to off-
reserve mechanisms to increase their effectiveness. However, despite the logic of
various reserve design techniques being well tested and the approach well established,
their impact on practical conservation planning is considered by some to have been
minimal (e.g. Prendergarst et al. 1999). Furthermore, it is important to note that some
forms of off-reserve conservation, such as the voluntary conservation of habitat, are
often the result of the landowner making an application for property registration and not
the coordinating body selecting the properties (Fitzsimons 1999a).
1.2.4 The national reserve system in Australia and the role of private conservation
lands
The inclusion of private protected areas into a national reserve system has been
advocated by some (e.g. Stone 1997) as one of the only means of achieving reservation
targets in some regions. The two major programs in Australia for establishing a
comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) system of terrestrial reserves - the
National Reserve System Program (NRSP) and the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA)
process - have provision for the inclusion of private and public land not primarily
reserved for nature conservation (Commonwealth of Australia 1992, Environment
Australia 1999). Unfortunately, neither program appears to have embodied the concept
despite their intentions. The Private Protected Area component of the National Reserve
System (NRS) has been mainly utilised by non-government organisations (NGOs)
purchasing land for conservation, and rarely by individual private landowners. Whilst it
is recognised that binding conservation agreements such as those which exist in
Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales would meet the IUCN definition of
‘protected area’ (Lee & Szabo 2000), the inclusion of private properties within the NRS
has been slow and the policy still uncertain (NRMMC 2004). The proposed
development of targets for the ‘restoration and protection of indigenous and private land
in the National Reserve System by 2001’ (Commonwealth of Australia 2001, Target
1.2.2) has yet to be released.
One exception, has been an initiative to establish private reserves as part of the
Tasmanian RFA (Smith 2001). Recognising that a CAR system of forest reserves could
not be achieved on public land alone (Tasmanian Public Land Use Commission 1997),
the Tasmanian Private Forest Reserves Program was developed as a test case for
6
strategically establishing reserves on private land either through land purchase,
conservation covenants or management agreements. Importantly, it specifically targets
forest ecosystems under-represented in the public reserve system. Unlike most other
private conservation mechanisms in Australia, this program is backed by incentives
which provide landowners who place a conservation covenant on their land in
perpetuity with annual payments for management.
However, it has been suggested that before ‘other effective’ conservation management
strategies are accepted at local, regional and national levels, institutional and cultural
shifts are required (Hill 1994, Thackway & Olsson 1999).
�
1.2.5 Coordinated management of conservation lands
The need for landscape scale management of biodiversity across all tenures has long
been recognised by ecologists (e.g. Noss 1987, Saunders 1990, Miller 1999, Sayer
1999, Hobbs 2002) and more recently by governments. As political and property
boundaries rarely correspond with ecological boundaries, there is a need for greater
collaboration between adjoining landholders managing natural or semi-natural
ecosystems (Sample 1994).
While Australia has well-established mechanisms for the protection of biodiversity on
public land and a range of relatively more recent initiatives for conservation on private
land, integration and coordination of these programs is lacking.
The lack of integration between public reserves and private conservation lands in
conservation planning and reporting procedures in Victoria has been highlighted in
previous research (Fitzsimons 1999a, Fitzsimons & Wescott 2001). Similarly, in a
review of biodiversity conservation measures on private land in NSW, Curran (2000)
noted a lack of coordination between the various departments responsible for respective
programs.
The consequences of this lack of coordination are highlighted by Pressey et al. (1996)
who found that when reserves were combined with all ‘mappable’ off-reserve protection
measures in northeast New South Wales, the coverage of environments was even more
strongly biased away from the areas most vulnerable to damage than was reservation
7
alone. The ad hoc manner in which reserves have been selected had been similarly
applied to off-reserve measures in this instance, with similar disadvantages (Pressey &
Logan 1997). In Victoria, this trend was supported in some bioregions, however private
conservation lands were found to make significant contributions to reservation targets in
other bioregions (Fitzsimons 1999a).
Pressey and Logan (1997) believe that this pattern is the result of a lack of regional
coordination between off-reserve management agencies, as well as the under-use of
some forms of protection due to political or economic reasons. The uncoordinated and
non-strategic placement of off-reserve measures has meant that a larger part of a region
has to be covered to meet the desired goal. Considering that time and finances are
needed to investigate, apply and maintain these protection measures, the limited
resources available for off-reserve nature conservation have not been used as effectively
as possible (Pressey & Logan 1997).
Taylor (1987 p. 321) suggests that large patches of remnant vegetation under multiple
public and private land tenures need to be managed in a cooperative manner as a “single
multi-purpose nature reserve” if it is to maintain its biological conservation value.
1.3 Mechanisms for integrating public and private conservation
lands
1.3.1 Existing integrated networks of land managed for nature conservation:
‘Multi-tenure reserve networks’
Internationally, transboundary cooperation in protected areas is becoming increasingly
common with 169 such complexes in existence in 2003 (representing over 10% of the
worlds total area protected) with more proposed (Thorsell & Harrison 1990, Fall 1999,
Agrawal 2000, Budowski 2003). It is unclear, however, how many of these include
private land or public land not primarily reserved for biodiversity conservation.
Considering responsibility for environmental planning and management in Australia
rests with the States and Territories (Wescott 1991), the consequential development of
8
nine separate protected area systems has meant that there is considerable opportunity to
develop cross-border management frameworks.
Specific mechanisms integrating public and private conservation lands have been
termed collectively as ‘multi-tenure reserve networks’ for this thesis. The term ‘reserve’
is used here in its broadest sense and does not imply a particular tenure or protection
mechanism, merely a spatially delineated area whereby management for nature
conservation is a primary focus.
A number of well-known international examples of attempts to integrate biodiversity
conservation across a variety of tenures exist. In the United States of America, the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem is a widely-used example of ecosystem management
across public conservation reserves, other public land and private lands (Burroughs &
Clark 1995). Similarly, the ‘greenline park’ concept involves relatively large areas of
natural and/or semi-natural land under public and private ownership managed to sustain
a mix of land uses such as wilderness, forestry, tourism and agriculture and has parallels
to the biosphere reserve concept (see 1.4.2 below). The Adirondack Park in New York
is considered to best embrace greenline park ideals while also being a designated
biosphere reserve (see Mason 1994, 1995, Mason & Michaels 2001, Michaels et al.
1999a, 2001 for detailed discussion). Elsewhere in the USA, the Florida Greenways
aims to link existing and proposed conservation lands on a variety of tenures through a
network of ecological corridors (Soulé 1995, Hoctor et al. 2000). This network is also a
component of a larger, continental-scale network of core reserves connected by broad
habitat linkages, known as the ‘Wildlands Project’ (Noss 2003).
Within Europe, the ECONET programme promotes connectivity at various scales
within highly fragmented and largely agriculturally-transformed landscapes (Miller
1999). A variety of other ecological networks exist in Europe which range from basic
lists of significant sites to integrated national networks of existing and proposed
conservation areas (Ahern 1995, 2002, Jongman 1995, Jongman et al. 2004).
Furthermore, the National Parks of the United Kingdom are examples of long inhabited
cultural landscapes managed for biological and heritage conservation while continuing
to sustain local communities on mixed tenures (Lucas 1992, Phillips 1999).
9
1.3.2 The Biosphere Reserve concept
The ‘Man and the Biosphere Program’, which coordinates the world network of
Biosphere Reserves, was launched by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in 1971, and has since seen 440 Biosphere Reserves
established in 97 participating nations (UNESCO 2004b). Biosphere Reserves are
primarily concerned with integrating biodiversity conservation with ecologically
sustainable development across a variety of land tenures and uses (UNESCO 1995,
Brunckhorst et al. 1997). A goal of the program is to establish a global network of
Biosphere Reserves in each of the major biogeographic terrestrial and marine provinces
of the world (Hill 1994). The theoretical concept of a Biosphere Reserve revolves
around a ‘core’ protected area managed primarily for nature conservation, a ‘buffer’
zone where activities that impact on the biodiversity of the core are minimised and a
‘transition’ zone where sustainable use of natural resources is encouraged (Batisse 1993,
Parker 1993, Brunckhorst et al. 1997) (Fig 1.)
Figure 1. Theoretical Biosphere Reserve model Source: UNESCO (2003a).
One of the major difficulties in establishing Biosphere Reserves beyond existing public
conservation reserves is that zonation of uses and landscape planning into private land is
usually outside the statutes under which most state agencies work (Parker 1993, Hill
1994). Much of the theoretical discussion in relation to Biosphere Reserves centres on
designing areas of core, buffer and transition zones based on reserve selection and
design techniques (e.g. Parker 1993, Heijnis et al. 1999, Li et al. 1999a,b, Hoctor et al.
2000). Few practical examples exist where this has influenced the designation of
10
anything other than core areas on public land. Research into onground examples of the
concept has focussed mainly on sustainable use and social aspects (e.g. Solecki 1994,
Mason 1995, Brunkhorst 1999, Maikhuri et al. 2000, Silori 2001, Rao et al. 2002) or
specific wildlife conservation issues.
While it has been suggested that if the Biosphere Reserve model worked it would be a
“step towards getting rid of parks” (Wilson 1992 in Cooper 2000), Shafer (1999) notes
that there is a large gap between buffer zones in principle, and good working models.
Brunckhorst (2000 p.86) highlights the developmental stage of bioregional reserves
when describing the concept as “community-based adaptive management or ‘learning-
by-doing’ models”.
Of the 12 Biosphere Reserves declared in Australia, only three - Bookmark, Fitzgerald
River and the recently proclaimed Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere
Reserves - have extended outside declared public national parks or nature reserves.
Furthermore, the South West Tasmania Biosphere Reserve was recently delisted at its
own request as it had no chance of extending beyond the boundaries of the dedicated
reserve (J. Muldoon pers. comm. 2002).
Hill (1994 p. 59) believes that the Biosphere Reserve concept has not been welcomed
enthusiastically by Australian conservation NGOs as they threaten the “purity of the
current protected area system”. The veracity of this assessment may be justified when
considering comments by Figgis (1999 p. 19), Vice-President of the Australian
Conservation Foundation: “Having seen the waving wheat fields….in the transition
zone of the Fitzgerald River (biosphere) reserve….giving the name ‘reserve’ to land that
is being used in a manner likely to diminish biodiversity, will surely blur and confuse
the community about true nature conservation”.
1.3.3 The Conservation Management Network concept
The concept of establishing an ‘ecosystem reserve’ for fragmented ecological
communities was first outlined in Australia by Prober and Thiele (1993a), after several
years studying the endangered Grassy White Box Woodlands in the wheat-sheep belts
of the NSW Western Slopes. As the concept has evolved, a number of more detailed
papers have been produced outlining the model which is now called a Conservation
11
Management Network (CMN) (formerly Protected Area Network or PAN) (Prober &
Thiele 1996, Thiele & Prober 1999, 2000, Prober et al. 2001, Thiele et al. 2002). The
authors, in their study of the woodlands, have based this model on consideration of
various aspects of the plant community’s history (Prober & Thiele 1993b), floristics
(Prober 1996), genetics (Prober & Brown 1994, Prober et al. 1998) and management
(Prober & Thiele 1995). Importantly, they have found that often the best quality (most
intact) remnants occur on non-reserved public or private land and that to ensure the
survival of the ecosystem in the long-term, these blocks needed to be managed for
conservation. Recognising that acquisition by government agencies would not be
appropriate in many situations for social, economic and management reasons, a more
flexible approach involving the application of various forms of protective instruments
under an umbrella body was developed.
Binning (1997, 2000), Binning and Young (1997) and Binning and Fielman (2000) also
promoted the model citing that there were currently no mechanisms for accounting for
and quantifying the contribution of the non-government sector in achieving nature
conservation objectives (with the possible exception of the UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve model). Two variations on the model are presented in Fig. 2, both of which
incorporate public protected areas, other public land managed by agreement or zoning
and private land protected by management agreement.
a) b)
Figure 2. Various theoretical components of a Conservation Management Network. Source: a) Binning and Young (1997), b) Binning and Fielman (2000)
The value of non-reserved public land such as roadsides, railway lines, cemeteries and
travelling stock routes for biodiversity conservation in its own right has been recognised
12
by a number of authors (e.g. Lacey 1998, Bennett 1999, Johnson 2000). However, as
landscapes become more fragmented and vegetation on other lands becomes degraded
through clearing, grazing, intensive agriculture, timber harvesting etc, this public land
becomes of greater importance for meeting biodiversity protection targets for
ecosystems and bioregions (e.g. State of Victoria 1997, State of NSW 1999).
The development of what are now termed CMNs in Victoria has been based around the
Thiele and Prober model (Edwards 1999, ECC 2001). However, a notable difference
between these networks and that of the Grassy Box Woodlands is that while the
conservation of a particular depleted vegetation type is an underlying theme, more
localised geographic areas are the basis for these networks’ implementation.
Interestingly, the site conservation planning procedures used by The Nature
Conservancy in the USA of ensuring a “diverse perspective, promoting organisation
buy-in, and encouraging partner involvement where appropriate from the start” (Poiani
et al. 1998 p.146), are similar to those that have been used by the Trust for Nature in
Victoria in establishing their CMNs.
Brunckhorst et al. (1997) noted the importance of ensuring “ownership” by the
community at a local level in the process of establishing protected areas. The success or
otherwise in the development and acceptance of specific multi-tenure protected area
networks is likely to be a major influence in whether this ‘ownership’ is achieved or not.
1.3.4 Other examples of existing networks and potential mechanisms in Australia
Two different and unrelated multi-tenure reserve networks were formed in Australia in
1986. The Australian Alps National Parks program was formalised with an agreement
between Victoria, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and the
Commonwealth to cooperatively manage the eight adjoining alpine parks and reserves
totalling 1.6 million hectares (Byrne 1998).
The Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia) (CERRA), while initially including
only NSW reserves, was inscribed in the World Heritage List in 1986. Southeast
Queensland reserves were added in 1994 and today the World Heritage property
consists of almost 50 separate components comprised of national parks, nature reserves,
flora reserves, State forest and other Crown land (Department of Environment &
13
Heritage 2000). Significantly, this network includes Crown land that is not reserved for
biodiversity conservation (e.g. Rabbit Board Reserves, Prison Purposes Reserves and
Road Reserves) (see Fig. 3) and the possibility of including private land protected with
a Voluntary Conservation Agreement has been raised (Department of Environment and
Heritage 2000).
Figure 3. Prison Purposes Reserve near the Lamington National Park, south eastern Queensland: part of the World Heritage CERRA network. Photo: J.A. Fitzsimons
Another international designation, that of a Ramsar Wetland of International
Importance, has recently been applied to the Macquarie Marshes of which only a small
area is protected within a Nature Reserve. The remainder is private land managed by
numerous landholders for the purpose of conservation. Interestingly, some ten other
Ramsar wetlands in Australia incorporate private land (Farrier & Tucker 1998).
In Queensland, under the provisions of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 landholders
seeking to protect biodiversity values on their adjoining or nearby properties are able to
have a ‘coordinated conservation area’ declared (Wells et al. 1995). Landholders
14
wishing to be part of the cooperative arrangement are required to sign individual
agreements with the responsible minister. Crown land managed by the Queensland
Government can also be part of the coordinated conservation area.
More recently, the WildCountry program, coordinated by the Wilderness Society and
based on the USA Wildlands Project, has been established with the goal of producing an
Australia-wide system of inter-connected core protected areas, each surrounded and
linked by lands managed under conservation objectives (Recher 2003, The Wilderness
Society 2004). Projects in four jurisdictions are currently in development, and it is
envisaged that every Australian region and ecosystem will eventually be covered (The
Wilderness Society 2004).
1.3.5 Recognition of multi-tenure concept through national and jurisdictional
strategies
The Biosphere Reserve concept is a recognised and accepted means of integrating
public and private conservation lands, as well as for developing sustainable land use
practices, in many parts of the world including Australia. While the Commonwealth
Government has a national strategy on Biosphere Reserves (Parker 1993), this is in need
of review in light of more recent advances in cross-tenure conservation mechanisms.
Recognition of the concept of ‘informal protected area networks’ was given in the
document National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation 2001-2005
although no definition was provided. A target for this plan was for such networks to
have management plans developed and implemented by 2001 (Target 1.2.1,
Commonwealth of Australia 2001). Furthermore, this target aims for the development
of management plans for private land covered by formalised conservation agreements.
The recent attempts to have a nationally accepted framework for the establishment and
definition of CMNs (i.e. Thiele et al. 2002) has yet to be accepted by government
institutions. The CMN concept is broadly accepted by both NSW and Victorian State
Governments and is utilised as a mechanism for conservation planning at a catchment
(Corangamite CMA 2005) and landscape (ECC 2001, Ross et al. 2003) level in Victoria
and for threatened community recovery planning in NSW (Environment ACT 2003,
Dobbie 2004).
15
1.3.6 Implications for conservation
Despite a number of models aiming to integrate ecosystem management across mixed
ownership landscapes, Hobbs (2002) believes that only a few examples around the
world have attempted to operationalise the Biosphere Reserve and greater ecosystem
models. Furthermore, Schonewald-Cox et al. (1992 p. 275) suggests that “in spite of the
great interest in the (biosphere reserve) model, detailed descriptions of tactics for (their)
implementation are rare”.
As has been highlighted in previous research (Fitzsimons 1999a, Fitzsimons & Wescott
2001), relatively little is known about the attributes of conservation lands outside the
public protected area estate in Australia. As attempts to integrate conservation lands
across tenure increases both in Australia and throughout the world, it is timely to
document, compare and critically analyse their role in nature conservation. To develop
effective mechanisms to coordinate the management of conservation lands across a
variety of tenures, a thorough understanding of the benefits and limitations is required.
Identifying the attributes of existing and operational mechanisms is essential if we are to
improve those mechanisms or seek to apply them successfully elsewhere. An
understanding of the perceptions that landowners and managers have toward such
mechanisms is also essential to improving any network (Belcher & Wellman 1991,
Todd 2000). Furthermore, Sayer (1999) believes that careful analysis of governance and
institutional arrangements for conservation is urgently needed.
Thus this thesis aims to significantly enhance our knowledge of multi-tenure reserve
networks as a practical means of landscape-scale conservation by analysing their
functionality in Australia.
1.4 Objectives of the thesis
The overall aim of this thesis is to evaluate the role of multi-tenure reserve networks in
protecting biodiversity.
16
To achieve this aim, the specific objectives of this thesis are:
1) To establish a systematic approach to classifying and accounting for land managed
for conservation across all tenures;
2) To critically examine whether and/or to what extent the networks enhance the
existing public protected area estate and the implications for biodiversity
conservation;
3) To establish whether the current structure of the networks allows the effective
integration of public and private conservation lands to occur; and
4) To develop a framework for identifying physical and social landscapes where
particular network types may be most appropriately implemented to achieve
biodiversity conservation goals.
�
1.5 Thesis structure
This thesis is divided into eight chapters which introduce, contextualize, analyse and
discuss the multi-faceted nature of multi-tenure reserve networks. To facilitate
subsequent publication each chapter is self-contained with its own introduction,
methods, results and discussion (where appropriate) but with a common reference list.
This allows for a more thorough distinction between the various physical, ecological,
social, organizational, legal and political aspects of multi-tenure reserve networks. As a
consequence it is recognised that a minor amount of duplication may occur in the
introduction of some chapters.
Chapter 2 of this thesis examines the current mechanisms for biodiversity conservation
in Australia, particularly in relation to the protection of habitats on public and private
land. As each jurisdiction in Australia has its own set of protected area categories and
legislation, as well as conservation initiatives on private land, this chapter develops a
systematic classification system for land managed for conservation based on common
tenure and protection mechanisms. The Conservation Lands Classification enables
comparative analysis in subsequent chapters.
17
Chapter 3 discusses the history, development and basic attributes of three multi-tenure
networks that are used as case studies in this thesis – the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve,
the Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network and Grassy Box Woodlands
Conservation Management Network. Specifically, changes to both number and area of
components between 2000 and 2002 are analysed.
Chapters 4 and 5 evaluate the contribution that the three case study networks make to
biodiversity conservation. Chapter 4 analyses aspects of reserve design and connectivity
within the networks, while Chapter 5 critically examines the extent to which networks
contribute to achieving a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system
through the protection of vegetation types which are used as surrogates for biodiversity.
This assessment of the case studies as ecological networks in Chapters 4 and 5 is
followed by an analysis of their operation as human or social networks (Chapters 6 and
7).
Specifically, the attitudes, perceptions and knowledge of the land owners and managers
within the networks are explored in Chapter 6. The implications that these attitudes and
perceptions have for both individual network functionality and for wider issues of
conservation planning are elucidated.
An appraisal of the organisational framework of coordinating bodies for multi-tenure
reserve networks is presented in Chapter 7. It combines formal questionnaires with
network coordinators on various aspects of legislative and financial security, policy and
governance, with a discussion of recent trends to alter governance arrangements.
The thesis concludes with a general discussion providing a synthesis of findings and
implications for future measures and mechanisms for the conservation of biodiversity
(Chapter 8). In particular, an evaluation of the effectiveness of multi-tenure reserve
networks as a practical means of conservation at a landscape scale is presented, leading
to recommendations for improving mechanisms for advancing biodiversity conservation
across all tenures.
18
CHAPTER 2
The Classification of Lands Managed for Conservation: Existing and Proposed Frameworks
2.1 Introduction1
In any field of environmental management, ensuring that comprehensive classification
systems are in place allows for more informed management decisions. This is
particularly true for the fields of conservation planning and policy where the protection
of biodiversity is often complicated not only by the fragmentation of habitats and land
ownership, but by the varied and often fragmented application of protection
mechanisms used to address different tenures. Thus the ability to identify and account
for those parts of the landscape that are being managed for biodiversity conservation,
the mechanisms under which they are being managed, and by whom, is essential for
accurate and informed conservation planning.
Broad categorisations of land managed for nature conservation are necessary to
compare and account for the myriad of separate reserve categories and other protection
mechanisms that exist worldwide. This chapter outlines the current classifications of
lands managed for conservation (herein referred to as ‘conservation lands’) at an
international level and within Australia. The need for a broader, all encompassing,
categorisation of conservation lands is presented and a proposed broader classification
system is developed. The proposed new classification system is then applied to
conservation lands within three Australian jurisdictions in which multi-tenure
conservation networks occur as examples (i.e. South Australia, New South Wales and
Victoria). While describing the broad international and national situation, it is beyond
the scope of this chapter to undertake a detailed analysis of all protected area networks
1 This chapter has been published in a peer-reviewed journal: Fitzsimons, J.A. and Wescott, G. (2004) The classification of lands managed for conservation: existing and proposed frameworks, with particular reference to Australia. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 477-486. (See Appendix 1).
19
and off-reserve nature conservation schemes, but the results of the case study in
Australia should be of interest in other jurisdictions.
2.2 Current international practice in the classification of
conservation lands
2.2.1 Worldwide classification of protected areas
2.2.1.1 IUCN Protected Area categorisation
Since the reservation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, and particularly since the
1960s, the number and type of protected areas has grown dramatically. Their purpose
for establishment often varied, as did their names and form of legislative backing. The
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas (now World Commission on
Protected Areas) of the IUCN, recognising the potential for confusion and a need for a
consistent and universally applicable terminology and standards, published its first
attempt at an international categorisation system for protected areas in 1978 (IUCN
2003a).
Between 1978 and 1994, the IUCN recognised ten categories of protected areas,
including natural World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves (IUCN 1978). These
two categories were not discrete management categories but international designations
generally overlain on other categories. Biosphere Reserves, in particular, usually
contain a series of management zones and different land-use categories with varying
management objectives, and thus were not included in the updated IUCN 1994
Protected Area Categorisation (Bridgewater & Walton 1996). Since 1994, six categories
of protected areas have been recognised by the IUCN and are distinguished by their
primary management objectives (IUCN 1994) (Table 1). Significantly, the IUCN (1994)
also addressed a major limitation of the previous classification by defining a ‘protected
area’ as:
“An area of land/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural
resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.”
20
Table 1. IUCN Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN 1994)
Category and Description Ia Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Area managed mainly for science.
Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or environmental monitoring.
Ib Wilderness Area: Protected Area managed mainly for wilderness protection. Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea, retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition.
II National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation. Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to (a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for this and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area; and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.
III Natural Monument: Protected Area managed for conservation of specific natural features. Area containing one or more specific natural or natural/cultural feature which is of outstanding value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or cultural significance.
IV Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected Area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention. Area of land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the requirements of specific species.
V Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected Areas managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation. Area of land, with coast and seas as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant aesthetic, cultural and/or ecological value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.
VI Managed Resource Protected Areas: Protected Area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. Area containing predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.
21
In theory, a protected area is designated to the IUCN classification which best reflects
its management aim, regardless of its legal title, within the jurisdictions. For example, a
small protected area reserved as a ‘national park’ may be more appropriately classed as
a Category III protected area.
2.2.1.2 Other international categorisations for conservation lands
Although the IUCN categorisation is recognised worldwide, alternate classifications
have developed independently for particular regions or purposes. For example,
DellaSala et al. (2001), in compiling a revised protected area database for the USA and
Canada, used protection codes described in the Scott et al. (1993) Gap Analysis
Program. The Scott et al. (1993) categorisation (updated by Crist et al. 1996 and Crist
2000) incorporates aspects such as ‘permanence of protection’, ‘amount of the land unit
managed for natural cover’, ‘inclusiveness of the management (i.e. single feature or
species versus all biota)’, and ‘type of management and degree that it is mandated
through legal and institutional arrangements’ in defining four distinct categories of
protection.
The Natura 2000 network of ecological reserves, currently being implemented by
Member States of the European Union comprises two types of areas: i) Special
Protection Areas (SPAs) designated directly under the Birds Directive (1979) and; ii)
Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) proposed by the Member States under the
Habitats Directive (1992) and then subjected to a community selection procedure. Each
Member State is responsible for the planning and implementation of its own network
and is free to choose the method and type of measures to be taken (e.g. statutory,
administrative or contractual) (Alphandéry & Fortier 2001, Hiedanpää 2002, Rémy &
Mougenot 2002, Dimitrakopoulos et al. 2004). Also in Europe, the MCPFE
Classification of Protected and Protective Forests and Other Wooded Land
incorporates the main management objectives with ‘restrictions to interventions’ in
defining five categories of protected forests and wooded lands (MCPFE 2001).
Importantly, MCPFE takes account of protected and protective forests and other
wooded land based on voluntary contributions without legal basis. Where possible, the
MCPFE categories are associated with the respective IUCN categories (MCPFE 2001).
22
In a comprehensive review of ‘private protected areas’ worldwide, Langholz and
Lassoie (2001) devised a typology of ten categories of such areas to reflect different
management objectives and purposes. Kneeland and Waide (1999) provide further
details on regional, national and sub-national classification systems in existence
worldwide.
2.2.2 Classification of conservation lands in Australia
Australia has a long history of protected area declaration and possesses an extensive and
diverse protected area system (Wescott 1991, Figgis 1999). Reporting of land managed
for conservation in Australia is mainly confined to public land which is considered to be
a ‘protected area’, as defined by the IUCN. In most instances this public land is reserved
under a specific Act of Parliament within the respective jurisdiction or by the
Commonwealth2. Australia has adopted the IUCN guidelines of protected area
classification in order to compare the more than 40 different terrestrial and 11 different
marine protected area categories currently in existence throughout the various
jurisdictions (Cresswell & Thomas 1997, Hardy 2001). The use of this categorisation
has been strongly advocated in Australia in order to allow comparison between the
various reserve types. However, it appears to be applied inconsistently throughout the
jurisdictions, particularly for reserves other than national parks and strict nature
reserves. Within Australia it is up to the jurisdictions, namely the environment
departments of the state and territory governments, to decide on the protected area status
of public land.
The development of protected area systems within Australia has been described
previously by Wescott (1991), Figgis (1999) and Worboys et al. (2001), and more
specifically at the State level by Wescott (1995), Pouliquen-Young (1997) and Bryan
(2002), amongst others. Since the early 1990s, there has been a more concerted effort to
2 Within Victoria, of the 2,523 Nature Conservation Reserves and Natural Features Reserves that are considered protected areas, only 1,159 (45.9%) are officially reserved for their intended purpose (C. Williams pers. comm. 2002). However, they are managed for biodiversity according to adopted recommendations of the Victorian Environment Assessment Council (and its predecessors, the Land Conservation Council and Environment Conservation Council) and are thus considered protected areas (WCPA Australia and New Zealand Region 2000). Furthermore, the Victorian protected area system, has up to six categories of land that consist of areas where there are specific additional declarations over land which is already reserved for a particular purpose (NRE 1996). These ‘overlay’ categories exist to allow or restrict particular uses within those protected areas (e.g. Reference Areas, Education Areas, Wilderness Zones). As occurred in a previous assessment of Victorian bioregional reservation levels (Fitzsimons 1999b), these zones have been incorporated into the underlying park or reserve for analysis in this thesis.
23
coordinate the development of protected area systems between Australian State and
Territory Governments, through national programs such as the National Reserve System
(NRS) Program3 and the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process4, and specifically to
establish a reserve system which samples ecosystems in a comprehensive, adequate and
representative (CAR) manner. The RFA process in particular, has seen the advent of a
number of new ‘reserve’ categories, often with less security or legal protection, in order
to meet specific targets for ecosystem reservation.
For example, in Victoria, a State which is considered to have a comparatively
comprehensive system of protected areas by Australian and world standards (Wescott
1995), approximately 95% of the newly ‘reserved’ area declared in the RFA process
since the mid-1990’s has been informal Special Protection Zones within State Forests.
These are not considered to be dedicated protected areas but are still considered to
contribute to the State and Commonwealth’s obligations to establish a loosely defined
‘CAR reserve system’. It is interesting to note that such designations appear not to
comply with the nationally agreed criteria used to guide the establishment of the forest
reserve system (JANIS 1997 p.7) which states that:
“All reasonable effort should be made to provide for biodiversity and old-
growth forest conservation and wilderness in the Dedicated Reserve system
on public land. However, where it is demonstrated that it is not possible or
practicable to meet the criteria in the Dedicated Reserve system, other
approaches will be required. For example, conservation zones in approved
forest management plans and covenants on private land that bind successors
in title could be used, in conjunction with Dedicated Reserves, to define the
CAR reserve system for a particular region.”
3The National Reserve System Program focuses on ensuring rapid and significant improvements in the terrestrial reserve system by seeking to add poorly reserved environments to the reserves system (Commonwealth of Australia 1999, NRMMC 2004). 4 An inter-governmental process seeking to end conflict in the use and management of Australian forests, by striking a balance between conservation (mainly through reserve declaration) and providing resource security for the sustainable harvesting of forest products. See Dargavel (1998), Horwitz & Calver (1998), Kirkpatrick (1998), Brown (2001, 2002) and Lane (2003) for detailed reviews of the process.
24
2.2.3 The treatment of private conservation lands within classification systems
It is now widely acknowledged that protected areas on public land will not conserve all
or even most biodiversity within a region, particularly within Australia, where 62.8% is
managed as private land (freehold and leasehold) and a further 14.3% as Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander land (Geoscience Australia 2003). Recognising this, targeted
conservation programs by governments and non-government organisations have seen a
dramatic increase in the number of private landholders protecting biodiversity on their
properties, land purchase for the creation of private nature reserves, and conservation
management agreements with indigenous landowners (e.g. Thackway & Olsson 1999,
Stephens 2001, Figgis 2004).
Although the IUCN categorisation is theoretically supposed to be assigned irrespective
of tenure, assigning IUCN categories to protected private land occurs rarely in Australia
and elsewhere. This is possibly due to the relatively recent emphasis on private land
conservation initiatives combined with concerns from public protected area planners
and conservationists about the long-term security of private conservation sites (e.g.
CEM 1999).
For the purposes of this analysis, protected areas in Australia were considered to be
those that are reported to the Commonwealth Government by the States and Territories
as part of the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database 2000 (CAPAD) (Hardy
2001). The limitations of this database are that almost all protected areas reported are
public land or Indigenous Protected Areas. Covenanting arrangements and the
contractual requirements for land purchased for conservation with funding from the
National Reserve System Program of the Commonwealth Government’s Natural
Heritage Trust5 by non-government organisations are such that they are considered
protected areas (B. Cummings pers. comm. 2002), but they are not being reported in the
recent versions of CAPAD (see Hardy 2001, Environment Australia 2002). However,
confusion still exists amongst policy makers. A recent Directions Statement for the
5 The NHT is a AUD$2.5 billion environmental policy initiative. Funds are allocated by the national government to Australian States and Territories, generating matching funds or in-kind resources for investing in biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management (see Crowley 2001, for a detailed review of the program).
25
National Reserve System (produced by all Australian jurisdictions and the
Commonwealth) suggested that a good example of a Private Protected Area was the
Naringaningalook Grassland Reserve in Victoria, as it had a permanent conservation
covenant attached to the title (NRMMC 2004). The reserve, owned by the Trust for
Nature (a body which both acquires land and facilitates covenants with individual
landowners), has no such covenant as the Trust is unable to sign a covenant with itself.
Furthermore, the Draft Australian Handbook for the Application of IUCN Protected
Area Categories gives examples of various Australian Protected Areas and their
appropriate IUCN Protected Area Category (WCPA Australia and New Zealand
Region, 2000). South Australian Heritage Agreements, legally-binding protective
agreements over private or leasehold land, are given as an example of a Category Ia
protected area in WCPA Australia and New Zealand Region (2000) yet this is not
recorded in Hardy (2001) (although they have been included in the latest CAPAD;
Environment Australia 2002). This highlights the lack of firm policy relating to
‘protected areas’ other than the usual publicly owned and managed reserves in
Australia.
2.3 A broader classification system for conservation lands
2.3.1 The need for a revised classification system for conservation lands
The IUCN protected area concept and categories are seen to be increasingly more
flexible in terms of their aims, definition, size and approaches to management (Dudley
& Stolton 1998). However, the IUCN (2003a,b) appear to have more recently
acknowledged the difficulties in “recognising community-based protected areas” within
their existing categorisation.
Despite this, land which is privately owned and managed for nature conservation under
a variety of protection mechanisms often lacks formal recognition under the IUCN
protected area categorisation, particularly in Australia (Fitzsimons & Wescott 2001). In
cases where some private conservation lands are considered to be a ‘protected area’ and
given an IUCN protected area category, others of a similar management intent and/or
protection mechanism are not (see Fitzsimons & Wescott 2002). This inconsistent
26
application affects the eligibility for inclusion in national reporting frameworks for
protected areas, such as the National Reserve System, and ultimately inhibits
conservation planning.
Within Australia the number and variety of private conservation mechanisms, and the
number of properties involved, has risen dramatically in all jurisdictions in the last
decade. This has often resulted in overlap and lack of coordination between programs
(see Curran 2000). Furthermore, agreements and mechanisms for biodiversity
conservation on lands owned or managed by other forms of government (such as local
councils), and for public land not primarily reserved or dedicated for biodiversity
conservation also are becoming increasingly utilised.
2.3.2 Developing a classification system for all conservation lands
A new classification system, based broadly on the IUCN protected area category
principles, is needed to adequately reflect and account for the variety of tenures,
protection mechanisms and management intent of conservation lands across the
landscape.
In this new system, the categories are deliberately broad to account for the variety of
different protected area types and private protection mechanisms (e.g. ANZECC
Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private Land 1996, Stoneham et al. 2000,
Productivity Commission 2001, Figgis 2004). These categories incorporate the varying
land tenure and protection mechanisms in Australia but they could also successfully be
applied in many regions worldwide. This classification will be referred to herein as the
Conservation Lands Classification system.
Unlike the IUCN categorisation, the proposed Conservation Lands Classification places
a greater emphasis on tenure and/or management of the land as well as the protection
mechanism. This is to account in part for the current lack of recognition or inconsistent
application of the term ‘protected area’ to private land as described previously, and to
incorporate lands managed for conservation that do not have a legally binding protective
agreement. Whilst legally secure protection of natural areas is perceived/considered to
be advantageous for long-term stability, discounting lands managed for nature
conservation with less binding mechanisms from national inventories and conservation
27
planning activities ignores important conservation efforts. The new classification also
recognises the real differences in terms of management requirements, ability and
responsibility that exist between owners/managers of these various land types. Not only
would such a classification system benefit conservation planners, but it would allow for
more informed public discussion on the current and future roles that the various
categories may have in a region.
In applying this classification, it is recognised that the intent to manage a particular site
for biodiversity conservation is the key (as for the IUCN protected area categorisation)
and it does not represent a comment on how well a particular area is actually managed
(see WCPA Australia and New Zealand Region 2000). Like the IUCN protected area
categories, the proposed classification does not suggest that existing onground
jurisdictional names or categories should be altered. The proposed classification of all
lands managed for the conservation of natural areas based on tenure and protection
mechanisms is presented in Fig. 4 and these categories are further described in Table 2.
An explanation/justification for allocating certain tenures or protection mechanisms in a
particular category of Table 2 is presented below:
• Separation of IUCN Protected Area Categories
IUCN Protected Area Categories V-VI are usually separated from categories I-IV
(referred to as highly protected reserves) for reporting processes as the former generally
involve greater intervention and modification (e.g. MacKinnon 1997, Pressey & Logan
1997, WWF 1998, Environment Australia 1999, Hardy 2001). Within Australia, and
particularly within developing countries category V is not extensively used (Phillips
1999, although this is changing for developing countries – see Phillips 2002), while
category VI usually allows for activities such as mining, hunting of game, or grazing by
non-indigenous species to continue at least until the protective status (and category) is
elevated.
28
←←←← Higher Strength of Protection Mechanism for Biodiversity Conservation
Lower →→→→
1.1 Highly Protected Areas
1.2 Less Protected Areas
Publ
ic
→→ →→
1.0 Public
Reserves
1.3 Other Reserves
2.1 Binding Agreements
2.0
Other Public Lands
2.2 Other/Non-binding Agrmts
Lan
d T
enur
e
3.0 Indigenous
Lands 3.1 Protected Indigenous Lands
4.1 Binding Agreements (Organisation)
4.2 Binding Agreements (Individual)
4.3 Non-binding Agreements
(Organisation)
←← ←←
Pr
ivat
e
4.0 Private Lands
4.4 Non-binding Agreements (Individual)
Figure 4. Relative security of protection mechanisms on land tenures in the Conservation Lands Classification. Shading indicates strength of protection mechanism on land type from high (dark shading) to low (light shading), while bar length indicates likely variation in the protection strengths depending on jurisdiction of implementation.
29
Table 2. Description and application of categories within the Conservation Lands Classification. Examples of onground tenure and protection mechanisms in south eastern Australia are in parenthesis. (Italicised abbreviations refer to jurisdictions where listed protection mechanism is present: NSW = New South Wales; SA = South Australia; VIC = Victoria).
Category name Description
1.0 Public Reserves
1.1 Highly Protected Area Protected areas on public land which are primarily focused towards nature conservation (i.e. Equivalent to IUCN Protected Area Categories Ia, Ib, II, III, IV). Many larger protected areas in Australia will often have a combination of Ia, Ib or II categories, according to internal zoning (e.g. Nature Reserves, National Parks).
1.2 Less Protected Area Separated from the above categories as per reporting for the Australian National Reserve System. Equivalent to IUCN categories V-VI. Usually allow some form of resource extraction (e.g. mining) or harvesting of wildlife (e.g. game species) (Protected Landscapes, Wildlife Reserves allowing hunting VIC, Regional Reserves SA).
1.3 Other Public Reserves Publicly managed land usually named a ‘reserve’ or ‘park’ and incorporating natural features but may have a stronger recreation, historical or potential extraction focus OR not considered to have stronger enough protection mechanisms to be considered an IUCN protected area (Regional Park, Highway Park VIC, some Forest Reserves SA). This category also includes reserves owned and managed by Local Government for conservation purposes.
2.0 Other Public Land 2.1 Other Crown Lands -
Binding conservation agreement
Public land with a primary purpose unrelated to nature conservation but managed sympathetically for nature conservation with a legally binding protection mechanism (Cemeteries or Travelling Stock Routes with a Voluntary Conservation Agreement NSW).
2.2 Other Crown Lands –Other/No Agreement
As above but without a legally binding mechanism. This includes mechanisms such as local government planning zones (Local Environment Plans (LEP) NSW).
3.0 Indigenous Land 3.1 Protected Indigenous
Lands
Land owned and managed by indigenous peoples with conservation as the (or one of the) primary aims.
30
Category name Description
4.0 Private Land 4.1 Private Land -
Organisation (Binding) Land owned by an organisation or land trust, usually with specific aims to manage conservation lands. The organisation may have been set up for the purpose under an Act of Parliament (thus the land is considered permanently protected) or the organisation (e.g. Australian Bush Heritage Fund) may have entered into a legally-binding agreement/covenant.
4.2 Private Land - Individual (Binding)
An individual, couple or family-owned property with a protective, conservation covenant on the title of the property or through a legally-binding agreement with a government agency (conservation covenants VIC, heritage agreements SA).
4.3 Private Land - Organisation (Non-binding)
As for 4.1 but lacking a binding protective agreement.
4.4 Private Land - Individual (Non-binding)
As for 4.2 but without a protective, legally-binding agreement. These could be statewide programs which require registration such as ‘Land for Wildlife’ (NSW, VIC). Private land included in a multi-tenure reserve network without any legally-binding agreement would fall within this category as the owners have agreed to the aims of the network.
31
• Indigenous Lands
Despite being allocated an IUCN protected area category in the Australian National
Reserve System (usually category V or VI), lands owned and managed by indigenous
people for conservation (namely Indigenous Protected Areas) have been given a
separate category in this instance as they form a distinct tenure type in Australia (Smyth
& Sutherland 1996, Thackway & Brunckhorst 1998, Bridgewater et al. 1999, Lee &
Szabo 2000), and are likely to do so elsewhere.
• Leasehold Lands
Pastoral leasehold land exists on around 44% (338 million hectares) of Australia’s
mainland area, mainly in arid and semi-arid areas and in tropical savannas (Productivity
Commission 2002). A pastoral lease is issued for a specified time, area, and purpose as
a contract between a State or Territory Government and a lessee, and provides lessees
with an exclusive right to conduct activities associated with pastoralism (mainly grazing
of livestock). While pastoral leasehold tenure provides a more restricted range of
property rights than freehold land, any activities not within the terms of a lease, such as
private nature conservation, are subject to government approval (Productivity
Commission 2002).
For the purpose of this classification system pastoral leases in general are considered to
be effectively ‘private land’ (as per land categorisation in Productivity Commission
2001, Geoscience Australia 2003). Exceptions to this rule are made depending on the
type of owner of the lease and intention of management. For example, within the last
decade a number of large leasehold properties have been purchased 1) by private land
purchase groups for the primary aim of nature conservation, 2) by State/Territory
governments to add to their protected area estate and, 3) by the Commonwealth
Government (through the Director of National Parks and Wildlife) to be managed
primarily for nature conservation but with some areas set aside for research into the
sustainable use of natural resources6.
6 In such cases an overall category chosen for the leasehold area would be based on the form of management applied to the largest proportion of the leasehold area as per WCPA Australia and New Zealand Region (2000).
32
The latter proves particularly difficult to classify as they could be considered de facto
protected areas due to their owner and management intent, but have no legislation
backing their designation as an area for nature conservation.
• Other Reserves
While there has been some attempt to standardise similar categories of reserves in some
jurisdictions (e.g. in Victoria, see LCC 1988), the commitment to establish a
comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, with minimum area criteria
for much of the forested regions (i.e. JANIS 1997), has seen the advent of a number of
new ‘reserve’ categories over the past decade. These have tended to be legislatively
weaker (e.g. Special Protection Zones in Victorian State Forests) or allow for activities
such as mining (e.g. State Conservation Areas in New South Wales). Neither of these
tenures are considered to be dedicated ‘protected areas’ under the IUCN definition yet
constitute part of a loosely defined CAR reserve system in Australia. The increasing
number and area covered by such land uses also highlights the limitations of the current
IUCN categorisation in Australia, and probably globally.
• Fixed-term agreements
More flexible agreements on private land, such as the BushTender Trial7 in Victoria,
also make the distinction between binding and non-binding agreements difficult. Under
the BushTender program, landowners receive payment from the Victorian Government
for managing biodiversity assets on their properties (Stoneham et al. 2003), by signing
three, six, ten year, or permanent, binding agreements. Similar medium-term
management agreements occur in New South Wales (Prober et al. 2001). Legal
enforceability and an articulated length of duration are both features that distinguish
binding and non-binding agreements.
7 BushTender is a program run by the State Government of Victoria which offers landholders the opportunity to receive payment for entering into agreements to provide management services that improve the quality or extent of native vegetation on their land. These services are based on management commitments over and above those required by current obligations and legislation. Landholders set their own price for the management services they are prepared to offer with this price forming the basis for their bid, which is compared with the bids from all other landholders participating in the process. Independent measures of biodiversity significance and likely habitat improvements are assessed with the bid to form a ‘Biodiversity Benefits Index’. The successful bids are those that offer the best value for money (Stoneham et al. 2003).
33
• Local Government Reserves
Although reserves owned and managed by Local Government for conservation purposes
are not strictly Crown Land (i.e. public land), they may be more accurately described as
‘freehold public open space’ and have thus been included in the ‘Other Public Reserves’
category.
• Local Government Planning Schemes
Zonings relating to protection of specific environmental assets within the local
government area occur in Planning Schemes administered by Local Government in
Australia. These include Local Environment Plans (LEPs) in NSW. Whilst these are
considered legally-binding plans identifying (and zoning) areas of environmental
significance, ‘protection’ of these areas is based on a restriction of uses that are not
compatible with the zones intent (usually vegetation clearance) (Cripps et al. 1999).
There is no requirement for the owner of that land to actively manage the natural feature
for conservation purposes. Likewise, Acts of Parliament dealing with vegetation
clearance (e.g. the NSW Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997) and endangered
species also focus on restriction of use to achieve their objectives. While a landholder
may not be able to clear a particular vegetation type due to its threatened status, the Acts
cannot prevent an owner allowing such values to passively degrade through
management such as over-grazing or due to lack of active management (e.g. whereby
environmental weeds are allowed to invade). Therefore private or other public land
covered only by an environmental protection zoning would not qualify as a ‘binding
agreement’ in this classification system.
• Other Private Land
Within some multi-tenure reserve networks, particularly Biosphere Reserves, some
components are managed principally for sustainable production or living, and have little
in the way of biodiversity assets. This land is usually under private ownership. While
this category is not included in the Conservation Lands Classification, it has been
allocated a category for the purpose of inclusiveness: ‘other land’.
34
2.4 The Conservation Lands Classification System: implications for
conservation
This chapter has outlined the current categorisation of conservation lands at an
international and Australian level, discussed the current limitations of the existing
models for conservation planning and proposed a new classification system to
incorporate all lands managed for nature conservation.
It is envisaged that the Conservation Lands Classification proposed above has the
potential to significantly improve the ability to measure current and future trends in
nature conservation across all land types, on a network (e.g. Biosphere Reserve),
regional and jurisdiction scale. With an increasing recognition that protected areas alone
will not be able to conserve all, or even most, biodiversity within a region, and that
conservation management on a landscape scale is likely to be essential, such a
classification system is timely.
The categories described in the Conservation Lands Classification are intended to
stimulate discussion on means of classifying and accounting for the ever-increasing
array of reserve classifications and private conservation mechanisms. It should be noted
that the inclusion of non-binding agreements within the classification does not imply
that such agreements should be given equal weight as strict protected areas when
meeting onground protection targets. The difficulties in assigning some protection
mechanisms within the classification system are recognised. However, such difficulties
are not unique to this broader system and are also evident in the existing IUCN
protected area classification (Kneeland & Waide 1999). Furthermore, as the use and
protection of natural areas can be critically linked to the form of tenure and rights held
over them (Kanowski et al. 1999), the classification’s applicability to countries where,
for example, customary rights predominate, also warrants further research.
Without an appropriate and inclusive classification system for public and private
conservation lands, conservation planning and priority setting are likely to be hindered.
Ultimately, it is hoped that such a classification system improves conservation planning
and biodiversity conservation for which such mechanisms are intended.
35
CHAPTER 3
History and Attributes of Selected Australian Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
3.1 Introduction8
To maintain current levels of biodiversity, it is widely recognised that conservation
efforts cannot be constrained to the public reserve system and that a landscape-scale
approach to management is required across all land tenures (Saunders 1990, Miller
1999, Hobbs 2002). Although little studied, land ownership is a significant determinant
of the types of conservation that take place in particular areas of the landscape, (Crow et
al. 1999, Lovett-Doust & Kuntz 2001). There has been much theoretical discussion
about the need for the integration of management across different land uses and tenures,
and particularly conservation lands. However, detailed analysis and comparison of
onground examples are rare. When this has occurred, it is usually of single networks
(e.g. Walker & Solecki 1999, Prober et al. 2001, Silori 2002). There has been an
increased interest in the multi-tenure approach to conservation in Australia, particularly
in the last decade, with a number of new networks established and many others in the
formative stages of development. Such models are characterised by Biosphere Reserves
(BR) and Conservation Management Networks (CMN).
Biosphere Reserves are primarily concerned with integrating biodiversity conservation
with ecologically sustainable development across a variety of land tenures and uses
(UNESCO 1995, Brunckhorst et al. 1997). The theoretical Biosphere Reserve model
revolves around a ‘core’ protected area managed primarily for nature conservation, a
‘buffer’ zone where activities that impact on the biodiversity of the core are minimised,
8 This chapter has been published in a peer-reviewed journal: Fitzsimons, J.A. and Wescott, G. (2005)History and attributes of selected Australian multi-tenure reserve networks. Australian Geographer 36,75-93. (See Appendix 2).
36
and a ‘transition’ zone where the sustainable use of natural resources is encouraged (see
Batisse 1993, Parker 1993, Brunckhorst et al. 1997).
A Conservation Management Network is a network of vegetation remnants managed for
conservation, their managers and other interested parties. The CMN model essentially
provides a coordinating or ‘umbrella’ body to help oversee the protection and
management of fragmented ecological communities across a range of tenures and with a
variety of protection mechanisms (Binning & Young 1997, Thiele & Prober 1999,
2000). The model was in part necessitated by a perceived lack of mechanisms to
quantify the contribution of the non-government sector to achieving nature conservation
objectives (Binning 2000).
3.2 Australian examples of multi-tenure reserve networks
Three networks were chosen as case studies for this research: the Bookmark Biosphere
Reserve (South Australia), the Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management
Network (New South Wales) and the Gippsland Plains Conservation Management
Network (Victoria) (see Fig. 5).
The selection of these networks was based, in part, on their stage of development; all
networks were established or had just become established at the commencement of this
research (late 1999). Furthermore, their location in three different States enabled greater
scope for investigating the role that various jurisdictions play in shaping the success and
management of such conservation networks.
The Fitzgerald River Biosphere Reserve in Western Australia was the only other
Australian Biosphere Reserve to have incorporated tenures other than the core public
protected area in 1999. However, as the inclusion of these other tenures was ‘notional’
rather than formally recognised as part of the Biosphere Reserve (Watson & Sanders
1997) it was not included in this analysis. A variety of other networks which aim to
integrate public and private conservation lands have been formed, or have come to
37
greater prominence since this research began. A summary of some of these networks is
presented in Table 3.
Bookmark BR
Gippsland Plains CMN
Grassy Box Woodlands
CMN
WA
NT
SA
QLD
NSW
VIC
TAS
ACT
N800 0 800 Kilometres
Figure 5. Location of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, Grassy Box WoodlandsCMN and Gippsland Plains CMN in Australia.
This chapter compares the history behind the formation and evolution of the Bookmark
BR, Gippsland Plains CMN and Grassy Box Woodlands CMN, with particular
emphasis on the tenure and protection mechanisms of components, and discusses the
implications for conservation planning and future networks.
38
Table 3. Some other multi-tenure reserve networks operating in AustraliaNetwork Name DescriptionFitzgerald RiverBiosphere Reserve
Located on the southern coast of Western Australia and based around thecore Fitzgerald River National Park which constitutes half of thebiosphere reserve’s ‘notional’ area of 1,355,000 ha (West 2001). Otherpublic protected areas, and vegetated and cleared private lands managedfor sustainable agricultural production make up the remainder (Watsonet al. 1995). The ‘Gondwana Link’ proposal plans to link the biospherereserve with other large protected areas in the landscape.
MorningtonPeninsula andWestern PortBiosphere Reserve
Australia’s newest Biosphere Reserve, declared by UNESCO in 2002.Located to the southeast of Melbourne, it claims to be the first BiosphereReserve to incorporate an urban area. Initiated by the community andlocal government, its core area is based around French Island andMornington Peninsula National Parks, with sustainable production andurban living likely to be its focus (Anon. 2002a).
SouthernTablelands GrassyEcosystems CMN,Monaro GrasslandsCMN
Based on the Grassy Box Woodland CMN model, the NSW NPWS hasrecently established two more CMNs (with assistance from World WideFund for Nature) in the southeast of the state to coordinate the protectionof remnants of the heavily cleared and fragmented grassy ecosystems ofthese regions.
Broken-BooseyCMN
Proposed by the former Victorian Environment Conservation Council(ECC 2000, 2001) and based around the recently declared Broken-Boosey State Park. Initiated by the Trust for Nature prior to thegovernments acceptance of the proposals and originally referred to as aBiodiversity Management Network (Edwards et al. 2002).
Northern PlainsGrasslands CMN
Formed by the Trust for Nature and based around the purchase of theKorrak Korrak and Glassons Grasslands by that organisation. Will focuson other Victorian Northern Plains grassland remnants on private land(Edwards et al. 2002)
Wedderburn-Wychitella CMN
Proposed by the ECC (2000, 2001) and based around the expanded, butfragmented, Wychitella Nature Conservation Reserve. Originallyreferred to as a Local Habitat Conservation Network. Significant areasof Box Ironbark and Mallee vegetation types on private land link blocksof the public reserve. A facilitator was appointed by the VictoriaDepartment of Sustainability & Environment (Garbutt 2002).
A number of other networks of similar habitats managed for a common purpose were outlinedat a National Workshop on Conservation Management Networks in 2001 (see Prober et al.2001 and case studies within, Bower & Parkes 2002, McLellan & Brown 2002 for a briefdescription of some of these). There has been renewed interest in the establishment ofBiosphere Reserves in Australia, particularly from local governments and communities, with anumber of proposals before the Department of the Environment and Heritage at December2002 (J. Muldoon pers. comm. 2002). In supporting the Mornington Peninsula and WesternPort BR, the Victorian Government placed an 18-month moratorium on new BiosphereReserve proposals (State of Victoria 2002). Interestingly, the proposed Barkindji BiosphereReserve in northwestern Victoria (Catherine Brown & Associates Pty Ltd 2002) gained thesupport and financial backing from the Commonwealth Government for its application toUNESCO (Stone 2003).
39
3.3 Methods
The analytical work in this chapter is both descriptive and interpretive. Historical
information on the formation and evolution of the networks was sourced from both
published and unpublished accounts.
Recognising that the networks are likely to continue to evolve, a point in time was
required to provide a ‘snapshot’ of network attributes for analysis. The location, tenure
and protection mechanisms for the embryonic Gippsland Plains CMN was collected
immediately after its official launch in February 2000, while data for the Grassy Box
Woodlands CMN were provided by the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service
(NPWS) in May 2000. Basic attribute data were again obtained for all networks in
January 2002 and allowed a comparison of changes in both the number and area of
components over that period.
As sites entering Bookmark BR required official registration with UNESCO, an entry
date for each component enabled a chronological timeline to be developed. As
component entry requirements for the CMNs were somewhat less formal, particularly
early in their formation, it was not feasible to construct a timeline. Thus comparisons
between network attributes in early 2000 and early 2002 are presented.
Geospatial datasets were either created from information provided by the network
coordinating body (Gippsland Plains and Grassy Box Woodlands) or supplied by the
network itself (Bookmark). Areas of individual components were calculated within a
geographic information system (ArcView GIS 3.3). Areas for the Grassy Box
Woodlands components were provided by the CMN.
Land tenure and protection categories used for comparison were based on those usually
applied by either the network coordinating bodies or by the jurisdiction of origin
(referred to here as ‘onground’ categories). This resulted in varying degrees of
separation of tenures and protection mechanisms between networks (e.g. ‘private land’
is a single category in the Grassy Box Woodlands, but was further delineated in
40
Bookmark BR and Gippsland Plains CMN based on the primary aim and/or protection
mechanism). The various tenure and protection types of network components were thus
standardised using the Conservation Lands Classification to compare the relative
contribution of various components to networks (see Appendix 3).
3.4 The formation and development of case study networks
Details on the formation and history of each of the three case study networks are
presented below. Greater detail and discussion on the governance arrangements of each
of the networks are presented in Chapter 7.
3.4.1 Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
The 253,000 ha Danggali Conservation Park was one of nine Australian protected areas
to be designated as a Biosphere Reserve under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere
Programme in 1977. At that stage, the Danggali Conservation Park had only been
recently declared (in 1975), with Commonwealth Government funds having been made
available to facilitate the purchase of four pastoral properties (DENR 1995). Located in
the northern part of the South Australian Murray-Mallee region and to the north of
Renmark, it adjoins the border of New South Wales (Figs 6 & 7).
As with the other Australian Biosphere Reserves, Danggali was restricted to the core
protected area until late 1993. The purchase of the 240,000 ha Calperum Station
pastoral lease (adjoining the southern boundary of Danggali), by the Commonwealth
Government, with support from the Chicago Zoological Society, heralded the formation
of the renamed Bookmark Biosphere Reserve. The purchase initially caused
“consternation amongst the local community”, with fears it would become an under-
funded and un-managed national park (Punturiero 2002 p. 6). Other public reserves,
both adjoining and nearby, were also included in the expanded Biosphere Reserve in
1993 (Figs 6 & 7).
41
New
Sou
th W
ales
Vic
tori
a
South Australia
Murray River
DB Mack NT
Cooltong CP
Mu
Murray River NP
Murray River NP
Murtho FR
Pike River CPMundic FR
Margret Dowling NT
PLSPLC
Moorook GRLoch Luna GR
PLS
PLC
Overland Corner NTCave Cliff NT
Cadell NT
PLC
Lyrup FR
Paringa Paddock LGRGoat Island LGR
Danggali CP
Chowilla RR
Calperum Station PL
Gluepot Station PL
Taylorville Station PL
Chowilla GR
Murray River NPBeldora Station POC
PLC
10 0 10 20 30 KilometresN
Bookmark BR components
Private - Sustainability
Private - Conservation
National Trust Reserve
Pastoral Leases
Game Reserve
Regional Reserve
Conservation Park
Local Government Reserve
Forest Reserve
National Park
Local Governments
Watercourses
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Note: Not all components labelled.Dataset source: SA Department of Environment & HeritageAbbreviations: CP (Conservation Park), FR (Forest Reserve), GR (Game Reserve), LGR (Local Government Reserve), NP (National Park), NT (National Trust Reserve), PL (Pastoral Lease), PLC (Private Land - Conservation), PLS (Private Land - Sustainability), RR (Regional Reserve)
Figure 6. Location of components in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve (as ofJanuary 2002).
42
Pike River CP
Media Island CP
Kapunda Island CP
VICSA
Herons Bend NT
Goat Island LGR
PLC
PLS
PLS
PLS
PLC
Bery Berry NT
PLS
Loveday NT
Woolmer NT
PLS
Memdelbuik NT
Magaret Dowling NT
RENMARK
LOXTON
BERRI
BARMERA
�
�
�
�
Murray River
Murray River
Mur
ray
R
Berri Barmera District Council
Renmark Paringa District Council
Taylorville Station Calperum Station
Cooltong CP
Murray River NP (Katarapko)
Beldora StationPLS
PLC
Murray River NP(Lyrup Flats)
Banrock Station
PLS
Lyrup FR
Moorook GR
Loch Luna GR
Loch Luna Ecostay
Overland Corner NTCave Cliff NT
PLS
Wilabangaloo NT
Murtho FR
Murray River NP (Bulyong Island)
Mundic FR
PLC
Chowilla GR
Paringa Paddock LGA
Rilli Island CP
PLC
Bookmark BR components
Private - Sustainability
Private - Conservation
National Trust Reserve
Pastoral Leases
Game Reserve
Regional Reserve
Conservation Park
Local Government Reserve
Forest Reserve
National Park
Local Governments
Watercourses
Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Note: Not all components labelled with idividual names due to privacy issues.Dataset source: SA Department of Environment & HeritageAbbreviations: CP (Conservation Park), FR (Forest Reserve), GR (Game Reserve), LGR (Local Government Reserve), NP (National Park), NT (National Trust Reserve), PL (Pastoral Lease), PLC (Private Land - Conservation), PLS (Private Land - Sustainability), RR (Regional Reserve) N
4 0 4 Kilometres
Figure 7. Location of components in the Riverland area of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve (as of January 2002).
43
The purchase of Gluepot Station by Birds Australia and its inclusion within the BR was
important in protecting a large area of long-unburnt mallee and populations of the
nationally endangered Black-eared Miner Manorina melanotis. This purchase
introduced a fourth national non-government organisation (NGO) to purchasing land for
the purpose of nature conservation (the others being Australian Bush Heritage Fund,
Australian Wildlife Conservancy and Earth Sanctuaries Ltd). The Commonwealth
furthered its involvement in Bookmark by purchasing the Taylorville Station pastoral
lease, consolidating Calperum and Gluepot (Figs 6 & 7). Much of the recent focus
within Bookmark BR has been on encouraging the development of production
industries (e.g. citrus production) which espouse the principles of environmentally
sustainable development (Brunckhorst 2001, Muldoon 2001).
Since the expansion of Danggali to Bookmark BR in 1993, both the total area and
number of individual components have increased, but patterns of growth have been
quite different (Fig. 8).
The major increases in total area were from the addition of three large pastoral leases;
Calperum Station (along with various public protected areas) to the expanded BR in
1993 (some 362,000 ha), Gluepot Station in 1997 (54,000 ha) and then Taylorville
Station in 1999 (94,000 ha). In contrast, while increases in the number of properties
were sporadic between 1993-1997, from 1997-1999 relatively high and steady increases
have occurred. This latter growth is mainly due to the participation of private
landowners and the inclusion of reserves owned by the National Trust of South
Australia, which together contributed over 90% of the total number of components
added since 1997. There were no additions to Bookmark BR between 2000 and 2002.
The number and area of components within ‘onground’ categories as at 2002 is
presented in Table 4.
44
Figure 8. Chronological development of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve sinceestablishment. Shaded area represents cumulative area in Biosphere Reserve, while single linerepresents cumulative number of sites. Major additions in area are annotated. Note area andnumber of sites do not include the two local government areas in the transition zone.
Table 4. Number, area and type of components within the Bookmark BiosphereReserve (as at January 2002)Component Type Number Area (ha)National Park 1 13,134Conservation Park 6 256,044Game Reserve 3 21,788Regional Reserve 1 75,148Forest Reserve 3 2,631Pastoral Leasehold* 3 394,188Local Government Reserve 2 167National Trust Reserve* 12 689Private Land (Conservation)* 8 5,153Private Land (Sustainability) 10 411Note: Some Private Land components have both conservation and sustainable use objectives:categorisation is based on the management objective for the majority of the property.* One of each has a Heritage Agreement on title.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000Ja
n-77
Jan-
78
Jan-
79
Jan-
80
Jan-
81
Jan-
82
Jan-
83
Jan-
84
Jan-
85
Jan-
86
Jan-
87
Jan-
88
Jan-
89
Jan-
90
Jan-
91
Jan-
92
Jan-
93
Jan-
94
Jan-
95
Jan-
96
Jan-
97
Jan-
98
Jan-
99
Date entered network
Cum
ulat
ive
Are
a (h
a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cum
ulat
ive
No.
of c
ompo
nent
s ..
Danggali Biosphere Reserve declaration
Expansion to Bookmark BR, addition of Calperum & NPWSA Reserves
Gluepot
Taylorville
45
The Bookmark Biosphere Trust (formerly the Murraylands Community Trust),
established under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, was
formed to manage the Biosphere Reserve and included representatives from key
stakeholder groups (Bookmark Biosphere Trust 1995, Milliken 1995). More recently a
community committee has been formed to oversee the reserve (Cottam 2003).
Two local government authorities in the region, Berri-Barmera and Renmark-Paringa,
are officially components of Bookmark as part of its ‘transition zone’ (Figs 6 & 7 and
Appendix 4 for zonation). The attributes of these areas as a whole have not been
included in the analysis of Bookmark in this thesis as residents of those councils have
not decided individually to become part of the biosphere, and it is probable that some, if
not many, residents would not know or necessarily be interested in the aims of the
network. Also, a number of properties, both public and private, which fall within these
local government areas, are separately registered as part of the Biosphere Reserve.
Further, councils within the ‘transition’ zones of the Biosphere Reserve are focussed
more on the sustainable use of natural resources rather than biodiversity conservation
which is the focus of this thesis.
3.4.2 Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Network
The Grassy White Box Woodlands once covered several million hectares of the inland
slopes of the Great Dividing Range stretching from northern Victoria, through New
South Wales, into southern Queensland. Located in what is now the wheat-sheep belt of
eastern Australia, the vegetation community has been largely cleared and degraded,
with only ~200 ha (0.01%) estimated to remain in near original condition in NSW
(Prober & Thiele 1993b). In an extensive range-wide study of the woodland’s history
(Prober & Thiele 1993b), floristics (Prober 1996), genetics (Prober & Brown 1994,
Prober et al. 1998) and management (Prober & Thiele 1995), it was found that often the
best quality remnants occur on non-reserved public land or on private land and that to
ensure the survival of the ecosystem in the long-term, these blocks needed to be
managed for conservation.
Recognising that acquisition of private land by government agencies would not be
appropriate in many situations for social, economic and management reasons, a more
46
flexible approach involving the application of various forms of protective instruments
under an umbrella body was developed – the Conservation Management Network (see
Prober & Thiele 1996, Thiele & Prober 1999, 2000, Prober et al. 2001, Thiele et al.
2002).
The ‘Grassy White Box Woodlands Protected Area Network’, as it was then known,
was established in September 1998, with funding from the National Reserve System
Program of the Commonwealth Government’s Natural Heritage Trust. The network was
to act as a model for the future integration of private lands into the National Reserve
System. The network changed its name in 1999 for two main reasons:
1) It was recognised that a number of other grassy box woodland vegetation types with
similar histories of clearance were in need of coordinated management and protection
and were thus included in the network (Prober et al. 2001); and
2) The term ‘Protected Area Network’ potentially conflicted with the IUCN (1994)
definition of ‘protected area’, and ‘Conservation Management Network’ was considered
to more accurately reflect the focus of the network.
The location of components in the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN is presented in Fig. 9,
and the change in the number and area from 2000 to 2002 is presented in Fig. 10.
The CMN’s initial focus was on protection of sites which contained the highest quality
remnants of Grassy White Box Woodland (Prober et al. 2001). As a result, cemeteries,
which often contained largely ungrazed remnants spared from agricultural use,
contributed the greatest number of individual components in both years comprising of
61% and 44% of all CMN components in 2000 and 2002, respectively. However, the
small size of such sites becomes apparent when considering that cemeteries comprised
only 5.2% of the total area protected in the network in 2002. The Tarcutta Hills Reserve,
owned and managed by the Australian Bush Heritage Fund, and a Private Protected
Area under the National Reserve System, is the largest single component in the
network, protecting some 430 ha. Whilst there was little change in the number of
components and their overall area between 2000 and 2002, a further 10 sites were
considered to be ‘under negotiation’ for addition in early 2002.
47
ÊÚÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
(L
(L(L
(L
(L
%
%
"G
$T
&V
'K
'K
'K
'K
'K
(F
$T
$T
$T
$T
%I'K
Victoria
New South Wales
Private
Private Winton Cemetery
Currabubula Cemetery
Wallabadah Cemetery
Leumeah Park, Willow Tree
Dunedoo District TSR sites
Wallabadah Common
Private
Stuart Town Cemetery
Wellington CavesBurrendong Arboretum
Geurie CemeteryBald Hill Reserve
Baldry CemeteryPrivate
Jenolan Caves ReserveWhite Bend Toogong Cemetery
Canowindra Cemetery
Woodstock Cemetery
Young TSR
Gerogery Common
Tarcutta Hills Reserve
North Berry Jerry Cemetery
Marrar Cemetery Muttama Cemetery
Stockingbingal Cemetery
Wallendbeen Cemetery
PrivateKoorawatha Cemetery
Narallen Rd, MurringoPrivate
Monteagle Cemetery
Bob Speer ReserveKoorowatha-Young line
Mt. Parnassus ReserveSouth Gundagai Cemetery
#
#
Sydney
Canberra
N
40 0 40 80 120 Kilometres
RoadsPrimary RoadsSecondary Roads
Grassy Box Woodlands CMN componentsÊÚ Cemetery% Common(F Public Protected Area$T Local Government Reserve&V Private Protected Area'K Private"G Rail Reserve%I Road Reserve(L Travelling Stock Route
Note: Not all components labelled individually due to issues of privacyDataset source: Grassy Box Woodlands CMN
Figure 9. Location and components of the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN (as ofJanuary 2002).
48
a)
b)
Figure 10. Development of the a) number and b) area (hectares) of components ofthe Grassy Box Woodlands CMN between 2000 and 2002. Component abbreviations:CEM (Cemeteries), TSR (Travelling Stock Routes), COM (Town Commons), PRI (Private Land), PPA(Private Protected Area), LGR (Local Government Reserve), PUB (Public Protected Area), ROAD (RoadReserve), RAIL (Rail Reserve). Categories adapted from Prober et al. (2001).
02468
1012141618
CE
M
PR
I
LGR
TSR
CO
M
RO
AD
PP
A
PU
B
RA
IL
Tenure and/or protection mechanism
No.
of c
ompo
nent
s.
Yr 2000
Yr 2002
050
100150200250300350400450500
CE
M
PR
I
LGR
TSR
CO
M
RO
AD
PP
A
PU
B
RA
IL
Tenure and/or protection mechanism
Are
a of
com
pone
nts
(ha)
. Yr 2000Yr 2002
49
3.4.3 Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network
The lowland Gippsland Plain (or Munro Plain) originally supported extensive
grasslands, grassy forests and woodlands, and riverine scrubland. Since European
colonisation in the 1840s, most indigenous vegetation has been cleared or modified, and
the original grassland ecosystems are now extinct (Lunt 1997a,b,c).
The fragmented nature and potential threats to the remaining remnants prompted the
formation of a ‘Perry River Protected Area Network’ by the Trust for Nature (Victoria)
in late 1999 (Edwards 1999; Appendix 5). The network was based on the Grassy Box
Woodland CMN model but applied a more geographic approach, focusing on remnants
around the Perry River and Providence Ponds Flora and Fauna Reserve, with particular
emphasis on Plains Grassy Woodlands (Foreman 2000). At that stage, the Trust had just
purchased two properties (the Bush Family Reserve and Frair’s Reserve) through the
National Reserve System Program which it was to own and manage, as well as signing a
number of new conservation covenants, the result of a targeted extension approach
(Edwards & Traill 2002).
Whilst initially there were no formal arrangements for the network’s structure, the
concept had broad support from local landholders and government agencies at the
regional level. At a workshop of stakeholders to advance the network in May 2001, it
was decided to expand its geographic focus to encompass much of the lowland
Gippsland Plain which once contained Forest Red Gum Plains Grassy Woodland. This
area stretched roughly from Bairnsdale in the east to Heyfield in the north down to Sale
and bordered by the Gippsland Lakes to the south (Fig. 11). Adoption of the ‘CMN’
moniker also occurred in May 2001.
Coordination arrangements for the network have evolved rapidly since formation. The
then Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment assumed much of the
coordination following the appointment of a native vegetation officer in the region in
mid-2001, and the formation of a steering committee including key stakeholders
followed soon after. The steering committee approach was formalised when the network
became an incorporated body with elected representatives and paid members. A ranger
was employed in 2002 specifically to coordinate adaptive management and research
trials within network components.
50
�
Sale
�
Bairnsdale
Gippsland Lakes (NFR)
Moormurng (NCR)
Providence Ponds (NCR)
Avon River (OPL)
Forge Creek (OPL)
Sale Common
NCR
Perry R
iver (OP
L) Frair TFNR
Private
Swallow Lagoon NCR
Covenant
Heyfield-Bairnsdale Railway (OPL)Briagolong SPZ
Stratford (NFR)
Saplings Morass (NCR)
Meerlieu I16 (NFR)
Fernbank NCR
Bairnsdale (NCR)
Bush Family TFNR
Toms C
reek (OP
L)
Covenant
Covenant
Covenant
Covenant
Covenant
Heyfield-Bairnsdale Railway (OPL)
Gippsland Lakes (NFR)
�
�
Covenant
Meerlieu I15 (NFR)
Priv.
Covenant
West Billabong
TFNRPrivate
Yeerung (NFR)
Lake Wellington
Lake Victoria
Covenant
Covenant
Gippsland Lakes (NFR)
Private
Private
N
Gippsland Plains CMN components
Nature Conservation Reserve
Natural Features Reserve
Special Protection Zone (State Forest)
Other Public Land
Trust for Nature Reserve
Conservation Covenant
Land for Wildlife
Private
Roads
Watercourses
Waterbodies
Note: Not all components labelled with idividual names due to privacy issues.Dataset source: Department of Sustainability & Environment, Trust for Nature, James Fitzsimons.Abbreviations: NCR (Nature Conservation Reserves), NFR (Natural Features Reserves), OPL (Other Public Land), SPZ (State Forest Special Protection Zone), TFNR (Trust for Nature Reserves). Component abbreviations in brackets are those that fall within the standardised public land categorisations of the LCC (1988) even though their official name is different.
3 0 3 6 Kilometres
Figure 11. Location of components in the Gippsland Plains CMN (as of January 2002).
51
Almost all protection types increased in the Gippsland Plains CMN between 2000 and
2002, in both number and total area protected (Fig. 12). Much of this increase,
particularly in public protected areas, can be attributed to the expansion of the
geographic scope of the network, although some increase was the result of strategic land
purchase in the region (Fitzsimons & Ashe 2003).
The one onground category which decreased was the ‘Revolving Fund’ properties.
These properties were donated to or purchased by the Trust for Nature specifically for
the purpose of ‘on-selling’ with an attached conservation covenant (see Fig. 13). The
status of these properties therefore changed and they were thus classified as
conservation covenants in the CMN in 2002. The increase in conservation covenants
and non-binding protection programs on private land is the result of both the geographic
expansion of the network and a number of new signings during that time.
52
a)
b)
Figure 12. Development of the a) number and b) area (ha) of components of theGippsland Plains CMN between 2000 and 2002. Component abbreviations: NCR (PublicProtected Area - Nature Conservation Reserves), NFR (Public Protected Area - Natural FeaturesReserves), OPL (Other Public Land), SPZ (State Forest Special Protection Zone), TFNR (Trust for Naturereserves), RF (Revolving Fund properties), COV (Conservation Covenants), PRI (Private land with non-binding agreements).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
COV NCR NFR PRI OPL TFNR RF SPZ
Tenure and/or protection mechanism
No.
of c
ompo
nent
s
Yr 2000Yr 2002
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
COV NCR NFR PRI OPL TFNR RF SPZ
Tenure and/or protection mechanism
Are
a of
com
pone
nts
(ha)
Yr 2000
Yr 2002
53
Figure 13. Land for sale at Fernbank as part of the Trust for Nature’s RevolvingFund program, February 2000. In 2002 the property was under private ownership with aconservation covenant attached to the title. Photo: J.A. Fitzsimons
3.4 Application of a standardised tenure and protection
classification
The variety of both public protected area categories and private land conservation
mechanisms currently in existence throughout Australian jurisdictions necessitates
comparison of conservation lands through a standardised categorisation. Components in
each of the networks were classified into the broad tenure and protection mechanism
categories of the Conservation Lands Classification (see Appendix 6 for assignment of
individual components to CLC categories).
Despite the three networks having a similar number of components, the total area
represented in the networks varied markedly (Table 5). Other reserves (category 1.3)
54
and private land with non-binding agreements owned by individuals or families
(category 4.4) contributed to a similar proportion of the total area of the three networks
(Fig. 14). Otherwise there were few similarities in the proportion of number and area of
components in categories between networks.
Public protected areas (categories 1.1 and 1.2) contributed approximately 90% of the
total area of Bookmark BR9 and 80% of the Gippsland Plains CMN, yet only 10% of
the area in the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN. Conversely, other public land without
agreement (category 2.2) contributed the greatest number of components in the Grassy
Box Woodlands CMN, yet this category was not represented in the other networks.
9 Calperum and Taylorville Stations, whilst not currently counted as IUCN protected areas (Hardy 2001,Environment Australia 2002), were included in category 1.1 for this analysis considering the owner of theleases (Commonwealth Director of National Parks) and that biodiversity conservation is the primary usefor the majority of the properties.
55
Table 5. Number and total area of components within networks classified under the Conservation Lands ClassificationNumber of components Total area of components (ha)
Category Bookmark GippslandPlains
Grassy BoxWoodlands
Bookmark GippslandPlains
Grassy BoxWoodlands
1.1 Public Protected Areas (High) 11 14 1 612,333 4,073 1361.2 Public Protected Areas (Less) 2 1 0 93,601 6,857 01.3 Other Public Reserves 5 6 5 2,799 1,294 1762.1 Crown Lands - Protective Agreement 0 1 8 0 310 762.2 Crown Lands - no agreement 0 0 18 0 0 2234.1 Private - Org. (Binding Agr.) 12 3 1 55,046 479 4324.2 Private - Individual (Binding Agr.) 1 14 2 151 588 1574.3 Private - Org. (Non-binding Agr.) 1 0 0 1,690 0 04.4 Private - Individual (Non-binding Agr.) 6 7 4 3,312 292 50Oth. Other 11 0 0 423 0 0
Total 49 46 39 769,355 13,893 1,250
56
a)
Figure 14. Proportion of a) number of components and b) total area protectedin networks at January 2002. Bookmark BR (BBR), Gippsland Plains CMN(GPCMN), Grassy Box Woodlands CMN (GBWCMN). Abbreviations: 1.1 = PublicProtected Areas (High), 1.2 = Public Protected Areas (Less), 1.3 = Other Public Reserves, 2.1 =Crown Lands – Protective Agreement, 2.2 = Crown Lands – no agreement, 4.1 = Private -Organisation (Binding Agreement), 4.2 = Private - Individual (Binding Agreement), 4.3 = Private -Organisation (Non-binding Agreement), 4.4 = Private - Individual (Non-binding Agreement), Oth. =Other.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Oth.
Conservation Land Category
% o
f tot
al a
rea
BBR
GPCMN
GBWCMN
Public Reserve Other Public Land Private Land
b)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Oth.
Conservation Land Category
% o
f tot
al c
ompo
nent
s
BBR
GPCMN
GBWCMN
Public Reserve Other Public Land Private Land
57
3.5 Implications for biodiversity conservationA number of studies have described the chronological development of public
protected area networks in various Australian jurisdictions (e.g. Wescott 1995,
Pouliquen-Young 1997, Bryan 2002, Mendel 2002, Mendel & Kirkpatrick 2002).
Recognising the motives behind particular declarations or phases of growth is
important to understanding existing reserve systems. Likewise, tracking the growth
(or decline) within multi-tenure reserve networks and understanding the reasons for
any changes is increasingly important to assist both the ecological and social fields
of conservation planning. Of particular interest is whether the networks act as a
‘stepping stone’ for private landholders to increase the level of protection on their
properties from non-binding to permanently binding agreements.
Constraints on the number and size of components and the total area within a
network are likely to be influenced by a number of interrelated factors. These include
historical factors such as the number and size of allotments (i.e. the degree of
subdivision), the tenure of those allotments and the amount of native vegetation or
other conservation assets remaining in a region; as well as contemporary factors such
as the aims and/or geographic constraints of the network and the willingness of
landholders to participate.
Formal transboundary (cross-jurisdictional) management partnerships for Australian
protected areas currently appear limited to the Australian Alps National Parks (ACT,
NSW and Victoria) and the Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia) World
Heritage Area (NSW and Queensland). Interestingly, there are conservation lands in
neighbouring states that adjoin, or are in close proximity to, both Bookmark BR and
the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN, but as yet are not part of those networks. In both
cases, inclusion of these areas would not only meet the aims of the respective
networks but also enhance them. The non-inclusion of inter-jurisdictional
conservation lands may suggest that while it may not be the policy of a network to
restrict their operations within state boundaries, existing administration, coordination
or financing arrangements by state nature conservation agencies could be placing
administrative boundaries on the area of operation. The proposed Barkindji
Biosphere Reserve, aims to coordinate public and private conservation lands in
58
northwestern Victoria and southwestern NSW (Catherine Brown & Associates Pty
Ltd 2002), and is likely the first example of a transboundary, multi-tenure reserve
network in Australia.
It is interesting to note that each network contained at least one relatively large
private reserve owned by an NGO. The involvement of the NGOs may act to
strengthen existing networks in two ways: 1) by increasing the profile of the network
and 2) by acting or being perceived as a respected and impartial land manager
linking public and private land managers. Furthermore, the purchase of land within a
region may also act as a stimulant for the formation of new networks. The
involvement of NGOs owning conservation lands is likely to increase if overseas
trends are followed in Australia.
To measure past and future progress towards national conservation objectives such
as achieving a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, date-
stamping of gazettal dates for public protected areas is increasingly important for
spatial datasets (Pressey et al. 2002). At a regional level, this is equally if not more
important for multi-tenure reserve networks, as the non-binding nature of some
private land agreements and the change in status of some components may make
such information difficult to gain retrospectively.
There is demonstrated growth in existing multi-tenure reserve networks and
widespread interest in the establishment of new networks. Multi-tenure reserve
networks are increasingly used as an onground means of implementing cross-tenure
ecosystem management in Australia. Considering this, continued research into both
physical and human dynamics and the evolution of such networks is likely to enable
a better understanding of their operation, and ultimately assist in better planning for
the conservation of biodiversity across the landscape. Modern conservation planning
increasingly requires analysis of reserve design (both at site and network level) as
well as assessments of the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of
the reserve system. These will be addressed in Chapters 4 and 5.
59
CHAPTER 4
Reserve Design and Landscape Connectivity in Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
4.1 Introduction
Habitat fragmentation in biological conservation is defined as natural habitat
becoming fragmented during economic development of a landscape with remaining
individual patches no longer being large enough for persistent populations (Opdam
2002). The concept of ‘habitat networks’ is born from the notion that habitats are
fragmented and thus require connectivity to allow for the movement of biota and to
enhance population survival probabilities (Hobbs 2002, Opdam 2002). Opdam (2002
p. 381) defines networks both physically (as a collection of spatially distinct patches
interconnected by linear elements) and functionally (a collection of patches linked by a
flow of biota). Bennett (1990, 1999) uses the terms ‘structural’ and ‘behavioural’ in a
similar context to describe potential connectivity.
The fragmentation of habitats is often the direct result of subdivision of the landscape
and frequently results in the fragmentation of landowners and tenures. Whilst physical
and functional connectivity may be essential in an ecological sense, the connection and
integration of tenures and managers of habitat remnants is of equal importance in a
practical conservation sense. One of the key reasons for forming a ‘network’ of
conservation lands is the desire to enhance connectivity – be it through physically
connecting separate parcels or remnants or through linking their managers and
management practices.
One of the overall aims of this thesis is to evaluate the role of multi-tenure reserve
networks in protecting biodiversity. The design (size, shape of individual conservation
areas) and spatial configuration of reserve networks are important determinants of how
successful individual areas and networks are likely to be at achieving this (Soulé &
60
Terborgh 1999). This chapter aims to assess the role of multi-tenure reserve networks
in improving reserve design and landscape linkages which ultimately influence the
likely success of nature conservation aims of the individual components. Specific
objectives are:
1) to determine the reserve configuration including the size and shape of components
within multi-tenure reserve networks and any differences between the tenure-
protection type of components in relation to reserve design;
2) to determine the level of physical connectivity and inter-component distance
between sites within the networks and between other lands managed for
conservation in the region;
3) to determine if aspects of reserve design and connectivity differ between multi-
tenure reserve networks and the public protected area system, and the implications
for biodiversity conservation.
A review of landscape mosaic concepts, particularly patch size, shape and connectivity
and the implications for reserve design, is presented in section 4.2 below.
4.2 Background
4.2.1 Reserve selection and design
The design of individual reserves and the design and selection of reserve networks has
undergone significant advancement from the early theoretical (e.g. Diamond 1975,
Game 1980) to more recent practical implementation (e.g. Pressey et al. 2002, Pence
et al. 2003).
As noted in chapter 1, the selection of protected areas in Australia has tended to be
opportunistic and ad hoc, favouring areas, environments and habitat types with the
least potential for extractive uses, particularly those suitable for agriculture. This has
resulted in a bias away from particular ecosystems occurring on fertile soils (Margules
1995, Pressey et al. 1996, Fitzsimons 1999b, Pressey & Taffs 2001b). The
development of sophisticated and automated gap analysis techniques and reserve
design algorithms have the potential to significantly improve on the effectiveness and
61
efficiency of reserve system establishment (Pigram & Sundell 1997, Pressey &
Cowling 2001, Margules et al. 2002, Cowling et al. 2003b, Siitonen et al. 2003,
Costello & Polasky 2004, Warman et al. 2004). Shafer (1990) and Prendergarst et al.
(1999) provide discussions on the differences between theory and practice in reserve
design and establishment.
Individual reserve design is important for a number of reasons. Soulé (1995) described
a number of broad principles which influence the viability of remnant habitat in a
fragmented environment, a number of which are directly measurable in the context of
this thesis. Broad principles include:
• The Area Effect: The number of species is directly proportional to the size of the
remnant, i.e. the larger the habitat patch, the more likely it will retain its native
biodiversity in the long-term.
• Edge Effects: Artificial edges in general are detrimental to native species diversity
thus minimising artificial edges and the processes that form them (such as road
creation) is preferable for the conservation of maximum native biodiversity.
• Distance Effects: As the distances between remnants increases due to
fragmentation, dispersal or migration of biota between remnants decreases.
The size and shape of a patch of habitat or conservation reserve (usually measured by
the ratio of edge to interior habitat) are often critical to biodiversity conservation
(Forman 1995) and to successfully achieving the aims of a protected area. Reserves
with long boundaries are more susceptible to impacts from surrounding land and
increase the time and cost of actively managing a reserve (Parks Victoria 2000). Kelly
& Rotenberry (1993) contend that boundary processes are of paramount importance
from the outset of natural area conservation planning.
A number of measures of patch shape have been proposed by conservation biologists
over the past few decades (see Forman 1995, particularly pp. 141-142) and can
provide information on the extent of human influence (O’Connor et al. 1999). In
particular, ‘shape metrics’ quantify the shape of patches, or reserves, either as area-
perimeter ratios or by relating shapes to standardised shapes (O’Connor et al. 1999).
Schonewald-Cox and Bayless (1986) believe that although commonly used geometric
62
relationships such as area-perimeter ratios are overly simplistic, they do point to some
‘useful observations’. Kelly and Rotenberry (1993) note that perimeter to area ratios
are not strictly ratios (which are dimensionless) but an index of the amount of
perimeter per unit area. They refer to this as the ‘relative edge’ and express it as metres
per hectare. A non-dimensionalised measure is the boundary length of the reserve or
reserve system compared with a circle of the same area. As a circle is the most
compact shape possible, its boundary length is the theoretical minimum (McDonnell et
al. 2002).
Despite this body of research a comprehensive list of reserve design measures is not
available for generic application (Pressey & Taffs 2001a). Pressey & Taffs (2001a)
suggest the one of main reasons for this is that some reserve design goals are often
specific to particular regions (e.g. Cowling et al. 1999), as are the pressures on
protected areas that determine the adequacy of their design. Secondly, there are strong
interactions between some aspects of design (e.g. size and adjacent land uses) that
affect the informativeness of any measure used alone. Thirdly, the metrics used for
most aspects of design are meaningful only when calibrated to the requirements of
particular organisms (Pressey & Taffs 2001a).
In attempting to identify an ecologically optimal shape for patches or reserves, it is
recognised that not all patches or reserves need to be that shape, and in many cases the
optimum shape depends on the purpose of the conservation action proposed. For
example, establishing reserves with circular shapes over linear streamside habitats
could be considered inefficient.
However, the luxury of choosing appropriate shapes and sizes of habitats for
conservation, without the influence of past tenure and management decisions rarely
presents itself. For example, remnant shapes in heavily cleared and highly fragmented
agricultural regions, are frequently square, rectangular or linear in shape. This has
resulted from the practices of the original surveyors whose subdivision decisions
generally favoured angular allotments in highly productive landscapes (Taylor 1987,
Forman 1995), often regardless of physical features such as wetlands. Such decisions
and resultant reserve shapes now influence the long-term health and viability of
particular ecosystems within reserves, such as wetlands (Fitzsimons & Robertson
63
2003, 2005). As these regions are often under-represented in reserve systems, future
reserve establishment, and therefore reserve design, is likely to be now already
determined by the constraints of the original fragmentation of habitat during early
surveys. Furthermore, optimal reserve design for private conservation lands is often
not a realistic consideration as the private individuals or owners of those sites may
have nominated their own (often relatively small) properties for conservation (e.g.
Burkhard & Newman 1996, Fitzsimons 1999a).
4.2.2 Landscape connectivity and inter-reserve distance
Landscape connectivity and linkages have been the focus of much recent research and
debate resulting from a desire by ecologists and conservation biologists to better
understand their importance for species movement and persistence, particularly in
fragmented landscapes (e.g. Hudson 1991, Saunders & Hobbs 1991, Forman 1995,
Saunders et al. 1995, Bennett 1999, Dobson et al. 1999).
Landscapes, and thus connectivity, are perceived differently by different species and
between communities (Bennett 1999). The difficulty in planning for this may in part
account for Briers’ (2002) belief that although the spatial location of reserves may be
critical for the long-term persistence of the species in the reserves (by allowing
dispersal between sites), such measures are rarely incorporated into reserve selection
procedures. Elsewhere, Shafer (2001) argues that decreasing distance between reserves
to facilitate migration may expose particular biota to extinction resulting from a
‘catastrophic’ event such as a fire or storm. Some authors have also questioned the
benefits of connectivity in reserve systems as it may increase susceptibility of reserves
to invaders, parasites and pathogens (e.g. Cumming 2002). Nonetheless, in highly
fragmented landscapes, where individual remnants are not large enough to support
populations of their constituent biota on their own, connectivity to other remnants may
be critical.
It is recognised that although measuring connectivity in the landscape is complex and
that simple metrics such as distance to ‘nearest neighbour’ do have limitations (e.g.
Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000, Moilanen & Hanski 2001, Goodwin & Fahrig 2002,
Moilanen & Nieminen 2002, McCarthy et al. 2004, and others), they still provide a
practical measure of assessing connectivity and landscape configuration, particularly
64
in a network context (see Parkes et al. 2004 for further discussion). Specifically, mean
‘nearest neighbour’ distance defines the average edge-to-edge distance between a
patch and its ‘nearest neighbour’ in the landscape (Hargis et al. 1998).
While there has been much written on various aspects of reserve design there has been
surprisingly little published on the various design attributes of existing public
protected area networks or private conservation estates (although see Burkhard &
Newman 1996). This chapter will both analyse aspects of reserve design and
connectivity in each of the multi-tenure reserve networks and compare such measures
with those in the public protected area estate at a subregional level.
4.3 Methods
A number of measures of reserve design and connectivity described in 4.2, in
particular reserve shape and inter-reserve distance, were used in order to compare and
assess the reserve design integrity of both individual network components and the
network as a whole.
4.3.1 Using a Geographic Information System as the platform for landscape and
reserve analysis
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are an automated set of tools designed to
capture, manipulate, and display data spatially. GIS has become an important tool for
nature conservation agencies in all Australian jurisdictions and throughout the world
for selecting, planning and managing conservation lands (e.g. Pressey et al. 1996,
Pigram & Sundell 1997, Wright & Tanimoto 1998, Egbert et al. 1999, Verissiomo et
al. 2002). Within Australia, use of GIS for conservation planning has traditionally
focused on reserve planning on public land. However, it is increasingly being applied
to landscape scale biodiversity planning projects (e.g. Pressey & Logan 1997, Scotts &
Drielsma 2003, Wilson & Lowe 2003).
The use of a GIS was considered to be the most appropriate medium for carrying out
the analysis due to the flexible and efficient way that desired datasets can be
65
overlayed. It also offered visual advantages by enabling the viewing of the datasets via
an image or map, as well as allowing for statistical analysis. One of the major
limitations of GIS analysis is that it is reliant on the availability of data in the desired
format and on the accuracy and currency of such datasets.
The ArcView GIS Version 3.3 program, developed by the Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), was used for this investigation due to both its
availability and compatibility with the datasets used to undertake this research.
4.3.2 Using a bioregional framework as the basis for analysis
Biogeographic regions (or bioregions) aim to capture the patterns of ecological
characteristics in the landscape or seascape, providing a natural framework for
recognising and responding to biodiversity values. As bioregions reflect underlying
environmental features, they can also be related to the patterns of use of land and sea
and thus they can be used to identify the relationships between many natural resource
based activities and biodiversity assets (State of Victoria 1997).
Inquiries by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment
Recreation and the Arts (HoRSCERA 1992, 1993) into the role of community-based
action and of protected areas systems in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem
function, recommended the adoption of a bioregional approach to assessment,
planning and management. The result was the development of a bioregional planning
framework encompassing all of Australia’s major ecosystems, the Interim
Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA). Developed and endorsed by all
agencies involved, IBRA provides the basis for identifying gaps in the NRS and is
used as the basis for setting priorities to fill these gaps, although it can also be used to
identify and prioritise for alternative conservation measures (Thackway & Cresswell
1995, 1997, Commonwealth of Australia 1999).
Eighty-five IBRA bioregions across Australia are currently recognised as part of
Version 5.1 while 354 subregions delineate the major geomorphic patterns within
IBRA 5.1 bioregions and provide greater resolution for analysing landscape
distribution (Environment Australia 2000; Morgan 2001). The subregional boundaries
66
used in this thesis were those used for the Landscape Health in Australia assessment
(Morgan 2001), and the interim nature of these boundaries for that particular project is
recognised. Victorian subregional boundaries follow the updated Victorian bioregions
of 2002 which included minor subregional boundary adjustments to the
aforementioned assessment (Morgan 2001).
In Australia, biogeographical regions have previously been used by Specht et al.
(1995) to assess the deficiencies in representation of plant communities in the reserve
system, by Lockwood et al. (1997) as the basis for a protected area selection procedure
and more recently by Morgan (2001) as the basis for assessing landscape health.
In order to determine whether aspects of reserve design and connectivity differed
between multi-tenure reserve networks and the public protected area estate, these same
measures were applied to all public protected areas in the subregions in which the
respective multi-tenure reserve networks occurred. The IBRA bioregions and
subregions in which the networks occur is represented in Fig. 15 while Fig. 16
highlights the locality of these subregions in Australia. While some of the subregions
associated with Bookmark and the GBW crossed state borders, analysis is restricted to
the portion of those subregions occurring within the respective state (i.e. South
Australia and NSW respectively) (see Briggs 2001a for further discussion on this
issue).
67
Network IBRA Bioregion IBRA Subregion
Figure 15. IBRA V5.1 bioregions and subregions in which case study networksoccur.Note: A small area of Bookmark BR occurs in the Broken Hill Complex bioregion (BarrierRange Outwash subregion), two components of the Gippsland Plains CMN occur in the SouthEastern Highlands bioregion (Highlands-Southern Fall subregion) and one GBW CMNproperty occurs in the South Eastern Highlands bioregion (Orange subregion). Due to thesmall areas and quite different nature of these adjoining subregions, reserve design analysishas not been undertaken for the public protected area estate within these subregions.
BookmarkBR
GippslandPlainsCMN
GrassyBox
WoodlandsCMN
Murray-Darling Depression
Riverina
South East Coastal Plain
NSW South Western Slopes
Nandewar
Brigalow Belt South
South Olary Plains
Murray Mallee
Murray Scroll Belt
Gippsland Plain
Upper Slopes
Lower Slopes
Peel
Liverpool Plains
Talbragar Valley
68
Peel
Lower Slopes
Murray Mallee
Gippsland Plain
Talbragar Valley
Murray Scroll BeltSouth Olary Plain
Upper Slopes
Liverpool Plains
N
100 0 100 200 300 Kilometres
Subregions in which network components occur
Grassy Box Woodlands
Gippsland Plains
Bookmark
IBRA V5.1 Subregions
Jurisdictional boundaries
Figure 16. Location of IBRA bioregions and subregions in which networks occur.
69
4.3.3 Sources of data
As each Australian State or Territory is responsible for their own land and natural
resource management, each jurisdiction has developed their own geospatial datasets
according to their particular needs. Consequently, spatial layers vary in features
represented, extent, quality, scale, and completeness between jurisdictions (in this case
between New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria).
The sources of data used for reserve design and landscape analysis for each of the
networks are as follows (further information on the geospatial layers are provided in
Appendix 7):
4.3.3.1 Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network
Location information for components of the embryonic Perry River Protected Area
Network was collected from the Trust for Nature immediately after its launch
(February 2000) in the form of hardcopy mapping. The network components were
digitised as polygons based on a combination of existing cadastre, satellite imagery
and Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) spatial layers provided by the Victorian
Department of Natural Resources & Environment (NRE). CMN attributes were
updated in late December 2001 following discussions with the CMN coordinator.
Datasets for Public Land Management (which included public protected areas),
hydrology and roads were also provided by NRE.
4.3.3.2 Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network
Data on various attributes of components of the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN was
provided by NPWS at May 2000, including geographic coordinates (latitude and
longitude) of property location, size, protection mechanisms, vegetation types
protected and other features. Unfortunately, components of the CMN were not mapped
spatially as polygons and, due to unavailability of certain layers and the time and cost
involved in onground mapping using a Global Positioning System, it was not
considered feasible to map in more detail. However, the geographic coordinates
allowed the components to be captured as points in ArcView. CMN attributes were
updated in January 2002.
70
4.3.3.3 Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
Polygon data for Bookmark BR was provided by NPWSA, DEH in July 2000. This
layer was updated March 2002 when it was discovered that not all components had
been mapped. Public protected areas, hydrology, wetlands, and road layers were also
provided by the NPWSA, while Planning SA provided Heritage Agreement
boundaries.
4.3.3.4 General datasets
A number of continental datasets including IBRA V5.1 (and associated subregions
identified in Morgan 2001), roads, hydrology and jurisdictional boundaries were
sourced from Environment Australia and Geoscience Australia.
4.3.3.5 Time of analysis
While recognising that the networks are likely to continue to evolve, a point in time
was required to provide a ‘snapshot’ of network attributes and to allow subsequent
analysis to take place. Thus analysis in this chapter is based on attribute data for all
networks as at January 2002.
4.3.4 Measurements of reserve design
All of the geospatial datasets were converted to Universal Transverse Mercator (AGD
66) prior to area and distance calculations being undertaken.
Calculations of area (hectares) and perimeter (kilometres) for each of the network
components and public reserves within the bioregions were made in ArcView GIS 3.3
using ‘X-Tools’ extension. A non-dimensionalised ratio of boundary length to the
theoretical minimum was calculated for network components and public reserves
using the McDonnell et al. (2002) formula:
The calculation requires that length and area use a common unit of measure, thus area
was converted to km2 and was applied to both individual network components and
public protected areas within the subregions. The formula was also applied to the
network as a whole as if it were considered a single reserve with no internal tenure
71
boundaries. This involved merging all adjoining components and calculation to the
resultant ‘total area’ and ‘total boundary’. The mapping of the GBWCMN as points
did not enable core:boundary ratios to be calculated.
The median was used as an indicator of the average property size as it is regarded as a
more ‘robust’ measure of centre than the mean, with outliers having little to no effect
on its value (Griffiths et al. 1998).
The ecological impacts of roads and tracks in natural areas has been subject to much
research internationally (e.g. Forman & Alexander 1998, Trombulak & Frissell 2000),
but less so in Australia (Donaldson & Bennett 2004). The differences in the type of
road or track are also likely to have different impacts for different species. For
example, although bitumen roads subject to heavy traffic could be formidable barriers
for some fauna species, the impact of dirt tracks in reserves may have little or no effect
(e.g. Recher 2002, Brock & Kelt 2004).
Further, internal tracks within areas of private bushland are much less likely to be
mapped, particularly if they are not visible from the air. Therefore, accurate
comparative analysis between the relative fragmentation of natural areas in public and
private bushland based on current datasets is not possible. Thus for the purposes of
this research, roads were only considered to fragment a natural area if the underlying
tenure (e.g. a road reservation) was different to that of the reserve.
4.3.5 Connectivity and inter-reserve distance
All calculations of inter-reserve or network component distance were measured
manually in ArcView GIS 3.3, with the exception of the GBWCMN. For each
component within the Bookmark and the Gippsland Plains networks, the distance (km)
between a component and its nearest neighbour was measured (specifically the nearest
boundary to nearest boundary). If separate components adjoined one another the
distance was 0 km. Calculation of distances between sites within the Grassy Box
Woodland CMN was undertaken by applying the script ‘calcdist’ within ArcView
GIS. Where distances between components for this network were relatively small (i.e.
less than 2 km) clarification was sought from the coordinating body as to whether
these components actually adjoined. Where it was confirmed that sites adjoined,
72
distance to nearest neighbour was allocated 0 km. The mapping of this network as
centroids would be expected to slightly increase the measured distance between
components compared to measurements if they were mapped as polygons. However,
due to the small size of components and greater geographic distribution in the
GBWCMN, the difference is inconsequential.
To enable comparison with the distribution of other conservation lands in the
landscape, medium nearest neighbour measures were also applied between network
components and public protected areas as well as between public protected areas at a
subregional level.
Within ArcView GIS, the length of each component boundary that adjoined the
boundary of another component was measured, as were the boundaries of those
components that were separated from each other by a linear feature10.
4.3.6 General mapping issues
In order to ensure that calculations of network component size were accurate to
acceptable levels, GIS outputs were cross-checked with published areas for public
reserves (e.g. Hardy 2000, respective management plans, or stated area within the
respective protected area legislation). In some instances, resultant areas for public
protected areas varied slightly from those listed in Hardy (2000), management plans or
other sources. This variance is the result of mapping scale and in these situations,
usually none of the aforementioned sources provided exactly the same area.
The perimeters and areas have been calculated using the best information available,
which is not always to the same scale (e.g. NPWS 2001b). The scale of mapping for
both the public protected area estate and the multi-tenure reserve networks are
provided in Appendix 7.
10 Linear features in this instance may include river or watercourse, roads, unused road reserves wherethey legally separate components or reserves but by a relatively small distance.
73
4.4 Results
4.4.1 Bioregional reservation levels
When combined, the three focus subregions that Bookmark BR fell within have a
similar level of reservation (9.02%) to that of the Gippsland Plains subregion (8.37%)
(Table 6). However, individual reservation levels of these three South Australian
subregions varied widely (0.59% of the Murray Mallee reserved; 19.76% of the
Murray Scroll Belt reserved). In contrast, less than 1% of the total GBWCMN
subregional area was reserved, with four subregions having less than 0.5% reserved.
Table 6. IBRA V5.1 subregional reservation levelsNetwork IBRA subregion Subregional
area (ha)Protected areasin subregion/s
(ha)
% ofsubregion/s
protected (ha)
Murray Scroll Belt 174,441 34,475 19.76South Olary Plain 1,894,390 331,155 17.48
Murray Mallee 2,120,749 12,497 0.59Bookmark
TOTAL 4,189,579 378,126 9.02
Gippsland Plain 1,248,550 104,482 8.37Gippsland PlainsTOTAL 1,248,550 104,482 8.37
Upper Slopes 4,054,528 79,307 1.96Lower Slopes 4,029,336 18,221 0.45
Talbragar Valley 205,358 853 0.42Peel 1,427,460 3,510 0.25
Liverpool Plains 940,190 1,429 0.15
Grassy BoxWoodlands
TOTAL 10,656,872 103,321 0.96
4.4.2 Component size and shape
Overall, the median size of Bookmark components (92.7 ha) was more than double
that of the Gippsland Plain CMN (38.9 ha) which in turn was substantially greater than
that of the GBWCMN (6.0 ha) (Table 7). Although median perimeters were also
longer on Bookmark components, the circularity indexes for Bookmark and the
GPCMN were the same (1.4). On average, public reserve components were larger than
private land components in all three networks. Interestingly, the circularity index was
74
higher in public reserves in Bookmark and GPCMN (1.5 each) than for private land
components of those networks (1.4 each) (Table 7).
As the majority of GBWCMN components were cemeteries or town commons it could
be assumed that the majority of sites within this network were mostly square or
rectangular. Due to the small size of many of the components within this network,
edge effects may penetrate across the whole of the remnant leaving few core areas,
regardless of the component’s shape.
Marked differences in average size and circularity index were recorded between
network components and public protected areas within the focus subregions (Table 8).
The public protected areas of the Bookmark and GBW subregions were relatively
fewer in number but larger in size when compared to those of the Gippsland Plain.
Furthermore, network components were on average much smaller than protected areas
around Bookmark BR and GBWCMN, whereas the GPCMN components were larger.
Although the average circularity index of protected areas in the Gippsland Plain
subregion was lower than those surrounding Bookmark and GBW, this may in part be
due to the large number of small reserves (usually Bushland Reserves) and the
relatively coarser scale of mapping for protected areas in this subregion.
The majority of components in both Bookmark and Gippsland Plains networks
contained just one block11 (Table 9). While not directly measurable the majority of
GBW components are small parcels and would likely consist of a single block.
Smaller numbers were either split by linear features (e.g. the Providence Ponds Flora
and Fauna Reserve which is divided into three blocks separated by a highway and rail
reserves) or contained separate isolated components (e.g. the Katarapko, Bulyong and
Lyrup Flats sections of the Murray River National Park). In both cases, land separating
each of these components is not necessarily reserved or managed for nature
conservation and thus has the potential to inhibit the reserve acting as a single entity.
11 For the purpose of this thesis, a ‘block’ is defined as one of two or more separated parts of a singlecomponent or protected area.
75
Table 7. Median area, perimeter and circularity index of network componentsMedian size (ha) Median perimeter (km) Median circularity indexComponent Type
BBR GPCMN GBWCMN BBR GPCMN GBWCMN BBR GPCMN GBWCMN
1.1 Pub-PA-High 2,085.6 9.8 136.0 29.7 1.4 ? 1.6 1.2 ?
1.2 Pub-PA-Less 46,800.4 6,857.3 - 123.7 280.1 - 1.9 9.5 -
1.3 Pub-Other Res 102.6 211.2 20.0 9.3 33.9 ? 1.4 5.7 ?
1. Public Reserves 1,601.8 112.1 20.0 24.8 4.9 ? 1.5 1.5 ?
2.1 Pub-CL Agreement - 310.5 3.5 - 67.4 ? - 10.8 ?
2.2 Pub-CL No Agreement - - 4.3 - - ? - - ?
2. Other Public Land - 310.5 3.8 - 67.4 ? - 10.8 ?
4.1 Pri-Org-Bind 18.0 192.3 432.0 3.5 6.1 ? 1.7 1.4 ?
4.2 Pri-Ind-Bind 150.8 21.1 78.5 5.8 2.7 ? 1.3 1.3 ?
4.3 Pri-Org-Non-bind 1,689.7 - - 20.6 - - 1.4 - -
4.4 Pri-Ind-Non-bind 124.5 46.8 11.0 4.5 3.7 ? 1.4 1.4 ?
4. Private Land 32.3 29.8 12.0 4.9 3.2 ? 1.4 1.4 ?
Other 10.2 - - 1.8 - - 1.2 - -
Network Median 92.7 38.9 6.0 5.4 3.8 ? 1.4 1.4 ?
76
Table 8. Number and average size of network components and protected areasNetwork components Protected areas in subregionsNetwork
Num
ber
Med
ian
size
(ha)
Med
ian
circ
ular
ityin
dex
Num
ber
Med
ian
size
(ha)
*
Med
ian
circ
ular
ityin
dex
BBR 49 92.7 1.41 27 843.1 1.79GPCMN 46 38.9 1.42 184 11.2 1.36
GBWCMN 39 6.0 ? 38 1,121.2 1.92* In some cases, protected areas traversed subregional boundaries. So as to avoid creating artificialboundaries, the average size of the protected area includes the area both within and outside the focusbioregion.
Interestingly, the Gippsland Lakes Reserve consists of some 23 separated blocks within
the Gippsland Plains CMN and is the result of a Land Conservation Council (LCC
1983) recommendation to integrate the management of disparate blocks of public land
surrounding the Gippsland Lakes within a single reserve. It should be noted that the
parts of this reserve included within the network are only those on the northern and
western shores of the Gippsland Lakes (see Fig. 11).
Table 9. Number of legally separated or physically isolated blocks per componentNo. of blocksNetwork
1 2 3 4 5 7 23BBR 37 7 3 2 0 0 0GPCMN 33 7 3 0 1 1 1GBWCMN ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
4.4.3 Network connectivity
The spatial relationship of an individual network component to another component was
defined in one of three ways 1) adjoining (whereby the legal/physical boundary of a
component adjoins, in part, another component); 2) split from another nearby
component by a legally different linear feature which is not part of the network (e.g.
road reserve); and 3) isolated (does not adjoin another component, nor separated from
another component by a linear feature).
77
The majority of components in both the GBW and Gippsland Plains networks were
isolated from each other (84.6% and 54.3% respectively), while 36.7% of components
in Bookmark were isolated from each other (Fig. 17).
Bookmark had the equal greatest connectivity between components with 18 (36.7%)
sites physically adjoining other network sites and a further 13 (26.5%) separated by a
linear feature, most often by the Murray River (Fig. 18). Although the GPCMN also
had 18 components directly adjoining another (39.1%) (Fig. 19), only 3 (6.5%) were
separated by a linear feature. Conversely, only 6 sites (15.4%) in the Grassy Box
Woodlands CMN were adjoining another CMN component.
When considering both adjoining components and those only separated by linear
features together, this represented 63.3% of Bookmark components, 45.7% of
Gippsland Plains components, and 15.4% of GBW components (Fig. 17).
Figure 17. Level of connectivity and isolation amongst network components.
18 18
6
13
30
18
25
33
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Bookmark Gippsland Plains GBW
Network
No.
of c
ompo
nent
s
Adjoining
Split by linear feature
Isolated
78
Figure 18. The River Murray divides Murtho Forest Reserve (left) from thefloodplains of Calperum Station (right) – two components of the BookmarkBiosphere Reserve. Photo: J.A. Fitzsimons
Figure 19. Perry RiverPublic Land WaterFrontage Reserveadjoining the Ponds Flora& Fauna Reserve,Gippsland Plains CMN.Note contiguous vegetationstructure and no noticeablehuman-induced boundaries.Photo: J.A. Fitzsimons
79
Although the proportion of adjoining components was similar for Bookmark and
Gippsland Plains, the proportion of the total shared boundary length that these
adjoining components accounted for was notably different (i.e. 35.0% and 9.5%,
respectively) (Table 10). The majority of the 500 km of shared Bookmark boundaries
were between the large Gluepot, Taylorville, Calperum, Danggali, Chowilla Regional
Reserve and Chowilla Game Reserve components. Considering their size and the fact
that only six sites in the GBW adjoin, it is estimated that there would less than 10 km
of shared boundaries in this network. A further 105 km (7.4% of total boundary
length) and 38.6 km (5.1%) of boundaries were separated by linear features. Due to
most components of the GBWCMN being isolated from each other, there is likely to
be little difference between the ‘single reserve’ and total network circularity index.
Table 10. Proportion of shared boundaries within networksShared boundaries Legally separating
boundaries between orwithin reserves created by
linear features
Network Totalperimeter ofall separatecomponents
(km) Length(km)
% of totalboundary
Length(km)
% of totalboundary
BBR 1,428.0 500.0 35.0 105.0 7.4GPCMN 757.3 72.3 9.5 38.6 5.1GBWCMN ? ? ? 0 0
To further examine the spatial configuration of the network as a single entity,
circularity indexes were compared both with internal boundaries and without (Table
11). In both cases, circularity index was significantly higher in the GPCMN that BBR.
That the relative increase in the circularity index between a single-boundary reserve
and an internal-boundary reserve was greater in Bookmark (54.0%) compared to
GPCMN (10.6%) further highlights the influence of connectivity on network shape.
80
Table 11. Boundary length and circularity index of network considered as a‘single reserve’Network ‘Single reserve’
boundary (km)‘Single reserve’circularity index
Total circularityindex*
BBR 928.0 2.98 4.59GPCMN 685.0 16.39 18.12GBWCMN ? ? ?*The total circularity index represents the summed areas and summed boundaries of all components ofthe networks.
4.4.4 Inter-component distances within networks
For both BBR and GPCMN inter-component distances were lower on average than
distances between a network component and a public protected area, which in turn
were lower than average nearest neighbour distances between public protected areas in
the focus subregions (Table 12). In contrast, not only were the distances significantly
greater in the GBW but the opposite trend was evident.
It could be expected that public protected areas within their respective subregions
would be, on average, located further from their nearest neighbour than were network
components to themselves or public protected areas in Bookmark and the Gippsland
Plains. It is uncommon for different public protected areas to adjoin or be in very close
proximity to one another, particularly to those with the same reservation status or
management intent. Rather, when public land adjacent or near an existing public
reserve is upgraded it is usually added to the existing reserve. The GBWCMN focuses
on remnants of a specific vegetation community across its geographic range, where the
subregions in which it occurs are relatively poorly reserved (Table 6). This is likely to
have accounted for the greater nearest neighbour distances observed.
Table 12. Inter-component distances within networksMedian distance (km) to nearest neighbourNetwork
Component-component1
Component-publicprotected area2
Public protected area-public protected area
BBR 0.2 1.7 4.6GPCMN 0.2 1.3 1.5GBWCMN 18.9 18.5 14.51For separate components divided by linear features such as roads, watercourses or easements, thedistance to the nearest reserve were allocated a standard distance of 0.2km2Public protected areas either within or outside of the network
81
Although Table 8 provided average nearest neighbour distances for networks,
extremes in distances also provide an interesting comparative measure of network
configuration (Table 9). For each of the three measures presented in Table 13 (i.e.
furthest distance of a component to its nearest network neighbour, furthest distance of
a component to the nearest public protected area, and furthest distance between any
components in the respective networks), the distances of the Gippsland Plains were the
shortest while those of the GBW were the longest. Furthermore, Bookmark displayed
greater similarities to the Gippsland Plains network for each of the three distance
measures than it did to the GBW.
Table 13. Distance extremes within networksNetwork Furthest nearest
neighbour (km)Furthest to
nearest publicprotected area
(km)
Furthest networkcomponents apart
(km)
BBR 24.5 19.8 98.2GPCMN 7.7 7.6 70.1GBWCMN 99.7 50.4 795.8
In summary, Bookmark BR had the largest components and the highest connectivity
between components, whereas the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN had mainly small
components with low connectivity. The Gippsland Plains CMN fell between these two
extremes.
4.5 Discussion
4.5.1 Component size, shape and edge effects
4.5.1.1 Component size and shape
Despite the differences in the average size of private and public conservation lands,
the average shapes of such reserves were similar within networks. This reflects often
pre-determined square or rectangular boundaries which still characterise agricultural
and pastoral landscapes (Schonewald-Cox & Bayless 1986, Taylor 1987, Forman
1995). Interestingly, greater boundary:area ratios were evident in public protected
areas in the surrounding subregions, which may have resulted from the fragmentation
82
of protected areas by internal road reservations or protection of linear features such as
riparian corridors, as has occurred elsewhere (e.g. Burkhard & Newman 1996).
In terms of number of connected components, the Gippsland Plains CMN showed
greater similarities to Bookmark than it did the Grassy Box Woodland CMN.
However, the level of connectivity evident in the Gippsland Plains, specifically shared
boundary length, was minor when compared to that of Bookmark’s consolidated
network of conservation lands.
The impact of linear features which separate network components is likely to vary
according to the characteristics of the linear feature. Specifically, identifying both the
tenure and use of these features will determine whether a ‘hard’ edge is realised and
whether actions are required to ameliorate such affects. In some cases, these linear
features, such as main roads and highways, may be used for purposes generally
considered negative for biodiversity and they have little chance of being altered.
Where linear separators are natural features, such as rivers, consideration could be
given to including the feature either in an adjoining component, with formal
reservation for example, or as a separate component within the network. This option
could also apply where the linear feature is merely a legal designation with a benign
land use with no discernible break in natural habitat, for example unused road
reserves.
The average size for private conservation lands in GPCMN (29.8 ha) was relatively
high when compared to average sizes of private conservation properties in the South
East Coastal Plain IBRA region, of which the Gippsland Plain is a part (i.e. Trust for
Nature reserves 17.5 ha, Trust covenants 8.8 ha, and Land for Wildlife properties 3.5
ha (Fitzsimons & Wescott 2001).
The relatively small average area for land managed by private organisations under a
binding agreement in Bookmark is the result of a number of small properties being
managed by the SA National Trust. Heritage Agreements within the focus subregions
were on average 158.9 ha, whereas average areas for private conservation properties
within Bookmark were substantially lower at 32.3 ha.
83
Average sizes of Voluntary Conservation Agreements and Wildlife Refuges across
New South Wales were 68.7 ha and 2753.1 ha, respectively12 (Figgis 2004) compared
to an average of 12.0 ha for private conservation properties in the GBWCMN.
Overall, there appears to be no clear pattern relating to size of properties held with
binding agreements on private land and those with non-binding agreements.
Recognising that the minimum viable size of conservation reserves depends not only
upon the taxa in question but also on the absolute scale of the geographic region of
interest (Lynch 1987), the OCE (1991) considered remnants under 10 hectares to be
too small to be self-sustaining, to be almost invariably weedy, and to be structurally
different from the original vegetation in Victoria. In contrast to the OCE’s (1991)
assertion, Prober and Thiele (1995) found that the smallest remnants (<5 ha) of Grassy
White Box Woodlands (which occurred in ungrazed cemeteries) were the best
representation of the pre-European community across their range. Furthermore,
although the smaller remnants generally exhibited lower species richness, the flora of
grassy white box woodland remnants was also influenced by past land uses such as
grazing history and tree clearing (Prober & Thiele 1995). From a network perspective,
the smaller size of GBWCMN components is a result of both their broadscale
clearance and the strategy of targeting the desirable attributes of the highest quality,
and often the smallest, remnants first (Prober & Thiele 1995, Prober et al. 2001). As
only small remnants of such communities may remain, their protection is required to
meet reservation targets (see Chapter 5) regardless of size or considerations for reserve
design.
The majority of studies attempting to identify minimum or optimal sizes of remnants
in fragmented landscapes usually do so with a species or group of fauna in mind, with
most studies focussing on birds. Small and isolated patches of habitat generally
support fewer species of wildlife, and their populations tend to be more prone to
disturbance and extinction than those of larger patches (Bennett 1991). In particular,
Loyn (1987) and Ford and Barrett (1995) found that private land remnants under 10
12 Note these averages are mean figures derived from Figgis (2004) compared to medians used for theother states.
84
hectares were more susceptible to grazing pressure and Noisy Miner Manorina
melanocepala invasion, and supported lower densities of forest birds and higher
densities of farmland birds. Ford and Barrett (1995) also proposed that patches of 20
hectares or larger would be an achievable and worthwhile aim for conservation on
private properties. However, Fischer and Lindenmayer (2002) have more recently
found that a large proportion of a landscape’s avifaunal diversity utilise remnants
smaller than 10 ha.
Of increasing conservation focus is the plight of temperate woodland-dependent bird
species, many of which are recognised to be in decline across south eastern Australia
(Robinson & Traill 1996, Reid 1999, Traill & Duncan 2000). For many of these
species, patch size and/or habitat complexity (which is usually correlated with remnant
size) are often critical determinants of a species’ likely persistence in a patch (e.g.
Ford et al. 2001, Seddon et al. 2003a,b, Watson et al. 2003). Seddon et al. (2003b)
found that particular sedentary ‘decliner’ species with relatively large ranges did not
occur in remnants under 20 ha in size. Elsewhere, in a study of the conservation value
of small woodland remnants in the NSW South Western Slopes, Murphy (1999)
considered that remnants of 225 ha in size were too small to maintain viable
populations on their own. He suggested that maintenance of viable metapopulations of
disturbance-sensitive woodland fauna in ‘small’ remnants relies on their ability to
move between remnants. The distance between remnants and the nature of the
intervening matrix both influence the probability of successful movement (Murphy
1999).
Murphy (1999 p.79) believes that the “final test” of the conservation value of
woodland remnants in the NSW South West Slopes will be whether it can maintain its
current woodland-dependent fauna. This is a different criteria for success than that of
the GBWCMN, which aims to protect the remaining examples of specific Grassy Box
Woodland vegetation communities. This highlights both ecological and temporal
differences in goals and ultimately measures of success.
It should be noted that network components or public protected areas do not
necessarily represent the whole of a remnant of vegetation, and that adjoining
vegetation may make the patch larger. Nonetheless, the existence of vegetation
85
adjoining lands managed for conservation may lack sympathetic management and/or
protection and therefore may be vulnerable to threats from degradation or removal.
Thus while the current extent of a particular patch may be a biophysical reality, threats
from inappropriate management or clearing remain, without some form of protection
or active management.
4.5.1.2 Edge effects
The fragmentation of continuous habitat into smaller remnants subjects the edges of
these remnants to changes in light, wind, temperature and nutrient input (Saunders et
al. 1992). Ecological processes along these edges are often altered as a result, and can
often result in changes to both flora (e.g. Beer & Fox 2000) and fauna composition
(e.g. Ford et al. 2001). Although Bookmark Biosphere Reserve had the greatest
boundary length of all networks and the Grassy Box Woodland CMN had the smallest,
edge effect would be greater per unit area in the latter network due to the level of
fragmentation and thus isolation. Research indicates that the impact of edges varies
depending on the habitat and taxa involved. For example, studies on the impact of
inherent and induced edges on birds in the South Australian Murray Mallee found that
the occurrence of some mallee specialists generally decreased in abundance close to
induced edges (Luck et al. 1999a), while nest predation also increased towards
induced edges (Luck et al. 1999b). In the Gippsland Plain subregion, edges were
found to have more open-country bird species (Antos & White 2004). In contrast,
Seddon et al. (2003b) found no differences in species diversity between edge and
interior habitat in woodland remnants of central NSW.
It is important to note that not all edges of components were as a result of human
disturbance. For instance, the Rilli Island, Kapunda Island and Media Island
Conservation Parks, three small islands in the middle of the Murray River near Berri,
would have always had a naturally high edge:interior ratio. Further, the ‘edge’ created
by the Murray River between Calperum Station and Murtho Forest Reserve has
created a distinct habitat (i.e. the Chowilla wetlands; Roberts & Ludwig 1990).
86
4.5.2 Networks and surrounding conservation lands
4.5.2.1 Bioregional reservation levels and number of components
Each of the three networks occurred in regions where less than 10% of the total area
was reserved in protected areas. In the context of determining the contribution of a
network to conservation objectives the extent of reservation is important. Thackway
and Cresswell (1995) identified four levels of IBRA region reservation from which
priorities for future reservation could be assessed. Less than 1% of the combined focus
subregions for the GBW CMN was reserved (a low reservation status) and was thus
considered a high priority for increased reservation. In contrast Bookmark and
GPCMN occurred in subregions considered moderately-highly reserved (i.e. 5%-
<10%) (Thackway & Cresswell 1995). Whilst it recognised that percentages of regions
under formal protection do not account for biases in the types of habitats protected
(Pressey et al. 2002), it can provide a useful comparison between bioregions,
particularly when detailed vegetation mapping is lacking. Differences in reservation
levels between regions is often determined by the extent of the native vegetation
remaining, the extent of existing public land, and how proactive the jurisdiction has
been in establishing a reserve system. All three of these factors are usually linked to
the arability of the land and past patterns (temporal and spatial) or exploitation.
For both BBR and GPCMN, the average distance between network components and
public protected areas was less than the average distance between public protected
areas their respective subregions. Further, there were more individual network
components in both BBR and GBWCMN than individual public protected areas in
their respective subregions. Both measures highlight that land managed for
conservation outside of the public protected area estate not only exists between public
protected areas but has the potential to provide a stepping stone for mobile fauna.
Multi-tenure reserve networks thus have a potentially important role to play in
contributing to an assessment of the spatial extent of conservation lands throughout the
landscape.
87
4.6 Implications for conservation
4.6.1 Influence of network reserve design on other conservation planning projects
The usefulness of multi-tenure reserve networks as a mechanism to account for all
conservation lands in a defined area relies on its inclusiveness of those lands. The
implications of not including all conservation lands that adjoin or are near particular
networks are not just an issue of mapping. Ultimately, onground conservation
planning decisions may be affected if areas of useful protected habitat are not
included. For example, Kahrimanis et al. (2001), identified a number of ‘Key
Biodiversity Areas’ for the Murray-Darling Basin of South Australia, which included
‘Large Remnant Areas’ with significant potential for long-term retention of
biodiversity. The Bookmark Biosphere Complex was one such Large Remnant Area
and incorporated the ‘core zone’ of the Biosphere Reserve. Adjoining conservation
areas such as Pooginook Conservation Park and a number of Heritage Agreements,
which are not officially part of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, were not included in
this Large Remnant Area. Thus the area of protected habitat identified by the
Kahrimanis et al. (2001) ‘Large Remnant Area’ is an artificial construct based on an
assumption that Bookmark BR incorporated all conservation lands in the area and is
an underestimate of the true remnant area (see Figs 20 & 21).
This concept of scale in designing reserve networks, particularly those that incorporate
a number of land tenures and managers is likely to be particularly important (Saunders
1990, Brunckhorst et al. 1997). For example, although Hoctor et al. (2000) used
private preserves, such as land managed by The Nature Conservancy, as well as
existing public conservation land to assess priorities for future reserve design in
Florida, only reserves over 2,000 ha were included. Until recently, relatively little
private land of this size in Australia (with the exception of Indigenous Protected
Areas) is protected under either binding or non-binding management agreements
(Fitzsimons 1999a), although the increase in activity of NGO land-purchase
organisations has seen this change somewhat (Figgis 2003, 2004). In some Victorian
bioregions, reserves larger than 2,000 ha on any tenure are rare (Fitzsimons 1999b).
88
Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
Scotia Sanctuary (Private Protected Area)
Tarawi Nature Reserve
Pooginook Conservation
ParkHeritage
Agreements
Murray-Sunset National
Park
South Australia
New South Wales
Victoria
Neds Corner (Private Protected Area)
N20 0 20 40 Kilometres
Figure 20. Lands managed for conservation which surround BookmarkBiosphere Reserve (shaded grey) but not incorporate as part of the BiosphereReserve.
Figure 21. Pooginook Conservation Park near Waikerie, South Australia. Apublic reserve managed for biodiversity conservation and adjoining TaylorvilleStation, but not considered part of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve. Photo: J.A.Fitzsimons
89
Due to the fundamental role of multi-tenure reserve networks in coordinating
management of natural areas across tenures, planning needs to be undertaken at a scale
whereby individual property boundaries or areas of significant vegetation within those
boundaries can be identified.
4.6.2 Use of boundary:area analysis as a measure for reserve integrity: identified
limitations
As a result of this research and the findings presented above, a number of limitations
have been identified concerning the use of boundary:area ratios (and related measures
of reserve shape) in reserve analysis. Specifically:
a) the occurrence of multiple blocks within a single reserve (e.g. Murray River
National Park, Gippsland Lakes Reserve). This can affect estimates of average
reserve size and measures of connectivity, as each separate block is effectively a
separate reserve for ecological purposes.
b) adjoining reserves which are legally protected for the same purpose under the same
legislation, differing only in name and often the result of historical, political or
social reasons, and effectively resulting in artificial boundaries (e.g. adjoining
national parks in the forests along the Great Dividing Range of NSW, adjoining
conservation parks in the Ngarkat complex of SA).
c) the actual if not legal division of parts of a single reserve by linear features such as
roads, power easements etc. This might be significant for certain types of fauna or
flora. The difference the width or surface of a transport corridor may have on
biodiversity depends on the species in question and requires much finer scale
analysis.
d) the legal, but not actual separation of a reserve by a redundant linear designation
such as an unused road reserve. This inflates boundary length estimates.
Based on the above, boundary:area analysis for conservation lands may only be useful
if all of these limitations are considered. It is thus important that audits of reserve
90
design (e.g. Parks Victoria 2000, NPWS 2001b) explicitly state what has been
measured.
4.6.3 Network model as a predeterminate for reserve design?
In comparing aspects of connectivity between the networks, differences in the
conservation management network and biosphere reserve models need to be
considered. CMNs were primarily developed for fragmented ecosystems, whereas
biosphere reserves emphasised a zonation approach emanating from a core natural
area. Nonetheless, the similarities in connectivity measures between BBR and
GPCMN and the more recent shift to establish biosphere reserves in more fragmented
environments (e.g. Mornington Peninsula, Barkindji) suggests that the biophysical
characteristics of the landscape may not always be an appropriate indicator to
establishing a particular type of network.
In heavily cleared and highly fragmented landscapes, future attempts to enhance
landscape connectivity or increase the representativeness of the conservation estate, be
it through land purchase or conservation agreements on private land, the size and
shape will often continue to be predetermined by the boundaries reflected in the
agricultural land that surrounds them. As Briers (2002) contends, a trade-off between
connectivity and efficiency may be inevitable but the cost in efficiency may be justified
if it increases the likelihood of species persistence.
It is important to recognise that land located within the surrounding matrix, but not
technically within multi-tenure reserve networks, often has important natural values
such as remnant vegetation. These values can influence the viability of natural features
within the network, particularly in highly fragmented landscapes. However, as
components of multi-tenure reserve networks are explicitly managed for conservation
it is assumed that management practices and/or protection mechanisms will be more
favourable on such sites in both the short and long-term. Given that values are likely to
exist outside of the network at any one time, there are significant opportunities to
harness existing restoration or protection programs to strategically target areas which
best enhance existing network components.
91
This chapter has shown that network configuration varies considerably and that those
networks with generally larger parcels tend to be better connected. On average, public
land components were larger than private land components in all networks. Importantly
for two of the networks (Bookmark and Gippsland Plains), the average distance
between the nearest neighbouring component was significantly less than average
distances between public protected areas in the surrounding subregion. Thus these
multi-tenure reserve networks acted to enhance the existing public protected area estate
by increasing the potential linkages in the landscape and thus the viability of individual
public protected areas.
92
CHAPTER 5
Ecosystem Conservation in Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
�
5.1 Introduction
This chapter aims to analyse and evaluate the contribution that multi-tenure reserve
networks make to enhance the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of
the existing public protected area system.
To achieve this aim, an analysis of vegetation types (which will act as surrogates for
biodiversity assemblages) represented within networks will be undertaken in the
context of extent, threat and levels of protection of these vegetation types at a
subregional level.
5.2 Background
5.2.1 Biodiversity: measurements for conservation planning
The Convention on Biological Diversity defines biological diversity (biodiversity) as
“the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of
which they are part; this includes within species, between species and of ecosystems”
(Article 2). Adam (1998) suggests that the use of ‘includes’ rather than ‘comprises’
possibly indicates an intention to include other components if deemed appropriate,
while other authors suggest that four (e.g. Noss 1990, Scott et al. 1999), or five (e.g.
Soulé 1991) levels of biodiversity exist.
93
As it is not possible to identify and measure all components of biodiversity due to
constraints of time, resources and knowledge, surrogates of biodiversity are used for
conservation planning (Prendergast et al. 1999, Scott et al. 1999, Margules & Pressey
2000, Mac Nally et al. 2002). Most systematic conservation planning exercises have
chosen areas for protection on the basis of the occurrences of species (Margules &
Pressey 2000), however, habitat or vegetation types, or other environmental units are
increasingly used (Faith et al. 2001), particularly in Australia (see Section 5.2.4
below).
5.2.2 The use of threatened, umbrella or focal species in conservation planning
The protection of species, particularly those threatened with extinction, is a high
priority for those charged with biodiversity conservation. Certainly, the presence of a
large or breeding population of a species threatened with extinction on a particular site
elevates the importance of that site and, in some cases, is the reason for an area’s
protection. However, fauna distribution records are often biased towards presence on
reserves and other public land and are under-sampled on freehold land (NPWS 2001a),
both from formal surveys and incidental sightings, because of accessibility. A similar
situation is likely to exist for flora records. As access to private land is often restricted,
surveys for presence and population status are often difficult to conduct (Polasky &
Doremus 1998, Groves et al. 2000, Hermann et al. 2002).
The more recent development of predictive approaches to species presence across the
landscape, such as the focal species approach (e.g. Lambeck 1997, Bani et al. 2002,
Platt & Lowe 2002), requires sufficient knowledge of the ecology of the focal species
in question.
Due to all of these reasons, the presence of threatened species or focal species on a site
was not used as a measure of contribution to biodiversity conservation in this thesis.
5.2.3 The use of vegetation types or other ecosystem units as surrogates for
biodiversity
The most obvious and easily studied component of biodiversity in a terrestrial
environment is the vegetation (Seddon et al. 2002). The landscape scale mapping of
vegetation types or communities, derived from the interpretation of aerial photography
94
or satellite imagery combined with known occurrences on ground-truthed public land,
can be undertaken without gaining access to private property and is aided by the
ability to undertake roadside ground-truthing.
One potential disadvantage is that the use of aerial photography and satellite imaging
may not adequately define the presence of some ecosystems, particularly non-woody
vegetation such as native grasslands and grassy woodlands, from exotic pastures and
scattered trees (e.g. Fensham & Fairfax 2002, Fensham et al. 2003). This is
particularly problematic in temperate south eastern Australia where such communities
have been heavily cleared and modified and now occur as mostly small fragmented
remnants.
Australia lacks a consistent and detailed native vegetation categorisation or mapping
program (Sun et al. 1997, NLWRA 2001, Hnatiuk 2003). As part of the RFA process,
much of Australia’s forested eastern seaboard has been mapped. More recently, there
have been attempts to combine the existing jurisdictional mapping in the Australian
Native Vegetation Assessment 2001 (NLWRA 2001). Whilst this was an important
step towards continental ecosystem management the limitations of the existing
jurisdictional mapping remain, while the coarseness of the classification limits its
usefulness for fine–scale conservation planning. As with any classification system, the
scale of the mapping is important and bioregional planning requires vegetation
communities to be mapped at 1:100,000 or 1:250,000 scales (NRMMC 2004).
Whilst vegetation types are a commonly used surrogate for biodiversity, there are
acknowledged limitations. For example, Mac Nally et al. (2002) found that although
vegetation types may represent distinct floral differences, they did not necessarily
reflect distinct faunal assemblages. Nonetheless, Mac Nally et al. (2002 p. 910) stated
that “this may not necessarily invalidate” higher-order units such as vegetation type
classifications as those taxa not necessarily conforming to the units may be targeted
through more taxa specific plans.
95
5.2.4 Frameworks for measuring and conserving biodiversity in Australia
Formal recognition of the need to establish a Comprehensive, Adequate and
Representative (CAR)13 system of ecologically viable terrestrial protected areas was
given by all Australian jurisdictions when signing the National Forest Policy
Statement (Commonwealth of Australia 1992) and the National Strategy for the
Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (Commonwealth of Australia 1996).
Two complementary processes have been developed to achieve this goal - the National
Reserve System (NRS) Program and the Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) process.
One of the key components of the RFA process was the development of a Nationally
Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a CAR Reserve System for Forests in
Australia by a Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement
Implementation Subcommittee (JANIS). The JANIS criteria required 15% of the pre-
European distribution of each forest type to be represented in the reserve system. In
those cases where it is not possible to achieve this criterion due to past clearing,
vulnerable and rare/endangered ecosystems are to have at least 60% and 100% of their
remaining extent reserved, respectively. Special consideration for old-growth and
wilderness areas are also addressed, while the need for a range of off-reserve
biodiversity protection measures is also recognised (JANIS 1997). The RFAs aim to
meet these quantitative targets for ecosystem reservation ‘where practical and
possible’, a qualification considered by some to severely compromise the scientific
credibility of the RFA process (Horwitz & Calver 1998, Kirkpatrick 1998, Brown
2002). The qualification was used to override conservation provisions in the
Tasmanian RFA, where for economic reasons, six vegetation communities did not
achieve the reservation target despite there being sufficient area on public land to
achieve this (Kirkpatrick 1998, Mendel & Kirkpatrick 2002). A similar situation
occurred in the West Victoria RFA where large areas of the endangered Plains Grassy
Woodland remained unreserved in State Forest (Commonwealth of Australia & State
of Victoria 2000).
13 Definitions adapted from NRMMC (2004) - Comprehensiveness: Inclusion of the full range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale within and across bioregions. Adequacy: The maintenance of the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities. Representativeness: The principle that those areas that are selected for inclusion in protected areas reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the ecosystems from which they derive.
96
Although drawn from a limited literature, the 15% target was based on best advice
from scientific experts (see Kirkpatrick 1999) and exceeds the targeted 10% protection
of current forest area set internationally (Kanowski et al. 1999). Others (e.g.
Freudenberger et al. 2000) believe that higher levels of reservation are required in
areas where clearing and degradation is greater.
The Australian Guidelines for Establishing the National Reserve System has
incorporated the principles espoused in the JANIS process where appropriate, but is
silent on the issues of reservation targets (Commonwealth of Australia 1999). In order
to establish a CAR reserve system to protect Australia’s biodiversity the NRS aims to
protect samples of all ecosystems “identified at an appropriate regional scale”
(Commonwealth of Australia 1999 p. 4). More recently, a draft ‘directions paper’ for
the NRS has proposed a different set of targets for achieving a CAR reserve system,
which does not include achieving a proportion of pre-1750 ecosystem distribution in
reserves (NRMMC 2004). Although the NRS has provision for the ecological
requirements of rare or threatened species or communities, it has mainly focused on
protecting samples of vegetation types (CEM 1999, Fitzsimons & Wescott 2002),
which are used as surrogates for biodiversity.
As Woinarski et al. (2000) have noted, there have been surprisingly few attempts at
scoring how individual reserves contribute to meeting the goals of CAR, nor how
close a reserve system comes to meeting these goals. Woinarski et al. (2000) propose
that a measure of ‘adequacy’ in the rangelands could be achieved by setting a
threshold, or range of thresholds, for individual ecosystem reservation in each
bioregion. The number of ecosystems reserved to the threshold(s) level (effectively a
per cent area of ecosystem occurrence), is then compared amongst bioregions and
jurisdictions. For particular ecosystems such as wetlands the proportion of individual
wetlands reserved is an important indicator of their viability (Fitzsimons & Robertson
2003, in press), and could be used as a measure of adequacy for that particular group
of habitats (i.e. the proportion of individual wetlands within a bioregion have their
area totally or only partially protected).
Privately managed conservation assets have an important role to play in protecting
values not sampled comprehensively, adequately or representatively in the public
97
protected area estate (Fitzsimons & Wescott 2001). Multi-tenure reserve networks
have potential to both coordinate and focus conservation measures outside of the
protected area system and to provide an auditing framework for such contributions.
5.3 Methods
5.3.1 Selecting and obtaining datasets for analysis
The spatial data provided and derived for networks described previously in Chapter 4
were also used in this analysis. Native vegetation layers were also sourced for the
focus bioregions from the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Victorian
Department of Sustainability & Environment and National Parks & Wildlife SA and
Planning SA, (current as of December 2001). As previously mentioned, each
jurisdiction has different vegetation classifications and different dataset availability
and thus are described separately:
5.3.1.1 Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
Native vegetation mapping in the South Australian Murray Mallee, South Olary Plains
and Western Murray Flats region had been completed at the floristic and general
structural level. Based on 1:40,000 colour aerial photographs for the Murray Mallee
and Western Murray Flats and 1:86,600 for the South Olary Plains (taken between
1985–1989), the Native Vegetation (Floristic) layer covers most of the focus
subregions around Bookmark.
However, neither floristic nor general structural vegetation data for the River Murray
riparian vegetation corridor were available at the time of analysis. Many of the smaller
components of Bookmark are located within this zone. Although a tree cover presence
or absence layer was obtained, after initial analysis it was considered that it did not
provide sufficient detail to allow comparison with the rest of the region. As much of
this riparian corridor contained non-treed waterbodies, they were unable to be
distinguished from surrounding cleared land under the existing classification system.
98
Description and digital mapping of the vegetation along Murray River corridor has
been previously undertaken by Margules and Partners Pty Ltd et al. (1990), from
below the Hume Dam to Lake Alexandrina (known as the River Murray Riparian
Vegetation layer). The study area boundary for that particular project was defined by
the outer extent of the contiguous riparian vegetation (Margules and Partners Pty Ltd
et al. 1990). The extent of this layer in the Murray Mallee broadly corresponded with
the sections of the riverine corridor not mapped in the Native Vegetation (Floristic)
layer. The scale and mapping units of the River Murray Riparian Vegetation layer
similar to those of structural classification of the Native Vegetation (Floristic) layer.
Approximately 12,000 ha of overlap occurred between the Native Vegetation
(Floristic) layer and the River Murray Riparian Vegetation layer along the fringes of
the two extents. So as to avoid duplication (and double-counting) of vegetation type
coverages, the more recently compiled Native Vegetation (Floristic) layer took
precedence over those sections of the River Murray Riparian Vegetation layer, which
were deleted where the layers overlapped.
5.3.1.2 Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network
Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) have been mapped and digitised for most of
Victoria by the Department of Sustainability & Environment (DSE) and its
predecessors and are used as the primary vegetation classification for the State. EVCs
represent combinations of floristic communities with structural, physiognomic and
floristic affinities that exist under a common regime of ecological processes within a
particular environment (Commonwealth and Victorian RFA Steering Committee 1996,
Woodgate et al. 1996, Parkes et al. 2003). In the Gippsland Plains region, they are
mapped at a scale of 1:25,000 from aerial photograph interpretation. The predicted
distribution of the EVCs prior to European settlement (pre-1750) has also been
modelled and mapped using information from existing remnant vegetation, climate,
altitude, landform and soils/geology (Oliver et al. 2002, Parkes et al. 2003). The
mapping of some ecosystems such as wetland types via the EVC classification is
variable throughout Victoria, but more consistent in Gippsland (Robertson &
Fitzsimons 2004).
99
5.3.1.3 Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network
A number of vegetation classifications and resultant datasets have been produced
across various areas of the NSW inland slopes. However, there remains a lack of
consistent mapping of vegetation throughout this region (Benson 1999, NPWS 2000,
2001a).
The Eastern Bushland Database was obtained from the NPWS as it was the single
most extensive layer across the inland slopes available at the time of analysis.
However initial analysis with this layer proved this database to be unsatisfactory, due
to scale and classification. Although 37% of sites were classified as ‘Remnant
Bushland’, 32% of sites were mapped as ‘Cleared’, 18% as ‘Severely Disturbed
Forest’, and 8% were not covered by the Database. Only for the CMN’s largest site
was the vegetation type beneath it mapped as ‘Woodlands’, while another was
‘Severely Disturbed Woodland’.
Finer scale vegetation layers currently only exist for localised areas (see NPWS 2000,
2001a, 2002 for an example of such mapping). Even where recent intensive mapping
and modelling of vegetation is occurring for similar vegetation within the NSW inland
slopes, different classifications are still be used (e.g. compare Austin et al. (2000) with
Seddon et al. (2002)).
Analysis for this network was thus based on vegetation information provided by the
coordinating body of the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN and previously published
information for the greater inland slopes region.
Dominant overstorey species and understorey structure was provided by the CMN,
while further information was gained from the Australian Heritage Commission for
sites listed on the Australian Register of the National Estate Database (AHC 2003).
The inconsistencies in vegetation classification between the networks (even within the
networks in the case of Bookmark) are recognised. Unfortunately, this is an historical
culmination of different classification systems used in different parts of Australia to
suit different purposes. Nonetheless, within the context of conservation planning, these
are the units that are actively used by the respective jurisdictions and thus allow intra-
100
jurisdictional comparisons and analysis within national reporting frameworks such as
the National Reserve System. Biodiversity datasets are always limited (Pressey &
Cowling 2001, Cowling et al. 2003b) and the layers described above constituted the
best available data.
5.3.2 Spatial analysis
Spatial analysis of vegetation distribution and protection for the Bookmark and
Gippsland Plains networks was undertaken within a GIS (ArcView GIS 3.3).
Specifically, layers for network components and public protected areas were overlayed
with the respective vegetation layers within the focus subregions. Those parts of the
vegetation layers occurring within the network were ‘clipped’ so as to derive new
polygons of vegetation within individual components or protected areas. The areas of
these vegetation units were subsequently calculated.
Resultant areas and presence of particular vegetation types were tabulated and grouped
according to Conservation Lands Categorisation described in Chapter 2 to assess the
contribution that various categories made to vegetation protection.
The lack of suitable vegetation layers for the subregions of this network precluded
subregional summaries of vegetation type occurrence for the Grassy Box Woodlands
CMN. The dominant overstorey species and understorey structure were used to
delineate vegetation occurrence and differences amongst components of this network.
5.4 Results
5.4.1 Subregional vegetation types and their representation in multi-tenure
reserve networks and public protected areas
Due to the varying scales, classification systems, and coverage of vegetation mapping
between the three jurisdictions, the number of vegetation units represented in
subregions, public protected areas and multi-tenure reserve networks allows for only
limited comparison between the three jurisdictions.
101
The clearance and/or modification of native vegetation has affected the Gippsland
Plain and the NSW inland slopes to a similar extent (21.5% and 20.7% of the original
vegetated extent remaining, respectively). In contrast, the subregions surrounding
Bookmark have nearly three times the proportion of original vegetation remaining
(57.0% of structural vegetation). This is due largely to the fertility of the soils and
suitability for agriculture (Table 14). The reservation levels of extant vegetation did
not necessarily follow this pattern with the proportion of the extant vegetation reserved
ranging from relatively high in the Gippsland Plain (36%) to low for inland slopes of
NSW (6.4%) (Table 14). Of the networks, Bookmark BR contained the highest
percentage of subregional vegetation (31.9%; structural) while GPCMN (4.0%) and
GBWCMN (0.1%) had substantially less. This is ultimately the result of a combination
of factors: size of the network as a whole, the geographic spread of the network across
subregions, as well as the amount of vegetation remaining. Interestingly, the
Bookmark BR protects more than twice the remaining native vegetation in the
subregions than do NPWSA public protected areas (Table 14).
5.4.2 Contribution of networks to ecosystem protection at the subregional scale
The subregional extent, reservation levels and network representation of vegetation
types occurring in the Bookmark BR and Gippsland Plains CMN are presented in
Tables 15, 16 (Bookmark BR) and 17 (Gippsland Plains CMN). The spatial
distribution of vegetation types is presented in Appendices 9 and 10 (Bookmark BR),
Appendix 11 (Gippsland Plains CMN) and Appendix 12 (Grassy Box Woodland
CMN).
102
Table 14. Number and area or vegetation types represented in subregions, public protected areas and networks
Focus subregions Public protected areas in subregions
Networks Network
No.
of e
xtan
t ve
geta
tion
units
Su
breg
iona
l are
a (h
a)
A
rea
of e
xtan
t ve
geta
tion
(ha)
% o
f sub
regi
on
mai
ntai
ning
ve
geta
tion
No.
of v
eget
atio
n un
its
Are
a of
ext
ant
vege
tatio
n un
its
(ha)
% o
f veg
etat
ion
in p
ublic
pr
otec
ted
area
s
No.
of v
eget
atio
n un
its
A
rea
of m
appe
d ve
geta
tion
(ha)
% o
f sub
regi
onal
ve
geta
tion
in
netw
orks
Structural
36* 4,189,579 2,391,294* 57.0 28* 375,678* 15.7* 23* 763,209* 31.9*
Bookmark
Floristic 75 N/A 2,310,644 N/A 22 345,650 15.0 14 717,646 31.1
Gippsland Plains 132 1,248,550 268,608 21.5
69 95,830 35.7 19 10,740 4.0
Grassy Box Woodlands
? 10,656,872 2,204,698+ 20.7
? 140,135+ 6.4+ ? 1,250
0.1
Note: 1) For Bookmark *= combination of Structural Vegetation Type and Murray River Vegetation Mapping layers (refer to Section 5.3.1 and see Appendix 8 for breakdown of Bookmark structural and floristic vegetation; 2) Does not include severely disturbed, cleared land, urban areas or other exotic vegetation types such as plantations or orchards; 3) + sourced from NLWRA Landscape Health in Australia (Morgan 2001).
103
The contribution Bookmark BR made to enhancing a CAR reserve system varied
depending on the vegetation type analysed (i.e. structural or floristic). For example, of
the 23 Structural Vegetation Types occurring in Bookmark, 13 had greater than 40% of
their subregional area within the Biosphere Reserve. Yet of these, six had greater than
40% representation in public protected areas and the remainder had greater than 20% in
public protected areas (Table 15). In contrast, of the 14 Floristic Vegetation Types
represented in Bookmark, eight had less than 2% of their current extent in public
protected areas at the subregional level. A further three had more than twice their area
represented in Bookmark than in public protected areas (see Fig. 22). Notably, the
Dodonaea viscosa ssp. angustissima, Eucalyptus cyanophylla/E. socialis, Eucalyptus
leptophylla/E. socialis, and Myoporum platycarpum communities, all virtually
unreserved in South Australian public protected areas, had 52 ha, 924 ha, 66 ha and 643
ha protected within Bookmark, respectively (Table 16).
Assessments of the contribution to the comprehensiveness, adequacy and
representativeness of the reserve system is limited without details on exactly how much
has been cleared. On the Gippsland Plains, the mapping of the pre-1750 distribution of
vegetation allowed a more detailed assessment of the contribution to CAR. Over 30%
of the endangered Plains Grassy Woodland remaining in the Gippsland Plain subregion
occurs within the CMN, while the network protects over 70% of the remaining
endangered Sandy Flood Scrub (Table 17). The former occurs mainly within Trust for
Nature Reserves and conservation covenants (see Fig. 23), while the latter was mainly
within public land water frontages. Of those vegetation types that had <100 ha in the
public protected area estate, most occurred along the edge of the subregion and only
small areas were represented within the CMN.
104
Table 15. The subregional area, reservation levels, and network area of Structural Vegetation Types for the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
St
ruct
ural
V
eget
atio
n Ty
pes
in B
ookm
ark
BR
*
E
xtan
t are
a in
fo
cus s
ubre
gion
s (h
a)
A
rea
in p
ublic
pr
otec
ted
area
s (h
a)
%
in p
ublic
pr
otec
ted
area
s
A
rea
in B
ookm
ark
BR
(ha)
%
in B
ookm
ark
BR
Low open shrubland 505,082 8,812 2 11,111 2 Low shrubland 708 0 0 52 7 Low very open shrubland 4,039 0 0 108 3 Low woodland 101,055 26,798 27 27,498 27 Open (tussock) grassland (with emergent shrubs)
14,957 3,101 21 6,693 45
Open mallee 1,141,990 290,108 25 658,762 58 Open shrubland 12,179 3,830 31 8,001 66 Open tussock grassland 52,062 0 0 14 0 Very low open woodland 285,879 7,587 3 7,097 2 Very open mallee 91,816 574 1 209 0 Black Box Mallee 9,567 4,836 51 6,305 66 Black Box Woodland 8,284 3,216 39 5,273 64 Chenopods 9,205 4,183 45 6,645 72 Cypress Pine 17 17 100 17 100 Dunes 751 225 30 455 61 Lignum 6,035 2,976 49 3,983 66 Mallee 5,605 796 14 1,577 28 Mallee Fringe Woodland 2,868 99 3 353 12 Open Plain Swamp 14,609 6,331 43 8,586 59 Redgum Forest 2,416 974 40 1,178 49 Redgum Woodland 7,265 2,745 38 3,994 55 Redgum/Box Forest & Woodland 468 280 60 341 73 Wetlands & Waterbodies 13,562 3,348 25 4,956 37 *Italicised vegetation types: River Murray Riparian Vegetation Mapping vegetation units (Margules and Partners Pty Ltd et al. 1990). Note: only those vegetation types with some representation in Bookmark displayed – full reservation levels for all vegetation types occurring in the subregions surrounding Bookmark are presented in Appendix 13.
105
Table 16. The subregional area and reservation levels of Floristic Vegetation Types occurring in the Bookmark BR
F
lori
stic
Veg
etat
ion
Type
s (Sc
ient
ific
Nam
e) in
Boo
kmar
k B
R
F
lori
stic
Veg
etat
ion
Type
s (C
omm
on
Nam
es) i
n B
ookm
ark
BR
E
xtan
t sub
regi
onal
ar
ea (h
a)
Are
a in
pub
lic
prot
ecte
d ar
eas (
ha)
% in
pub
lic p
rote
cted
ar
eas
A
rea
in B
ookm
ark
(ha)
% o
f ext
ant
subr
egio
nal
vege
tatio
n in
B
ookm
ark
BR
Acacia spp., Dodonaea spp., Senna artemisiodes, Eremophila spp.
Acacia spp., Hopbush spp., Punty Bush ssp., Eremophila spp.
12,179 3,830 31 8,001 66
Casuarina pauper Black Oak (Belah) 381,172 34,384 9 33,951 9 Dodonaea viscosa ssp. angustissima Narrow-leaf Hopbush 486 0 0 52 11 Eucalyptus cyanophylla, +/- E. socialis Blue-leaved Mallee, +/- Summer Red Mallee 6,456 2 0 924 14 Eucalyptus dumosa, E. socialis White Mallee, Summer Red Mallee 37,912 11,201 30 30,286 80 Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa Yorrell, Red Mallee 90,863 574 1 209 0 Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa, +/- E. socialis Yorrell, Red Mallee, +/- Summer Red Mallee 616,770 117,276 19 372,695 60 Eucalyptus leptophylla, E. socialis Narrow-leaved Red Mallee, Summer Red Mallee 15,124 0 0 66 0 Eucalyptus socialis, +/- E. oleosa Summer Red Mallee, +/- Red Mallee 374,892 158,017 42 254,792 68 Graminaea spp., Herb spp. Graminaea spp., Herb spp., 14,957 3,101 21 6,707 45 Lycium spp., Sclerostegia spp., Disphyma spp., Nitraria spp.
Boxthorn spp., Glasswort spp., Pigface spp., Nitrebush spp.
51,441 337 1 836 2
Maireana pyramidata Blackbush 100,330 1,446 1 3,832 4 Maireana sedifolia Pearl Bluebush 301,803 6,872 2 6,551 2 Myoporum platycarpum Sugarwood 1,362 1 0 643 47
Note: only those vegetation types with some representation in Bookmark displayed – full reservation levels for all vegetation types occurring in the subregions surrounding Bookmark are presented in Appendix 13.
106
Table 17. The subregional area and reservation levels of Ecological Vegetation Classes occurring in the Gippsland Plains CMN
E
colo
gica
l Veg
etat
ion
Cla
sses
in G
PCM
N
Pr
e-17
50 e
xten
t (ha
)*
C
urre
nt e
xten
t (ha
)
A
rea
in p
ublic
pro
tect
ed
area
s (ha
)
A
rea
in C
MN
(ha)
% o
f cur
rent
ext
ent i
n pu
blic
pro
tect
ed a
reas
% o
f pre
-175
0 ex
tent
in
publ
ic p
rote
cted
are
as
% o
f ext
ant s
ubre
gion
al
area
in G
PCM
N
Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic 10,514 8,756 5,193 9 59.3 49.4 0.1 Coastal Saltmarsh 11,111 9,732 6,299 64 64.7 56.7 0.7 Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland
53,699 16,122 8,744 1,911 54.2 16.3 11.9
Dry Valley Forest 315 67 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.8 Estuarine Wetland 7,851 15,375 8,075 2,840 52.5 102.9 18.5 Heathy Woodland 60,492 36,106 15,759 2,241 43.6 26.1 6.2 Limestone Box Forest 1,166 585 89 34 15.2 7.6 5.8 Lowland Forest 169,194 36,998 5,187 60 14.0 3.1 0.2 Lowland Herb-rich Forest 1,208 75 3 <1 4.2 0.3 0.1 Plains Grassy Woodland 151,008 4,850 897 1,515 18.5 0.6 31.2 Riparian Scrub 11,662 1,827 465 11 25.4 4.0 0.6 Sand Forest 0 2,257 393 559 17.4 - 24.8 Sand Heathland 14,597 12,349 10,826 22 87.7 74.2 0.2 Sandy Flood Scrub 2,447 397 138 280 34.8 5.6 70.4 Sedge Wetland 2,218 1,050 383 204 36.5 17.3 19.4 Shrubby Dry Forest 8 51 0 7 0.0 0.0 13.4 Swamp Scrub 163,391 7,983 1,652 3 20.7 1.0 0.0 Water Body (Natural/artificial)
27,441 47,157 10,750 434 22.8 39.2 0.9
Wetland Formation 1,289 6,821 2,120 546 31.1 164.5 8.0 * Note that some EVCs, particularly wetlands, have a greater area of extant vegetation mapped than that mapped for pre-1750 occurrence due to the vagaries of pre-1750 modelling for some ecosystems and/or wetland classification. Note: only those vegetation types with some representation in the Gippsland Plains CMN displayed – full reservation levels for all vegetation types occurring in the Gippsland Plain subregion are presented in Appendix 14.
107
Figure 22. Open mallee at Gluepot Station, Bookmark Biosphere Reserve. Photo: J.A. Fitzsimons
Figure 23. Plains Grassy Woodland at Swallow Lagoon Nature Conservation Reserve, Gippsland Plains CMN. Photo: J.A. Fitzsimons
108
5.4.3 Contribution of network components to ecosystem conservation
The area of vegetation types represented in network components (using the
Conservation Lands Classification) and the number of individual components in
which they occur are presented in Tables 18 and 19 (Bookmark BR), Table 20
(Gippsland Plains CMN) and Table 21 (Grassy Box Woodlands CMN).
Of the 23 structural vegetation types represented within Bookmark four occurred only
within private land components. Of these vegetation types, three occurred on one
component each, and one in three components (Table 18). Of the 14 floristic
vegetation types occurring in Bookmark, six occurred only within private conservation
lands (Table 19). Each of these vegetation types were represented on one component
each. Four vegetation types were represented only within private land components
owned by individuals with non-binding agreements.
Within the GPCMN Plains Grassy Woodland and Heathy Woodland were represented
in each CLC category, while Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodlands were represented in
all categories except for CLC 2.2 (Table 20). Notably, Plains Grassy Woodland
occurred in the greatest number of separate components (26) and was the fourth
highest protected EVC in terms of area (1,515 ha). Estuarine Wetlands had the highest
representation in terms of area (2,840 ha), mostly within the Gippsland Lakes Reserve.
No vegetation types represented within the GPCMN occurred solely on private land
components.
The majority of GBWCMN components (71.1%) had a White Box Eucalytus albens
overstorey (Fig. 24), while Yellow Box E. melliodora, Blakely’s Red Gum E. blakelyi
and Grey Box E. microcarpa were present on a fewer number of sites. Most
components also contained a grassy understorey (87%) (Table 21). Of those
overstorey species rarely recorded in the network Long-leaved Box E. goniocalyx, Red
Box E. polyanthemos, Snappy Gum E. rossii and Mugga Ironbark E. sideroxylon were
only present in the Tarcutta Hills Reserve (CLC 4.1).
109
A small number of sites had no overstorey species listed which may have resulted
from past removal (effectively forming a derived native grassland) or from a
vegetation type listed in which the overstorey species could not be ascertained (e.g.
‘Box-Ironbark’ which occurred in CLC 4.2).
Figure 24. Grassy White Box Woodland, Koorawatha Cemetery, Grassy Box Woodlands CMN. Photo: J.A. Fitzsimons
110
Table 18. Area of Structural Vegetation Types protected within Conservation Lands Categories and number of components protecting the vegetation type in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
Conservation Lands Classification Structural Vegetation Type Area (ha) No. of components
1.1 1.2 1.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Oth. TOTAL 1.1 1.2 1.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Oth. TOTAL
Low open shrubland 5,829 5,283 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,111 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Low shrubland 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Low very open shrubland 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Low woodland 23,996 3,307 0 0 0 0 643 0 27,947 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Open (tussock) grassland (with emergent shrubs) 3,919 2,691 0 80 0 0 3 0 6,693 5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 8
Open mallee 545,477 59,370 0 54,321 0 0 1,043 0 660,211 5 2 0 7 0 0 3 0 17 Open shrubland 4,761 3,039 0 0 0 0 200 0 8,001 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 Open tussock grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Very low open woodland 2,883 4,214 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,097 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Very open mallee 0 0 0 193 0 0 13 2 209 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 Black Box Mallee 2,892 2,944 323 4 5 98 39 0 6,305 5 1 5 3 1 1 2 0 18 Black Box Woodland 2,746 1,924 301 26 13 142 121 0 5,273 5 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 17 Chenopods 3,572 2,719 282 2 0 53 18 0 6,645 4 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 11 Cypress Pine 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dunes 225 165 22 0 0 40 4 0 455 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 7 Lignum 1,912 1,332 329 57 0 178 176 0 3,983 6 1 2 4 0 1 1 0 15 Mallee 773 31 0 70 0 525 178 0 1,577 3 1 0 4 0 1 2 0 11 Mallee Fringe Woodland 2 97 222 0 0 0 0 31 353 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 Open Plain Swamp 4,722 3,225 368 28 8 131 105 0 8,586 6 1 4 1 1 1 2 0 16 Redgum Forest 560 480 54 5 5 35 40 0 1,178 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 0 14 Redgum Woodland 2,404 1,012 366 57 16 118 18 2 3,994 6 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 18 Redgum/Box Forest & Woodland 228 112 1 0 0 0 0 0 341 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 5
Wetlands & Waterbodies 3,237 872 350 32 16 273 174 1 4,956 7 1 5 4 1 1 1 1 21 *Italicised vegetation types: River Murray Riparian Vegetation Mapping vegetation units (Margules and Partners Pty Ltd et al. 1990).
111
Table 19. Area of Floristic Vegetation Types protected within Conservation Lands Categories and number of components protecting the vegetation type in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
Conservation Lands Classification Area (ha) No. of components
Floristic Vegetation Type
1.1 1.2 1.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Oth. TOTAL 1.1 1.2 1.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Oth. TOTAL
Acacia spp., Dodonaea spp., Senna artemisiodes, Eremophila spp. 4,761 3,039 0 0 0 0 200 0 8,001 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
Casuarina pauper 26,430 7,521 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,951 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Dodonaea viscosa ssp. angustissima 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Eucalyptus cyanophylla, +/- E. socialis 0 0 0 5 0 0 919 0 924 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
Eucalyptus dumosa, E. socialis 24,484 2,782 0 3,019 0 0 0 0 30,286 5 2 0 5 0 0 2 0 14 Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa 0 0 0 193 0 0 13 2 209 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa, +/- E. socialis 295,499 40,677 0 36,396 0 0 124 0 372,695 5 2 0 5 0 0 2 0 14
Eucalyptus leptophylla, E. socialis 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Eucalyptus socialis, +/- E. oleosa 224,045 15,911 0 14,836 0 0 0 0 254,792 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 Graminaea spp., Herb spp., 3,919 2,691 0 80 0 0 17 0 6,707 5 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 9 Lycium spp., Sclerostegia spp., Disphyma spp., Nitraria spp. 728 0 0 108 0 0 0 0 836 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
Maireana pyramidata 2,351 1,481 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,832 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Maireana sedifolia 2,750 3,802 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,551 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Myoporum platycarpum 0 0 0 0 0 0 643 0 643 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
112
Table 20. Area of Ecological Vegetation Classes protected within Conservation Lands Categories and number of components protecting the vegetation type in the Gippsland Plain CMN
Conservation Lands Classification Area (ha) No. of components
Ecological Vegetation Class 1.1
1.2
1.3
2.2
4.1
4.2
4.4
TOTAL
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.2
4.1
4.2
4.4
TOTAL
Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Coastal Saltmarsh 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland 478 1,147 120 0 43 111 12 1,911 5 1 3 0 2 5 1 17 Dry Valley Forest 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Estuarine Wetland <1 2,779 53 0 0 8 0 2,840 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 6 Heathy Woodland 1,646 348 3 20 143 74 9 2,241 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 12 Limestone Box Forest 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lowland Forest 59 0 2 0 0 0 0 60 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Lowland Herb-rich Forest 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Plains Grassy Woodland 799 20 211 55 246 104 80 1,515 6 1 5 1 3 7 3 26 Riparian Scrub 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Sand Forest 364 0 0 0 0 61 134 559 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 7 Sand Heathland 15 6 0 0 0 1 0 22 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 Sandy Flood Scrub 117 0 160 1 0 0 1 280 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 5 Sedge Wetland 147 16 4 0 13 24 0 204 5 1 1 0 3 2 0 12 Shrubby Dry Forest 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Swamp Scrub 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Water Body - Natural or man made 0 345 89 0 0 0 <1 434 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 5 Wetland Formation 204 342 0 0 0 0 0 546 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
113
Table 21. Overstorey species and understorey structure represented in Grassy Box Woodlands CMN components
Conservation Lands Classification Overstorey species
No. of components* Common name Scientific name 1.3 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.4 Total
White Box Eucalytus albens 4 5 14 1 0 3 27 Yellow Box Eucalyptus melliodora 0 4 3 0 0 0 7 Blakely’s Red Gum Eucalyptus blakelyi 0 3 1 1 0 0 5 Grey Box Eucalytpus microcarpa 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 Cypress-pine Callitris sp. 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 Hickory Wattle Acacia implexa 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Kurrajong Brachychiton populneus 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Fuzzy Box Eucalyptus conica 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Long-leaved Box Eucalyptus goniocalyx 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Red Stringybark Eucalyptus macrorhyncha 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Red Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Snappy Gum Eucalyptus rossii 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Mugga Ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Understorey structure Grassy (incl. forbes) 4 8 16 1 1 4 34 Shrubby 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 Unknown (not listed) 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
*Note that some sites may have more than one dominant overstorey species or understorey structure combination.
5.5 Discussion
5.5.1 Relative contribution of networks and their components to biodiversity
conservation
Some ecosystems are more vulnerable to subsistence or extractive uses than others.
Thus, determining the relative protection of vulnerable ecosystems is an important
means of assessing the effectiveness of reserve systems (Pressey et al. 2002). As much
of the focus of current conservation programs for private land is driven by recognition
of the vulnerability of particular vegetation types, such measures are particularly
pertinent to multi-tenure reserve networks. The relative contribution of each of the
networks and their components to achieving the objectives of comprehensiveness,
representativeness and adequacy for the reserve system are discussed separately
below:
114
5.5.1.1 Bookmark BR
Although it may have been expected that the larger area protected within Bookmark
may have made it more likely to contribute to comprehensiveness and
representativeness than the other networks, this was not necessarily the case. Most
land to the north of the Murray riverine corridor is rangeland, and while the region
may have been degraded to some extent, it is largely uncleared. As there are a number
of large NPWSA reserves in this region, most vegetation types are represented to some
extent in the protected area system.
The large adjoining pastoral stations of Gluepot, Taylorville, Danggali, Calperum and
Chowilla contributed to both significant ecological integrity and replication of
vegetation types reserved. Yet in the context of enhancing the comprehensiveness and
representativeness of the existing protected area estate, the smaller private components
within the riverine corridor contributed to a greater extent. For example, the
Eucalyptus cyanophylla/E. socialis community, considered a poorly conserved
community in urgent need of further reservation (Neagle 1995 in Kahrimanis et al.
(2001)), is represented on two private land components within Bookmark which
protect over 900 ha, while the Myoporum platycarpum community, almost
unrepresented in NPWSA reserves, has 643 ha on one private component.
A greater contribution to comprehensiveness and representativeness may have been
recorded for Bookmark if the floristic vegetation mapping incorporated the riverine
corridor where there are relatively fewer public protected areas.
5.5.1.2 Gippsland Plains CMN
Although not contributing to comprehensiveness (i.e. protection of previously
unreserved ecosystems), the spread of Plains Grassy Woodlands across 26 individual
GPCMN components is a significant contribution to representativeness. This
ecosystem (under the name Forest Red Gum Grassy Woodland community) is listed as
threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and is considered
endangered at the subregional level (DSE 2004). This is important even though the
community was targeted as part of a wider conservation strategy in the Gippsland
Plains region (Edwards & Traill 2001), the ecosystem was not the sole focus of the
CMN (see Chapter 7 for further details).
115
A nomination to have the community listed under the Federal Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) was unsuccessful as the nomination
stated that although the “Forest Red Gum Grassy community occur(ing) within the
Gippsland region, and has declined to approximately 650-700 hectares (from a pre-
European estimate of 120,000 ha) … expert opinion suggests that the community may
extend into New South Wales and that further information is required on the national
distribution” (TSSC 2001). That the dominant tree species has recently been described
as a new taxon, the Gippsland Red Gum Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. mediana
(Anon. 2004), may make listing under the EPBC Act 1999 more likely.
At a finer scale than EVCs the CMN incorporates the only remaining example of a
sheoak dominated Grassy Woodland on the plains, as well as derived native
grasslands, both along the Heyfield-Bairnsdale Rail Reserves.
5.5.1.3 Grassy Box Woodlands CMN
The majority of the components within the CMN include Grassy White Box
Woodlands. Originally covering some several million hectares of the sheep-wheat belt
of southeastern Australia, less than 0.05% of these woodlands remain in near-original
condition (Prober 1996).
As a result of this, the Grassy White Box Woodland community is listed as a
nationally endangered community under the EPBC Act 1999 and endangered under the
NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (as part of the broader White Box-
Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland community). Despite this, depletion
figures for the community across its range are not readily established. Estimates of
depletion appear consistent at the catchment scale; from 6% remaining in the Lachlan
region of NSW (Austin et al. 2000) to 5.5% remaining in the Boorowa Shire (NPWS
2002) to less than 5% in the Little River Catchment (Seddon et al. 2002). Benson
(1991) estimated that approximately 90% of White Box and Yellow Box-Blakely’s
Red Gum Woodland associations were lost when the Central Western Slopes of NSW
were first settled, with the remaining remnants heavily grazed since.
116
Almost all other components in the CMN protected one or more of Grey Box, Yellow
Box or Blakely’s Red Gum woodlands. None of these grassy woodland communities
are common, most have been substantially cleared and all are poorly conserved
(Benson 1989). Within the NSW South West Slopes IBRA region, communities
containing White Box, Yellow Box, Blakely’s Red Gum, Poplar Box, Grey Box,
White Cypress Pine or River Red Gum have been reduced to less than 10% of their
predicted pre-European extent (NPWS 2001a). Fuzzy Box is considered the most
poorly represented box woodland in conservation reserves in NSW (Benson 1999),
and occurs in one GBWCMN component (CLC 2.2) in the network. However, as
Prober et al. (2001) acknowledge, rangewide surveys of the extent and quality of Grey
Box, Fuzzy Box and Bimble Box Grassy Woodlands are urgently needed to improve
ecological understanding and target specific remnants.
In its recommendation for the White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland
community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, NSW
Scientific Committee (2002) determined the community to be poorly represented in
conservation reserves, with small occurrences in 14 reserves. It is interesting to note
however, that the GBWCMN lists 25 reserves containing the finer scale Grassy White
Box Woodlands (Anon 2002b), of which only six reserves are common to both
references (see Appendix 15).
As demonstrated previously in Chapter 4, all subregions in which the GBWCMN
occurs are relatively poorly reserved (i.e all less than 2% reserved, and less than 1% in
total). This highlights both the suitability for agriculture and the consequent high
vulnerability status of most ecosystems within this region to clearing.
Thus the contribution of the GBWCMN to both comprehensiveness and
representativeness is considered very high as almost all of the vegetation communities
represented within it would be considered endangered and poorly reserved.
5.5.2 Implications for conservation
As demonstrated above, multi-tenure reserve networks have an important role as a
mechanism to increase the comprehensiveness and representativeness of ecosystems
within the public reserve system. Attempts to accurately compare the contribution of
117
the networks to comprehensiveness, representativeness and adequacy were hampered
somewhat by differences in vegetation classification, variations in scale of mapping
and completeness of mapping. Although the finer the scale of vegetation mapping
allows for more detailed assessments of biodiversity to be made it also makes the task
of achieving the objectives of CAR more difficult due to an increased number of
vegetation classes (Saunders 1998).
Accepted measures for determining the ‘adequacy’ of a reserve or a reserve network
for maintaining the species or communities they are designed to protect are not yet
well developed. Taken in its literal sense, determining adequacy requires detailed
ecological knowledge of each of the species (and other components of biodiversity)
occurring within a reserve or reserve network. For most parts of the world, such data
do not exist. By default, any progress towards comprehensiveness and
representativeness enhances the adequacy of the reserve system but more quantifiable
measures may be in the form of reserve size, shape and connectivity as measured
previously in Chapter 4.
A reliance on broad-scale attributes and an emphasis on ‘representation’ in reserve
establishment has been criticised by some scientists who suggest that unique areas and
hotspots for biodiversity may be being missed (e.g. Brooks et al. 2004). It is important
to recognise that all three networks protected attributes important for conservation
other than just representation of vegetation communities alone. Bookmark is the last
stronghold for the nationally endangered Black-eared Miner Manorina melanotis
(Baker-Gabb 2001), with Gluepot and Taylorville Stations providing some of the best
examples of old-growth mallee, the plant formation required for the species’ survival.
A nationally threatened herb, the Dwarf Kerrawang Rulingia prostrata, is also present
in a number of blocks (particularly private properties) within the Gippsland Plains
CMN (Foreman 2000). Such examples highlight a potential shortcoming in using
vegetation types alone as a measure of contribution to CAR objectives, particularly
when some multi-tenure networks focus on conserving a range of sites, many for the
purpose of providing habitat for a particular threatened species (e.g. the Superb Parrot
Project (Platt 2001) and the Mount Lofty Ranges Southern Emu-wren Recovery
Program (Environment Australia 1998, Prober et al. 2001). In such cases the
conservation of non-remnant features such as overstorey trees maybe be just as
118
important for the objectives of the network as the protection of remnant patches.
Furthermore, a variety of states (e.g. structure, quality) of the same vegetation type
may be required to protect the various biotic components throughout their range
(Robinson 1999).
5.5.3 The real and potential influence of vegetation classification on multi-tenure
reserve networks
The presence of multi-tenure reserve networks within a particular region acts to
highlight the plight and/or conservation value of the ecosystems of the area. This often
results in increased investment of resources from outside of that immediate region. For
example, land purchase has occurred in each of the three networks since their
establishment - Bookmark BR (Gluepot purchased by Birds Australia, Taylorville by
Commonwealth Director of National Parks and Wildlife), Grassy Box Woodlands
CMN (Tarcutta Hills by Australian Bush Heritage Fund), and Gippsland Plains CMN
(West Billabong Reserve by Trust for Nature, Swallow Lagoon Nature Conservation
Reserve by the Department of Sustainability and Environment – see Fitzsimons &
Ashe 2003) - as well as in other networks (e.g. Fitzherbert 2004, Fitzsimons et al.
2004). In each case the pre-existing presence and structure of the respective network in
part influenced these purchases. However, the attraction of buying into a reserve may
not necessarily be beneficial in addressing CAR objectives. This is particularly true if
networks occur in areas that are already well reserved, thus attracting funds away from
more under-represented ecosystems.
The classification of vegetation types not only affects their estimated extent,
reservation levels and conservation status, it can also have implications for the level of
protection afforded under legislation. This is particularly relevant for a number of
vegetation communities represented within the networks. For example the White Box
Grassy Woodland is currently listed as an endangered community under the
Commonwealth’s Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act
1999 whereas this community falls within a broader White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s
Red Gum Woodland community under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act
1995. In the ACT, the Yellow Box-Red Gum Grassy Woodland is listed as an
endangered ecological community under the Nature Conservation Act 1980. Although
listing an ecological community (or species) under state legislation may afford a
119
similar degree of legislative protection as listing under Federal legislation, the ability
to gain funding for conservation activities associated with the community maybe
lessened if not listed under the EPBC Act. This potentially has implications for the
funding of existing or future networks, particularly through the Federal Government
(discussed in Chapter 7), and especially in light of the Commonwealth’s failure to
appropriately maintain the list of threatened ecological communities (Macintosh
2004).
5.6 Conclusion
This chapter has found that all networks contributed to the comprehensiveness,
adequacy and representativeness of ecosystems in the existing public protected area
system, but this contribution varied between networks and between components. The
Grassy Box Woodland CMN had the highest contribution towards comprehensiveness
and representativeness. Significantly, components on private land and ‘other public
land’ in all three networks greatly enhanced the protection of some ecosystems at a
subregional scale. Networks not only acted to protect vulnerable and under-reserved
ecosystems but they also provided a mechanism to account for this protection. Thus
networks have the potential to significantly enhance biodiversity conservation
planning decisions.
The ability of multi-tenure reserve networks to effectively operate as a series of sites
managed in a complementary manner to achieve the goals of the network is
investigated in Chapter 6.
120
CHAPTER 6
Perceptions and Attitudes of Land Managers in Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
6.1 Introduction
Networks in conservation aim to address the impacts of fragmentation on both biotic
and social systems. The preceding three chapters have documented and analysed the
physical attributes of multi-tenure reserve networks. This chapter and the following
chapter examine the human element of multi-tenure reserve networks, particularly in
relation to their management and operation.
The involvement of land managers and owners is the process which elevates multi-
tenure reserve networks from conceptual to functional networks. The successful
operation of networks of people, often with varying objectives, relies heavily on issues
of cooperation between parties, trust and adequate resources (Craig et al. 1995,
Hodgkins 1995, Moore 1995, Wild et al. 1995, Briggs 2002). Research also indicates
that establishing and maintaining networks or collaborative management agreements
often relies on the energy and commitment of one or more individuals (e.g. Borrini-
Feyerabend 1999, Stoll-Kleemann & O’Riordan 2002). More recently the collaborative
planning and management of public protected areas by private interests has received
increased attention (e.g. Endicott 1993, Charters et al. 1996, Stolton & Dudley 1999,
Lane 2001).
The increased focus on private land conservation in Australia has seen a number of
studies exploring the attitudes of private, mainly rural, landholders towards the
protection of remnant vegetation on their properties (e.g. Elix & Lambert 1997, Denys
Slee and Associates 1998, Hamilton et al. 1999, Hodgkins et al. 1999, Kabii 2001).
Briggs (2002) believes a more thorough understanding of social factors is required in
order to create working relationships between people and nature to achieve on and off
121
reserve conservation. This chapter focuses more specifically on landholders who have
made a conscious effort to protect vegetation on their properties.
Despite their growing number, few studies have dealt with landholders protecting
vegetation under binding and non-binding agreements in Australia (although see
Stephens 2002, Stephens et al. 2002). Further, despite the number of public protected
areas in Australia and staff within them, attitudinal studies of park managers are also
surprisingly limited. Thus it is not surprising that studies exploring attitudes and
perceptions of managers within multi-tenure reserve networks worldwide are limited.
Recent research by Maikhuri et al. (2000a,b, 2001) and Rao et al. (2003) in the Nanda
Devi Biosphere Reserve in India is a notable exception, and Reading et al. (1994) has
analysed the attitudes and knowledge of people living in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Within Australia, Todd (2000) has previously surveyed land managers with
native grasslands on their properties in the Victorian Volcanic Plain, with the aim of
assessing the suitability of a proposed Conservation Management Network model for
addressing nature conservation objectives in that region.
A key aspect of the successful management of multi-tenure networks as a whole (i.e.
their capacity to meet their stated objectives) is clearly the actual land manager. In
operating as part of a network, managers may face different expectations and
challenges (e.g. legal, time) than might otherwise be experienced simply by managing
their park or their property in isolation. One aspect of land managers’ capacity is their
understanding of the objectives of the networks and their perceptions of their specific
role within the network.
This chapter will investigate the operation and function of multi-tenure reserve
networks as perceived by land managers involved in the three case studies. In order to
achieve this aim, the following research questions were asked:
How do managers of components within multi-tenure reserve networks perceive:
1. the role of the network they are a part of?
2. their own role within the network?
3. the functionality of the network?
122
6.2 Methods
6.2.1 Review of available methods and selection of method
The three most commonly used methods of social enquiry are face-to-face interviews,
telephone interviews and self-administered mailed questionnaires (Babbie 1990,
Oppenheim 1992, Robson 1993, Czaja & Blair 1996). Some of the advantages and
disadvantages of each of these methods are described below (Babbie 1990, Oppenheim
1992, Robson 1993, Czaja & Blair 1996, Dillman 2000):
6.2.1.1 Face-to-face interviews
Face-to-face interviews have a high response rate and allow the flexibility of following
up and more deeply exploring responses of interest, modifying the order of questions
and allowing particular questions to be clarified if required. However, this flexibility
can present problems with reliability due to lack of standardisation. Face-to-face
interviews are time and cost intensive, particularly if travelling to meet interviewees in
disparate locations.
6.2.1.2 Telephone interviews
Like face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews have a high response rate, and allow
for the correction of obvious misunderstandings. Telephone interviews have advantages
over face-to-face interviews where the sample is geographically dispersed as they are
less costly in terms of time, effort and money. However, like face-to-face interviews,
the tone of the interviewer’s voice can potentially effect responses.
6.2.1.3 Mailed questionnaires
Self-administered questionnaires are considered very time efficient in terms of
researcher time and effort. However, determining the honesty of the answers is
problematic while responses often have to select from to pre-determined answers.
Further, there is not usually a chance to follow up and clarify the response to a question
if indecipherable.
Based on the above, mailed questionnaires were considered to provided the most cost
and time efficient means of collecting the required data from a disparate group of
123
managers and was thus used as the primary means of data collection in chapters 6 and
7.
6.2.2 Questionnaire design
Questions were arranged into broad themes (e.g. ‘limitations/improvements’,
‘awareness of other sites and correspondence with other managers’) and comprised a
mixture of open and closed questions (Appendix 16). Questionnaires were coded so
follow up correspondence could be made with non-respondents. However, these details
were stored separately during analysis to ensure respondent confidentiality.
The Conservation Lands Classification was slightly modified to account for the
likelihood that managers of public protected areas would manage sites from both
categories 1.1 and 1.2 in this classification. These categories were thus merged to form
the ‘public protected area’ category.
The questionnaire was pre-tested on academic staff and post-graduate students at
Deakin University and adjustments to wording and order of questions were made based
on their responses and feedback.
6.2.3 Data collection
The majority of managers managed only one property but in some cases a manager was
responsible for a number of sites within their network. This was particularly true for the
government park management agencies in Victoria (Parks Victoria) and South
Australia (NPWSA) which managed both a relatively large number of sites and total
area within their networks. As most of these reserves are managed for similar purposes
and as part of a broad operational resources budget it was considered unrealistic that
these agencies complete a separate questionnaire for each individual reserve.
As the evolution of the Gippsland Plains CMN from the Perry River network had taken
place only a few months prior to the questionnaire mailing date, it was decided, after
discussions with representatives of that network’s coordinating bodies, that the
expanded network would not be well enough known to allow for informed manager
responses. Consequently, only managers in the original Perry River network area were
sent questionnaires and the name Perry River was retained in the covering letter.
124
Questionnaires were sent to all 70 land managers involved in the three networks
between 5-7 November 2001 inclusive14. A covering letter explaining the research
project (Appendix 17), a consent form (Appendix 18) and a reply-paid envelope were
included with each questionnaire. Privacy legislation in the State of NSW prevented the
coordinating body, the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), disclosing
the names and addresses of land mangers involved in the Grassy Box Woodlands
CMN. Consequently these questionnaires were mailed to the NPWS for distribution.
Reminder letters were sent to managers who had not replied after three weeks of the
initial mailout. Follow-up phone calls were made to those who had not replied three
weeks after the mailout of the reminder letter.
6.2.4 Data analysis
Data collected from the questionnaire were entered into a statistical analysis package
SPSS Version 10.0. Calculation of significant differences in responses between
networks was ascertained using a Chi-square test, with Spearman’s co-efficient used to
ascertain significance at the 1% level. Some questions were of an open nature and the
responses were coded and grouped according to general themes. In some instances,
managers provided more than one response to particular open questions. In these cases
each broad response category was tested against all other categories put together in a
series of 2x2 Chi-squared tests, to reduce problems associated with a lack of
independence (Oppenheim 1992).
Where managers did not answer a particular question, the non-response was excluded
from the analysis, however responses such as “don’t know” and “unsure” were
included as they revealed a respondent’s level of knowledge about a particular aspect of
the network.
6.2.5 Limitations of data collected
The relatively small number of managers involved in multi-tenure reserve networks in
Australia at present effectively limited the possible sample size of the surveys. The
limitations this placed on statistical confidence are recognised, but were unavoidable.
14 The distribution of the questionnaire was approved by the Deakin University Ethics Committee (Ref. No. EC 171-2001) on 17 September 2001 with subsequent modifications approved 3 October 2001.
125
The resulting statistical analysis reflected this limitation. As state government park
management agencies manage a number of reserves, it should be noted that the
questionnaire responses represent number of managers and is not necessarily reflective
of the number or area of components within the network.
6.3 Results and Discussion15
6.3.1 Response rate and respondents
An overall response rate of 72.9% was obtained for the mail survey16. The response rate
for the three networks was similar, differing by only 6% from highest to lowest (Table
22). This response rate is considered relatively high for postal questionnaires (Babbie
1990) and may reflect the landholder’s or manager’s intrinsic interest in the topic,
considering that they have all voluntarily joined their respective networks.
Table 22. Response rate for each network to the mail survey Network Total
questionnaires sent Useable surveys
returned Response rate (%)
Bookmark 30 21 70.0 Grassy Box Woodlands 25 19 76.0 Gippsland Plains 15 11 73.3 Total 70 51 72.9
In order to ensure that responses were representative of the range of properties,
managers were asked to specify which Conservation Land Category best described the
property they managed. The highest response rate was from managers of ‘privately
owned properties managed by individuals for conservation but with no legally binding
15 Note the preliminary results of this questionnaire relating to the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN were presented to the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service in the form of an unpublished report (Fitzsimons 2002) to assist in a review of that network being undertaken in 2002 (see Appendix 19). Minor differences between results presented in that report and in the chapter below reflect both the inclusion of questionnaires returned after the report was completed and the elimination of one ‘unusable’ questionnaire in this chapter. 16 This response rate is the percentage of the number of usable surveys returned from the total number sent. Two questionnaires were returned from managers in the Bookmark BR not wishing to participate, one questionnaire each from both the Bookmark and GBW were returned completed but were unusable due to an overall misunderstanding about their involvement in their respective networks, and three managers in the Gippsland Plains Network responded via telephone that they did not consider themselves either well enough informed or part of that network.
126
measures in place’ (CLC category 4.4), followed by those that did have ‘legally binding
protective measures in place’ (CLC category 4.2) (Table 23). Responses from managers
of public land not primarily reserved for nature conservation, both with (CLC category
2.1) and without (CLC category 2.2) formal conservation agreements in place were
only received from the GBWCMN while the ‘other’ category, which effectively
contained mostly properties managed for sustainable horticulture, only occurred in
Bookmark.
For statistical purposes the spread of responses within the various Conservation Lands
Classification categories meant that statistical analysis was restricted to differences in
responses between networks.
Table 23. Number of responses from managers of various tenure and protection mechanisms
Cat
egor
y
Purpose of land and protective mechanisms
Boo
kmar
k
Gip
psla
nd
Plai
ns
GB
W
Tot
al
1 Public land reserved primarily for the purpose of nature conservation.
4 2 0 6
2.1 Public land not primarily reserved for nature conservation but under some formal agreement to protect natural features of the site.
0 0 6 6
2.2 Public land not primarily reserved for nature conservation and not under formal agreement to protect natural features but managed sympathetically for that purpose anyway.
0 0 8 8
4.1 Private land owned by company, group, or authority and managed primarily for nature conservation and with legally binding protective measures in place.
6 4 1 11
4.2 Private land owned by individual, couple or family and managed primarily for nature conservation and with legally binding protective measures in place.
0 2 0 2
4.3 Private land owned by company, association, or authority and sympathetically managed for conservation but with no legally binding measures in place.
1 0 0 1
4.4 Private land owned by individual, couple or family and sympathetically managed for conservation but with no legally binding measures in place.
5 7 5 17
Oth. Other (e.g. Agricultural)
7 0 0 7
Notes: 1) In both the Gippsland Plains and GBW a manager specified they managed more than one category of land in the network. Each of these land categories have been counted. 2) In some cases extra details provided by the respondents to certain categories, particularly ‘Other’ allowed them to be more accurately placed in another category.
127
6.3.2 Motivators for involvement in the network and perceived aims of the
network
The aims and motivations for a manager’s involvement in multi-tenure reserve
networks and their perception of the aims of the network as a whole are likely to be
important determinants of a network’s workability as both of these ultimately shape the
‘expectations’ of the managers.
Overall, ‘conservation of natural assets’ was the most frequently reported primary
reason for involvement in a network, although it was the second most frequently listed
reason in the GBWCMN (Table 24a). Significant differences in responses between
networks were recorded for ‘associating with like-minded people’ (P = 0.016) and
‘supporting the idea of a network’ (P = 0.006) (which was the most frequently listed
GBWCMN response).
A number of managers listed multiple management aims for their sites and
consequently there are a greater number of aims than respondents. The conservation of
native vegetation in general, and specific vegetation communities in particular, was the
most cited primary management objective for sites across the three networks (Table
24b). While ‘sustainable horticulture/agriculture’ was the second most listed objective
overall, significantly more BBR respondents listed this as a primary aim (P = 0.038).
The perceived aims of the respective networks largely reflected the response listed for
involvement and management (Table 24c). Protection of natural areas was the most
often listed perceived aim of the networks overall but differed significantly (P = 0.038)
between networks. Conservation of specific areas was the most often listed response for
GBW and Gippsland Plains networks while it was the second most often listed
response for Bookmark. Similarly, reflecting the ‘sustainable horticulture or
agriculture’ aim of many of the Bookmark managers, ‘support and development of
ecologically sustainable development’ was the most often listed perceived aim of the
network for managers in this network.
128
A relatively even proportion of managers believed a primary aim of the networks was
to ‘provide an information source, educate land managers and involve the community’
as well as ‘developing a community of like-minded people and seeking partnerships’.
Overall, 26 respondents listed only one perceived primary objective of the network,
compared to 20 who listed multiple objectives. Interestingly, four managers were
unsure of the primary aim(s) of their network. The varying and sometimes narrow
perceptions of the aims of the networks may reflect a broader lack of public
understanding of what cross-tenure conservation networks such as biosphere reserves
actually means (Batisse 1982, Kellert 1986, de Salaberry & Reid 1999).
6.3.3 Protected area classification and National Reserve System recognition
As has previously been discussed in Chapter 2, habitat protected outside of the public
reserve system has received inadequate recognition when reporting for conservation
audits such as the National Reserve System. The Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation
Management Network was originally established, in part, to act as a model for
improving these inadequacies in reporting. However the perceptions of managers,
particularly those on private land, relating to their potential involvement in such a
system has not previously been explored.
Managers were asked whether they considered the property or reserve they owned or
managed to be a ‘protected area’ based on the following (IUCN 1994) definition of the
term:
“an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated
cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means”.
Managers were also asked whether they would like to be recognised as being part of a
‘National Reserve System’ of land managed for conservation. The question was
deliberately structured so as to imply a hypothetical national reserve system as opposed
to the National Reserve System currently in existence, as it was considered that this is
likely to have a low profile amongst managers of private land and other public land.
129
Table 24. a) Primary reason for involvement in the network; b) Primary management objectives for their sites; and c) Perceived aims of the network. (n= number of responses)
a) Primary reasons for involvement in network BBR (n=28)
GPCMN (n=15)
GBWCMN (n=22)
Total (n=65)
�2 d.f. P
Conservation of natural assets 11 6 6 23 0.959 2 0.619 Associate with like-minded people/information exchange 3 3 10 16 8.237 2 0.016 Request from, or introduction to, coordinating body or State conservation agency
1 3 3 7 3.028 2 0.220
Supported ‘concept’ of network/wider conservation effort 7 0 0 7 10.366 2 0.006 Miscellaneous 5 2 0 7 4.222 2 0.121 Means of obtaining funding 0 1 2 3 2.499 2 0.287 Give further credibility/recognition to the site 1 0 1 2 0.658 2 0.720 b) Primary management objective of site BBR
(n=30) GPCMN
(n=13) GBWCMN
(n=26) Total (n=69)
�2 d.f. P
Conservation of natural vegetation/communities 9 8 14 31 4.987 2 0.083 Sustainable horticulture/agriculture 11 3 2 16 6.565 2 0.038 Endangered species breeding/restoration 3 2 4 9 0.433 2 0.805 Research/monitoring/education 2 0 4 6 2.859 2 0.239 Recreation 4 0 0 4 5.520 2 0.063 Miscellaneous 1 0 2 3 1.364 2 0.505 c) Perceived aims of the network BBR
(n=36) GPCMN
(n=16) GBWCMN
(n=29) Total (n=81)
�2 d.f. P
Protection of natural areas 6 7 11 24 6.531 2 0.038 Education of land managers/information source/involvement of community
6 3 6 15 0.235 2 0.889
Development of community of like-minded people/seek partnerships 4 3 6 13 1.378 2 0.502 Support and development of ESD 8 0 0 8 10.632 2 0.005 Restoration of ecosystem/ecological research 2 1 4 7 1.412 2 0.494 Direct reference to objectives of ‘Man and Biosphere Program’ or ‘CMN’
4 0 0 4 5.033 2 0.081
Unsure 3 0 1 4 1.705 2 0.426 Coordinate working relationships for landscape management 1 2 0 3 5.463 2 0.065 Miscellaneous 2 0 1 3 0.867 2 0.648
130
At least two-thirds of the managers in the GPCMN and GBWCMN networks
considered their properties to be protected areas based on the above definition, whereas
the Bookmark response was divided (although this difference was not significant �2 =
6.801, d.f. = 4, P = 0.147) (Table 25a). Almost 75% of respondents from all networks
indicated that they would like to be recognised as part of a national reserves system (�2
= 2.141, d.f. = 4, P = 0.710) (Table 25b). Interestingly, of those 38 respondents, only
nine manage properties which would currently qualify to be admitted to the existing
National Reserve System (the requirement being that they need to be a ‘protected area’)
(Commonwealth of Australia 1999).
Table 25. Number of managers a) considering their sites to be protected areas and b) willing to have their sites be recognised as part of a national reserve system of land managed for conservation a) Considered sites to be protected areas
Bookmark Gippsland Plains
GBW Total %
Yes 9 7 12 28 57.14 No 8 3 6 17 34.69 Unsure 4 0 0 4 8.16 b) Willing to be part of a national reserve system Bookmark Gippsland
Plains GBW Total %
Yes 14 9 15 38 74.51 No 6 2 4 12 23.53 Unsure 1 0 0 1 1.96 Eleven managers believed their sites were not protected areas but were still willing to
be recognised as part of a national reserve system. Conversely, three managers who
considered their sites to be protected areas did not want to be recognised as part of a
national reserve system. What is more interesting is that sites managed by two of these
managers are already considered part of the existing National Reserve System (Fig. 25).
131
Figure 25. Willingness by managers to be part of a national reserve system and consideration of their sites to be a ‘protected area’ by Conservation Land Classification. Abbreviations: PA (Protected Area), NRS (National Reserve System). Conservation Land Categories: 1 = Public Protected Areas, 2.1 = Crown Lands – Protective Agreement, 2.2 = Crown Lands – no agreement, 4.1 = Private - Organisation (Binding Agreement), 4.2 = Private - Individual (Binding Agreement), 4.3 = Private - Organisation (Non-binding Agreement), 4.4 = Private - Individual (Non-binding Agreement), Oth. = Other.
Prober et al. (2001) noted it was “interesting” that there had been no opposition to the
word ‘conservation’ in the Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management
Network’s title. The willingness of respondents in this survey to be involved in a
‘national reserve system’ of land managed for conservation is equally of interest. This
contrasts with research elsewhere which found that private landholders may see the
creation of protected areas as an oppressive development bringing in foreign values and
possibly depriving them of rights, wealth and culture (Borrini-Feyerabend 1999, Stoll-
Kleemann 2001a,b, Hiedanpää 2002, Wilshusen et al. 2002). Further, perceptions of
protected areas as a source of weeds, vermin and fire are prevalent in many parts of
rural Australia (Figgis 1999, Worboys et al. 2001).
However, one respondent not willing to be involved in a national reserve system cited
“concern that figures contributing to (the National Reserve System) may justify
clearing to continue” elsewhere in the region.
5 5 5
9
1
0
3
1
4 4
5
9
2
0
10
4
0
1
2
1
0
1
10
6
1
2 2
1
0
1
3 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Oth
Conservation Land Category
No.
of M
anag
ers
PA - Yes
NRS - Yes
PA - No/Unsure
NRS - No/Unsure
132
Fitzsimons and Wescott (2001) highlighted the weaknesses of the current National
Reserve System in not adequately accounting for private land protected under legally
binding agreements. Whilst not all land currently managed in these networks should
necessarily be considered for entry into a national reserve system, networks do allow
for accurate reporting of land managed for conservation under a variety of agreements
on a variety of tenures. It is thus promising that close to three quarters (74.5%) of all
respondents and, in particular, 80.8% of private organisations or individuals managing
their sites primarily for nature conservation, considered the possibility of including
their site/s in such a system to be worthwhile.
6.3.4 Attitudes towards involvement in the network
The attitudes of managers towards their involvement within networks are likely to have
an impact on the level of cooperation and possibly the long-term viability of these
networks. Managers were asked whether they considered their involvement in the
networks to be a very positive, positive, neutral/unsure, negative, or very negative
experience. The majority of managers in each of the networks considered their
involvement to be a positive experience and over 88% overall considered their
involvement to be either positive or very positive (Table 26). There was no significant
difference (�2 = 4.297, d.f. = 6, P = 0.637) in responses between networks, however
Bookmark was the only network where two managers indicated their involvement to be
a negative experience. Both of these managers cited conflicts between the main groups
involved in coordination – the Bookmark Biosphere Trust and Australian Landscape
Trust – to be a primary reason for this impression.
Table 26. Attitudes of managers to involvement in networks BBR
(n=21) GPCMN
(n=11) GBWCMN
(n=19) Total (n=51)
Very Positive 7 3 4 14 Positive 11 7 13 31 Neutral/Unsure 1 1 2 4 Negative 2 0 0 2 Very Negative 0 0 0 0
133
6.3.5 Awareness of other sites in the network and influence on management
Determining the extent to which multi-tenure reserve networks acted as human
networks was measured by querying whether managers: 1) were aware of other sites in
their network; 2) corresponded with other managers in their network; 3) had altered
their management regimes as a result of the network; and 4) made management
decisions based on other sites in their network.
A high proportion (83.3%) of managers overall were aware of other sites within their
network, with no significant differences between networks (�2 = 0.594, d.f. = 2, P =
0.743) (Fig. 26a).
Across the three networks, over half (55.3%) of the managers were in regular
correspondence with other managers within their networks (Fig. 26b). However, there
were significant differences between the three networks (�2 = 6.655, d.f. = 2, P =
0.036), with Bookmark recording the highest rate of communication (75%) and GBW
the lowest (33%). It is likely that the geographic spread and level of property
connectivity within networks would have a large bearing on the degree of
communication between land managers (refer to Figs 6 and 9, Chapter 3).
Overall just less than half (48%) of managers indicated they had altered their
management regimes as a result of participating in their network, although 61.9% of
respondents from Bookmark suggested that they had (�2 = 4.815, d.f. = 4, P = 0.307)
(Fig. 26c). However, while those managers altering their management suggested they
did so for biodiversity conservation or sustainability reasons, it cannot be assumed that
management regimes on the sites where no change occurred were necessarily a
negative for biodiversity. This is particularly true for native grassy ecosystems where
any major and sudden changes to the past management regimes of sites with
conservation value may have adverse consequences for their flora and fauna (Barlow
1998). Overall, 54% of managers suggested that management decisions on their site
were influenced by the actions of other sites within their network. Interestingly, while
56% of GPCMN managers regularly corresponded with each other, 82% suggested that
other sites in the network influenced their management decisions (Fig. 26d). While this
influence was notably higher than it was for Bookmark (52%) and the GBW (39%) it
was not significantly different (�2 = 7.791, d.f. = 4, P = 0.100).
134
Considering that social norms and behaviours are difficult to shift (McKenzie-Mohr &
Smith 1999, Synapse Research and Consulting & CapitalAg Consulting 2001),
changing the social environment can be an important way of changing attitudes and
behaviour (Lowe et al. 2003). However, attitudes are not considered a good predictor of
behaviour (Hobbs & Saunders 2000) and in some instances there is excessive emphasis
on awareness raising activities in rural conservation programs, based on the assumption
that this will lead to a change in attitudes and, in turn, behaviour (Curtis et al. 1998,
Williams 2000). Whilst not a direct indicator of behaviour change per se, that over half
of managers within networks were influenced by other managers and that almost half
had altered management regimes suggests that multi-tenure reserve networks may well
be an important structure for achieving improved management of biodiversity.
Communication as individuals rather than members of groups is seen as an important
way to improve the effectiveness in conveying the conservation message (Stoll-
Kleemann 2001a, Briggs 2002, Edwards & Traill 2002). In effect, multi-tenure reserve
networks have the potential to provide a forum to facilitate this as each landowner and
property is considered an important part of a common goal.
6.3.6 Limitations and suggested improvements to the networks
Lack of sufficient finances and time for management were the most oft-cited limitations
to the Gippsland Plains and GBW networks and second most cited limitation for
Bookmark (Table 27a). The current governance/coordination arrangements and a lack
of cooperation and acceptance of some groups were considered a major limitation of
Bookmark, an issue not cited at all in GBW. Todd (2000) found that resources and
equality were the most critical factors in determining good landholder/government
partnerships in the Victorian Volcanic Plain. The importance of perceptions of fairness,
equality and procedural and social justice have been shown to be key drivers in a range
of natural resource management partnerships (e.g. Moore et al. 2001, Brechin et al.
2002, Theobald & Hobbs 2002).
135
a)
b)
Figure 26 a) The awareness of other sites by managers within the network, b) regular correspondence with other managers in the network
15
9
16
4
1
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Bookmark Gippsland Plains GBW
Network
No.
of m
anag
ers
Yes (n=40)No (n=8)
15
5
6
5
4
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Bookmark Gippsland Plains GBW
Network
No.
of m
anag
ers
Yes (n=26)No (n=21)
136
c)
d)
Figure 26 c) alteration of management regime since becoming part of their network and d) the influence other sites on management decisions
13
3
8
7
8
9
1
0
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Bookmark Gippsland Plains GBW
Network
No.
of m
anag
ers
Yes (n=24)No (n=24)Unsure (n=2)
11
9
7
10
1
10
0
1 1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Bookmark Gippsland Plains GBW
Network
No.
of m
anag
ers
Yes (n=27)No (n=21)Unsure (n=2)
137
Tax concessions or direct financial assistance were considered two of the three most
required areas of assistance for farmers in central western NSW (Hodgkins et al. 1999).
Interestingly, Hodgkins et al. (1999) found that more information on trees and wildlife
were required by these landholders, an improvement not elucidated by managers in the
networks. It may be that sufficient habitat management information is being provided
within multi-tenure reserve networks or that the participants in such groups are more
attuned and/or receptive to available information.
The suggested improvements to the network reflected the responses given to the
perceived major limitations (Table 27b). Overall, and particularly from GBW
managers, ‘increased funding/access to labour’ was the most often suggested
improvement. Significant differences occurred for responses such as ‘improving
coordinating authority arrangements/increased recognition of all components’ where
most suggestions came from Bookmark and ‘education/publicity’ where most
responses came from Gippsland Plains managers (P = 0.005 and P = 0.006
respectively). These findings were broadly in line with a national survey of Australian
covenantors, which identified “greater levels of financial assistance, including rate
rebates” as the most suggested improvement to covenanting programs (Stephens 2002
p. 14).
One of the perceived benefits of a site belonging to a network is that it gains a higher
profile and is more likely to be successful in funding applications (Prober et al. 2001).
Land managers were asked whether they had received any extra funding for
management as a result of being in their respective network. Almost 40% of managers
had received extra funding (Table 28) with seven managers identifying the Natural
Heritage Trust as the source of funding and a further six specifically listing funding for
the fencing of remnant vegetation. There were no significant differences in responses
between the networks (�2 = 2.671, d.f. = 2, P = 0.263).
138
Table 27 a) Perceived major limitations of the networks and b) suggested improvements to networks. (n= number of responses)
Boo
kmar
k
Gip
psla
nd
Plai
ns
GB
W
Tot
al
�
2
d.f.
P
a) Limitations of network Lack of finance and time 7 4 9 20 0.023 2 0.988 Governance arrangements/ lack of cooperation and acceptance of some groups
8 2 0 10 11.351 2 0.003
Lack of field staff visitation/monitoring/advise
2 3 3 8 1.874 2 0.392
Too early/unsure 3 1 3 7 0.209 2 0.901 Location and distances between sites and managers
1 0 3 4 1.925 2 0.382
Public awareness/cynicism/ misconceptions
3 1 2 6 0.537 2 0.764
Miscellaneous 0 2 9 11 9.126 2 0.010 b) Suggested improvements Increased funding/access to labour
3 3 7 13 3.567 2 0.168
Improving coordinating authority arrangements/ increased recognition of all components
8 2 0 10 10.705 2 0.005
More onground works/ research/trials/info exchange
3 1 5 9 2.956 2 0.228
Education/publicity 1 6 1 8 10.074 2 0.006 Too early to judge/unsure 2 1 2 5 0.236 2 0.889
Table 28. Funding received as a result of the network Bookmark Gippsland Plains GBW Total Yes 11 2 6 19 No 10 7 11 28
6.4 Implications for conservation
This chapter has highlighted that different landholders and managers involved in multi-
tenure reserve networks perceive the aims of their network in different ways. The
individual motivation for joining the networks and the primary management aim of
139
their property appear to have a strong influence on their perception of the aims of the
network overall. While none of these perceptions would necessarily be considered
contrary to the actual aims of the network, their often narrow focus has implications for
its operation. Differences in perceived aims ultimately have the potential to cause
uncertainty and even conflict, particularly if decisions are made in the name of the
network but are contrary to a manager’s expectations. More clearly defining and
communicating these aims is likely to ensure confidence in the concept and role of the
network. This may be a greater challenge for networks such as biosphere reserves,
which aim to integrate a number of traditionally antagonistic/conflicting activities.
Further research is required to determine whether these changes in management
regimes would have occurred outside of the network, particularly through other
conservation programs.
The correlation between the levels of communication and the geographic distances
between components has important implications for planning effective sizes of
networks. Many disputes over nature conservation issues are the result of social
conditions and attitudes shaped by social networks (Stoll-Kleemann 2001a). Multi-
tenure reserve networks may thus play an important role in lessening animosity
between public and private land managers by bringing them together for a common
objective. However, if the network is too large and the properties too disparate, the
need for communication amongst managers may be perceived as less important and/or
less feasible. Thus the overall involvement of land managers may be lessened in these
circumstances.
The high level of enthusiasm to be recognised within a national reserve system for land
managed for conservation has important policy implications. This strengthens previous
recommendations to incorporate private land managed for conservation under
agreement within the traditional park estate for auditing and conservation planning
purposes (Fitzsimons & Wescott 2001).
The identification of insufficient resources (namely finances, time and labour) for
management as a major deficiency within networks is unsurprising considering this
issue is consistently identified for the management of both public and private
140
conservation lands in Australia and other parts of the world (e.g. Wescott 1995,
Langholz et al. 2000, Stephens 2002). It is highly likely that this deficiency affects the
ability of other landowners not currently part of a network. Beyond this, the varying
limitations and suggested improvements identified between networks suggests that
more local, network-specific issues are also occurring. Some of these limitations, such
as the ‘distance between sites’, relate directly to the historical fragmentation of the
landscape. However, almost all of the perceived major limitations and suggested
improvements identified by managers relate to issues that can, to varying extents, be
influenced by the networks coordinating body. The coordinating body itself was
considered by some managers to be a major limitation of the network.
Thus the coordinating body is likely to be a significant influence on the operation of the
network. The means by which the organisational structure of the coordinating body
affects network operation is examined in Chapter 7.
141
CHAPTER 7
Governance and Coordination within Multi-tenure Reserve Networks
7.1 Introduction
Governance or organisational arrangements can be crucial determinants in the
ultimate effectiveness of community based or cooperative natural resource
management projects (Mahanty 2002, Mahanty & Russell 2002). However, Sample
(1994 p. 44) believes that the “the largest single barrier to cross-boundary
coordination is the perception – by public land managers as well as private
landowners – that entering into a cooperative planning effort will limit their
flexibility for future decision making”. This chapter critically examines the
mechanisms that hold land managers of different tenures and disparate locations
together within multi-tenure reserve networks, in particular the role and function of
the coordinating body.
A key function of multi-tenure reserve networks is facilitating communication,
information exchange and management activities between managers of varying
tenures that ordinarily may not interact with each other despite similar management
objectives. This facilitation, amongst other things, is largely the realm of those
charged with coordinating the operation of such networks, and ultimately the
governance arrangements they operate under.
Government protected area agencies have traditionally come into existence linked to
the national park concept, often ‘sweeping away’ the traditional governance systems
of local and indigenous peoples (Graham et al. 2003). Within Australia, the
management of public or private conservation lands has traditionally operated within
a ‘like-tenure’ framework. Jurisdictional based public protected area networks are
usually coordinated from the head office of nature conservation agencies with further
142
coordination within regions. The same is usually true for private land conservation
schemes. However, some authors (e.g. Barborak 1995, McNeely 1999, Graham et al.
2003) note a recent trend for greater regionalistion and decentralization in protected
area-system management along with increased administrative and financial
autonomy for individual protected areas. The more recent development of multi-
tenure networks supports this contention in that they are, in theory, operational and
self-contained within a particular region. Brunckhorst (2003) notes it is also
increasingly recognised that local level institutions (e.g. Commons) learn and are
able to respond more rapidly to environmental feedbacks than do centralised
agencies.
Coordinators of multi-tenure reserve networks are not direct managers of those
networks but provide coordination or facilitation (Bioret 2001). The successful
operation of multi-tenure networks will be strongly influenced by a manager’s
confidence and enthusiasm for the governance model and coordination arrangements
of the network (Belcher & Wellman 1992, Cottam 2003). However, while specific
roles of coordinating bodies may not always be well defined they generally operate
around the dual objectives of ensuring the network operates effectively, and also
moves forward by bringing new properties and new stakeholders into the fold.
Research on community-based resource management has shown the importance of
local organisational arrangements for effective and sustainable resource management
and that the process of working with stakeholder organisations is central to
successful natural resource management (Mahanty & Russell 2002). However, the
authors also highlight the pitfalls of facilitators working with community institutions
as they may endorse “existing power relations and structures for decision making and
management that may become entrenched and bureaucratic” (p. 186). Furthermore,
where multiple stakeholder groups exist at a site, negotiations become even more
politically fraught (Mahanty & Russell 2002). Thus the authors recommend that the
political dimensions of local intervention be carefully considered at the design and
implementation of natural resource management projects. Stoll-Kleeman and
O’Riordan (2002) also highlight the often-ignored area of psychology-oriented
management, whereby dislike or lack of confidence amongst individuals has the
ability to override programs in institutions responsible for NRM.
143
At another level, Jeanrenaud (1999) suggests that although local people and
‘traditional’ conservationists may share intersecting interests they do not necessarily
have the same goals. Even as part of cooperative management arrangements,
landholders or managers may revert to traditional positions in response to
controversial management issues (see Mason & Michaels 2001). Further, Colvin
(2002) found that despite identifying and applying a range of principles for
community based-environmental protection the Albany Pine Bush Reserve in the
USA these principles had little influence on citizen participation in the policy
process.
Institutional and legal impediments are generally seen as more limiting to
conservation than a lack of ecological knowledge (e.g. Stafford Smith et al. 1997,
Johnson et al. 2001, Farrier 2002, Wescott 2002, Young 2004), and are particularly
so for private land conservation (Briggs 2001b, 2002, Brunkhorst 2002). Thus the
structure and operation of bodies setup to coordinate multi-tenure reserve networks
are likely to be crucial to the effective functionality of that network. Due to the
relatively recent development of such networks few studies have critically analysed
operational policies and actions of individual networks nor compared different
networks in different jurisdictions.
This chapter analyses aspects of the organisational structure of multi-tenure reserve
networks in the three case studies17. Specifically the aims of this chapter are to:
- Determine the degree of commonality between network structure and
coordinating body.
- Determine whether the network structure/coordinating body was targeted in
its approach to specific biodiversity conservation outcomes.
- Determine strengths and weaknesses in governance arrangements and the
applicability of these arrangements to other regions.
17 A history on the formation of the networks and a brief overview of their coordination arrangements has been presented in Chapter 3.
144
7.2 Methods
7.2.1 Review of available methods and selection of method
A review of the three most commonly used methods of social enquiry
(questionnaires, face-to-face interviews, and telephone interviews) is presented in the
previous chapter (6.2.1). Mailed questionnaires were used to allow coordinators to
formally document the structure, activities and policies within their networks.
Information regarding the network structure was also supplemented through informal
semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews with coordinators which
allowed for further clarification or expansion of certain issues (Robson 1993, Czaja
& Blair 1996).
7.2.2 Questionnaire design
Questions were arranged into broad themes (e.g. ‘Objectives of the network and role
of coordinating body’, ‘Entry requirements’, ‘Goals and measures of success’) and
comprised a mixture of open and closed questions (Appendix 20). Questionnaires
were coded so as follow up correspondence could be made with non-respondents.
However, these details were stored separately during analysis to ensure respondent
confidentiality.
The questionnaire was pre-tested on academic staff and post-graduate students at
Deakin University and adjustments to wording and order of questions were made
based on their responses and feedback.
7.2.3 Data collection and analysis
Questionnaires were sent to two key personnel involved in coordinating each of the
networks. Each individual had an active involvement in the coordination of the
networks whether they were members of the official coordinating body or not. As
there were a limited number of individuals that could be considered ‘key personnel’
at the time of survey, those surveyed were considered to be representative of the
networks’ strategic and administrative focus. All recipients of the questionnaires
were aware of the research project before the questionnaires were sent and the
project had been discussed at length prior to sending.
145
Questionnaires were sent to a representative of the following organisations:
Bookmark Biosphere Trust and Australian Landscape Trust (Bookmark BR); NSW
NPWS and Ecological Interactions (Grassy Box Woodlands CMN); and the Trust for
Nature and the (then) Department of Natural Resources & Environment (Gippsland
Plains CMN). Questionnaires were sent between 5-7 November 200118. A covering
letter (Appendix 17), consent form (Appendix 21) and a reply-paid envelope were
included with each questionnaire. Reminder letters were sent if managers had not
replied after three weeks of the initial mailout. Follow-up phone calls were made to
those who had not replied three weeks after the mailout of the reminder letter.
The limited number of coordinators available for surveying precluded statistical
analysis of responses, thus descriptive and comparative analysis was employed.
7.2.4 Subsequent changes to network structure
Since questionnaires were returned there have been a number of changes to the
coordination arrangements and structure of the networks. These are summarised and
discussed in 7.4 and derived from discussions held with the respective respondents as
well as published information.
7.3 Results and Discussion
7.3.1 Response to questionnaires
Five of the six network coordinators completed the questionnaire. One coordinator
from the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve returned the questionnaire but “due to the
politics around the coordinating issue of Bookmark Biosphere Reserve (could not)
censure the questionnaire”. It is interesting to note that the ‘politics’ surrounding the
coordination of Bookmark at the time which prevented this coordinator from
18 The distribution of the questionnaire was approved by the Deakin University Ethics Committee (Ref. No. EC 171-2001) on 17 September 2001 with subsequent modifications approved 3 October 2001.
146
answering the questionnaire, was raised as a limitation of the network by managers
of sites.
7.3.2 Objectives of the network and role of coordinating body
7.3.2.1 Objectives of the networks
Coordinators were asked to rank each of the following objectives in terms of
importance to their network (from 1-5, where 1 was the most important and 5 the
least important):
• To better account for the presence of biodiversity values which are being
managed across all tenures.
• To improve information exchange on the results of various management regimes
on sites within the network.
• To provide physical connectivity between sites managed for conservation.
• To more effectively integrate conservation of natural areas in an agricultural
production landscape.
• To achieve a more equitable flow of resources and complementary management
of ecosystems across tenures.
‘Improving information exchange’ was considered the most important objective, on
average, across the three networks (Table 29). This was usually undertaken through
organised field days outlining ecological research projects or sustainable land use
practices and by the presence of a full-time or part-time network coordinator
employed to facilitate information exchange and through the production of
newsletters (GBWCMN: Woodland Wanderings; GPCMN: On the Plains; BBR:
Bookmark Bulletin). Accounting for biodiversity managed across tenures was
considered a very high priority for both BBR and GBWCMN and for one coordinator
of the GPCMN (while the other considered it the network’s least important
objective). Other areas of diverging priorities were the physical connectivity of sites
(considered less important for the GBWCMN) and the equitable flow of resources
and management across tenures (less important for BBR).
147
Table 29. Perceived importance of various objectives to network coordinators (1 was the most important and 5 the least important).
Roles of the network
Boo
kmar
k
G
ipps
land
Pl
ains
Gra
ssy
Box
W
oodl
ands
Tot
al
Improve information exchange 1 1 1 1 2 6 Account for biodiversity 1 1 5 1 1 9 Integrate conservation in agricultural landscapes
1 2 1 3 2 9
Physical connection of sites 1 1 1 3 5 11 Flow of resources/ complementary management
4 1 1 1 4 11
7.3.2.2 Perceived role of the coordinating body
Coordinators were asked what they perceived to be the official role of the
coordinating body.
The official role of the coordination body at Bookmark BR was “coordinating
activities mainly in the ‘transition zone’ (and) improving relationships and
communication between partners”.
In Gippsland, one coordinator stated that there was no official coordinating body
with a “group meeting on an as needs” basis. A more official group to oversee
certain activities such as a ranger position was proposed. The other suggested the
coordinating body’s role was “to provide administrative backup, act as a central
point to contact, source funds, produce a newsletter, liase with government
departments, raise the profile of endangered vegetation types”.
Both respondents from the GBWCMN suggested that facilitation of the protection
and management of grassy box woodland remnants to achieve biological, cultural
and social outcomes was the main role of the coordinating body. Other stated roles
included enhancing links and communication among members, providing data on
protection and management aspects of sites for auditing of the status of the
ecological communities, providing or assisting with applications for funding for
148
special works, and enhancing general knowledge and awareness of the ecological
communities.
Improving links and communication was a common theme of all three networks,
while both increasing the profile of targeted vegetation types and providing a source
of funds was stated as a role of both CMN coordinating bodies.
7.3.3 Entry requirements
7.3.3.1 Criteria or conditions for acceptance of sites into the network
Coordinators were asked whether there were any particular requirements or
conditions that sites had to meet before they were accepted into the network (e.g.
minimum size requirements, minimum protection measures). All respondents
suggested there were criteria for acceptance of sites into their respective networks.
A requirement for entry into both CMNs was a commitment to manage the subject
remnant for nature conservation. Both CMNs further specified particular geographic
(“on the Gippsland Plains between Stratford and Bairnsdale” – GPCMN; “western
slopes of NSW” - GBWCMN) or ecological (“remnant of grassy box woodland –
GBWCMN) requirements for entry. One GBWCMN respondent noted the recent
“formal process of requesting landowners/managers sign a registration form (to)
formalise a site’s inclusion in the network”. The other GBWCMN respondent
suggested there were “no minimum protection measures or management regimes for
entry, but these factors affect resources allocated to a site”. In contrast, the only
requirement to becoming a ‘land partner’ within BBR is that a property “must be
managed to increase sustainability”. Interestingly, no coordinator specified a
requirement for legally-binding agreements for entry into the network.
Responses in relation to specific management requirements for sites within networks
varied. BBR suggested that increased sustainability was a requirement for that
network while one respondent from both GPCMN and GBCMN suggested there
were management requirements, whilst the other suggested the opposite. Specific
management requirements were similar to entry criteria, which was broadly to ensure
the site is managed for biodiversity conservation outcomes.
149
7.3.3.2 Mechanisms for expelling components of a network
Neither BBR nor GPCMN had mechanisms to expel a site from a network, while
there were conflicting responses within the GBWCMN (one suggesting there were,
the other there were not).
However, all networks envisaged a circumstance in which such actions may be
warranted. BBR were working on “accreditation which would allow people to be
removed if they behaved with unsustainability”. GPCMN suggested that the clearing
of a remnant or allowing the remnant to continually degrade with no preventative
action could warrant expulsion. A similar scenario was described for the GBWCMN,
although “protocols (were) unlikely to be produced until the need arises”. Further,
owners of sites without legally-binding agreements may die or sell up and the new
owner may no longer wish to be part of the network.
7.3.4 Goals and measures of success
7.3.4.1 Goals or measures of success by which the network can be evaluated.
The need for specific, measurable goals and the data needed to support goal setting
and to measure performance setting is considered essential to measure the
effectiveness of conservation activities occurring on various tenures across the
landscape (Bridgewater 2002, Cohn and Lerner 2003, Wallace 2003).
Coordinators in all three networks indicated there were goals or measures of success
by which their networks could be evaluated.
Measures of success listed by Bookmark were more broad statements of successful
outcomes than particular quantifiable measures. For example:
“Continued interest in spite of governance problems. Amount of money
attracted for conservation. Interest of wider community better than other
networks. Attachment with UNESCO brings overseas interest. Bookmark
is seen as the premier Australian Biosphere Reserve - the others are just
parks”.
150
While GPCMN noted that no official measures had yet been developed, measures
such as the number of protective covenants over remnants, number of significant
roadside signs and plans attached to roadsides, and number of trials and management
goals achieved (to be documented by ranger) were used in an unofficial capacity.
Similarly for the GBWCMN the number, size and quality of remnants under
agreements (both revocable and permanent) and registration of new sites, as well as
management actions undertaken, and the production of educational material such as
interpretative signs were also considered quantifiable targets. Monitoring the
‘viability and health’ of remnants and the overall grassy box woodland communities
over time was considered an important future measure.
Bookmark and GBW had both set targets in the past. Bookmark’s were set through
its Action Plan (Bookmark Biosphere Trust 1995) and “had been met”. The
GBWCMN cited the targets above and reported to Environment Australia on a
biannual basis. Some targets were likely to be met, others were not.
All respondents considered the setting of such goals useful to the coordinating body.
7.3.5 Limits to network extent and focus
7.3.5.1 Geographical limits on the networks.
All respondents suggested that there were geographical limits placed on the extent of
the network. At Bookmark the physical size was “limited by the fact that it needs to
be seen as three zones contained around Danggali”. Within the Gippsland Plains one
respondent indicated the areas between Stratford in the west and Bairnsdale in the
east, while the other suggested the area between Traralgon in west to Tambo River in
the east. Both GBWCMN respondents suggested sites had to be within NSW. One
indicated the network was limited to the area covered by the inland slopes, the other
suggesting flexibility in the boundary as “more networks (may) develop, (thus) to
avoid overlap and encourage linking of networks”.
151
7.3.5.2 Maximum number of sites or total area that a network can adequately
support
Although Bookmark suggested there was a maximum number/area the network could
support, this was “not a finite number but a geographical common sense boundary”.
While the GPCMN indicated that an “unlimited number of residents on the Plains
could join and receive the newsletter and come to meetings” only a limited number
could be serviced by the ranger (which was dependent on the levels of funding).
Similarly, both GBWCMN respondents suggested that the size and effectiveness of
the network is entirely dependent on the resources allocated to it, specifically a
coordinating officer.
7.3.5.3 Vegetation types targeted
All networks targeted particular vegetation types for protection over others.
Bookmark targeted Mallee ecosystems “to protect species and biodiversity”. The
Gippsland Plains CMN prioritised the protection of Plains Grassy Woodland, Plains
Grassland and Swamp Scrub EVCs as they were considered endangered, but both
respondents noted that all vegetation types on the Gippsland Plains were threatened
and thus also warranted inclusion in the network. The GBWCMN, as its name
suggests, focused specifically on Grassy Box Woodlands as they were “threatened
ecological communities that in the past have been poorly conserved”. Further, sites
on land suitable for cropping were a particular focus due to the threat that this high
intensity land use posed to structure of Grassy Box Woodlands, particularly to the
integrity of the understorey.
Neither Bookmark BR nor GPCMN excluded particular vegetation types from entry
into the network, while the GBWCMN did “to ensure the network is targeted” and
“to link together sites with similar biology and management needs”. However,
“concessions are made for shrubby box woodlands in some cases as no similar
network exists for them”.
7.3.6 Financial arrangements
7.3.6.1 Source of funds
All networks received funding for various activities from a range of sources.
Bookmark BR received funds from a variety of sources: Environment Australia,
152
NPWS SA and philanthropists via the Australian Landscape Trust. The Gippsland
Plains CMN relied mainly on ‘in kind’ support from the then NRE, Trust for Nature,
Greening Australia and East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority
(EGCMA). NRE, EGCMA and World Wide Fund for Nature have provided money
for a ranger.
The GBWCMN received startup funding from the Commonwealth Government
through the National Reserve System Program of the Natural Heritage Trust. NSW
NPWS provided funding for a project officer and ‘in kind’ time supplied by
ecologists. The Bushcare component of the NHT had also provided funding for
onground works.
7.3.6.2 Security of funds
Bookmark suggested that funds from the government were probably secure but
philanthropic funds were less so. The GPCMNs funds were ongoing for the in kind
contribution to coordinate the network, produce the newsletter and seek new
properties for addition into the network according to one respondent and secure for
one year according to the other. At the time of responding the GBWCMNs funds
were secure until June 2002.
7.3.6.3 Sufficiency of funds for achieving the aims of the networks
These funds were considered to be sufficient for successful implementation (of the
aims) of the network by Bookmark and the GBW (with the proviso that they were
ongoing). Bookmark noted that more money would enable more programs. The
GBWCMN noted that the funds were seeding funds only and that limited resources
for management of Travelling Stock Routes and private land in NSW (particularly
stewardship) has limited the engagement of the landowners. It was felt that the
onground achievements of the network could greatly increase once a full-time
facilitator, based in the region, could be employed. One GPCMN respondent
suggested current levels of funding were sufficient while the other suggested they
were not, yet both noted the importance of securing funding for the ranger position.
153
7.4 Developments in the structure of networks since
questionnaires
In the time since these questionnaires were completed, a number of changes in the
organisational structure has occurred for both Bookmark BR and the Gippsland
Plains CMN, with smaller changes to the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN. These are
outlined in sections 7.4.1-7.4.3 below.
7.4.1 Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
The Bookmark Biosphere Trust was dissolved in June 2002, following
“disagreements (which) led to the South Australian Government being convinced
that the Biosphere Trust model, which was a statutory body under the South
Australian parliament, was not the best way to promote the continued growth of the
Man and Biosphere program” (Cottam 2003 p. 9).
Cottam (2003) alludes to apparent disharmony in the Biosphere Trust structure with
the remark that the “provision of management becomes a difficult task as individuals
who disagree with the central management structure may decide to do their own
thing” and later “rebuilding the relationships between partners”. Existing and future
difficulties such as maintaining the autonomy of the individuals within a governance
model which complies with the Man and Biosphere objectives were also identified
by Cottam (2003).
An interim planning committee evaluated several governance options and decided
upon a “community committee” not allied to any Government or non-Government
identity. The Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage,
NPWSA, and an indigenous community representative would have a permanent seat
on the new committee with a further nine places to be community representatives.
Like the Gippsland Plains (see below) the interim committee is preparing a
constitution which is required for incorporation of the new body.
As an interesting aside, the Commonwealth Department of Environment and
Heritage (2004a) continued to list the ‘administrative authorities’ for Bookmark
154
Biosphere Reserve as being ‘under review’ and the Australian Landscape Trust as
contact body on their website as late as April 200419.
7.4.2 Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network
A CMN-specific ranger was employed shortly after questionnaires were completed
with funds from the NGO World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to undertake
adaptive management trials, particularly within the Forest Red Gum Woodland
community. Changes to the structure of the coordination arrangements have also
occurred within the Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network; the CMN
became an incorporated body on 25 September 2002. An eight-member committee
was elected, including four private landowners (two of which held the president and
vice-president positions) and representatives from the Trust for Nature, Department
of Sustainability & Environment, East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority
(Anon 2003). Incorporation was considered to offer a greater degree of formality,
allowing improved access to funding opportunities and allowing for insurance for
onground works.
7.4.3 Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network
The coordination arrangements for the GBWCMN has undergone only relatively
minor changes since questionnaire completion, compared to the other networks. The
project officer in charge of the GBWCMN is no longer based in head office of NSW
NPWS (Sydney) but in the office of the Southern regional directorate (Queanbeyan).
This move was the result of a culmination of the original project officer leaving and
NHT funding expiring (L. Oliver pers. comm. 2004). The role has changed from
setting up the pilot network and policy development, to one more heavily focused on
onground facilitation (L. Oliver pers. comm. 2004). The position could now be
perceived as being geographically (and psychologically) closer to onground sites
(although this would only be true for landholders in the south of the CMN). A
departmental restructure has seen the position now funded through the NSW
Department of Environment and Conservation, which primarily deals with off-
reserve conservation.
19 http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/biosphere/reserves/book.html
155
7.5 Implications for conservation
7.5.1 Operation, activities, policies of case study networks
Variations in responses given within the GPCMN and GBWCMN is likely to result
from both a lack of formal policy relating to some of the network’s operation at the
time of questionnaire completion combined with the individual coordinator’s
personal perceptions or preferences. Such variation in responses may be expected
from individuals with other institutions.
Furthermore, each network reported outcomes to varying levels of authority. For
example, Bookmark BR would report outcomes to the Commonwealth Government
and in turn to the international body UNESCO, whereas the Grassy Box Woodlands
reported to the NPWS. In contrast the Gippsland Plains CMN would only be required
to report to itself as an incorporated body.
Implicitly linked to target setting and reporting is a definition of which sites actually
belong to a respective multi-tenure reserve network. Despite having requirements for
entry and expectations for management, all coordinating bodies had trouble
providing definitive lists of properties considered a ‘part of their network’. This
looseness in definition was reflected by some managers responding to questionnaires
(Chapter 6) suggesting they did not consider themselves a part of that network. This
highlights a potential challenge for traditional conservation planning and auditing
which is often reliant on formal designations and classifications being placed on
particular land uses or protection mechanisms (e.g. gazettal of a reserve,
conservation covenant placed on title). Whilst a requirement for some minimum
form of written or verbal agreement may seem logical to justify entry into a network,
it is recognised that such a requirement may disenfranchise particular landholders
(public or private) who are unwilling to formally commit to an entity whose legal
status and objectives may not be clear20. However, if networks are to achieve one of
20 Wells et al. (1997) and Curran (2000) note that voluntary schemes such as Land for Wildlife do not have ongoing performance requirements that need to be monitored and consider this a positive.
156
their identified priorities of ‘accounting for biodiversity managed across tenures’
then this issue needs to be resolved.
As government and NGOs increasingly insist on transparency and accountability for
the allocation of financial grants, the requirement for networks to more vigorously
justify outcomes on properties within networks will also increase.
Whilst all networks stated that particular vegetation types were targeted, the
emphasis varied according to the landscape each was situated within. The CMNs,
both operating in fragmented landscapes, targeted the most depleted ecosystems as a
priority. However, the sole focus of the GBWMCN was on Grassy Box Woodland
communities and did not include other communities, in the local landscape. Thus
while all networks considered that accounting for biodiversity values managed for
conservation across all tenures to be a primary aim, their ability to do this will
depend on the clarity of their focus relating to geographic area and ecosystems
targeted for protection. Clarifying functional boundaries also has a more practical
application in ensuring the network is of an appropriate size for effective
conservation. For example, Todd (2000) recommends limiting the size of
conservation management networks while Brunckhorst (2003) suggested that the
success of common property institutions is usually enhanced if the group or
collective is relatively small.
All networks highlighted a lack of long-term financial security. This is likely to
severely limit the certainty of the networks continuation in the long-term, but is
symptomatic of the broader inadequacy of linking catchment-scale planning with
local implementation in Australia (Briggs 2001b). International experience suggests
that “early and substantial investments of time, financial resources and human
resources” are required to develop collaborative management agreements and that
the short term project approach by donor agencies may make such requirements
unsustainable (Borrini-Feyerabend 1999 p. 231).
Designation of a network alone does not ensure coordination of activities. For
example in a review of biosphere reserves in the United Kingdom, Price (2002)
found that while sustainable resource management practices were being implemented
157
around a number of strict protected areas designated as biosphere reserves, such
practices were not closely linked, if at all. Thus despite some of the shortcomings
highlighted in coordination arrangements for multi-tenure reserve networks in this
thesis, the importance of organisational linkages within multi-tenure networks should
not be taken for granted (Michaels et al. 2001).
7.5.2 Trends in governance arrangements
The move towards incorporation by both the GPCMN and BBR is significant,
particularly when considering that both of these new bodies formed independently
and from opposite ends of the institutional spectrum (i.e. top-down – BBR; bottom-
up – GPCMN). Borrini-Feyerabend (1999) believes that institutionalising
collaborative management processes and making them as independent as possible
from individuals and outside inputs minimises the risk of failure if the key person is
transferred or no longer participates. However, the recent outcomes at Bookmark
may suggest that an overarching body established under an Act of Parliament with
specific tasks may be too restrictive. This shift in management arrangements from a
legislative, top-down approach to more participatory coordination and management
has been seen elsewhere (Castelló i Vidal & López Lillo 1993).
The involvement of NGOs in the changes of structure for both BBR and GPCMN is
also interesting as it reflects a trend in other parts of the world (e.g. Central and
South America) for NGOs to act as intermediaries between protected area institutions
and local communities (Michaels et al. 1999a, Suárez de Freitas 1999, Röper 2000).
The breakdown or discontinuation of a network has the potential to disillusion
landholders, particularly if they have been actively involved in the network. The
formalisation of arrangements within the GPCMN has in part lessened the risk of the
network collapsing if one of the key drivers behind the network was to leave.
However, the importance of socially-skilled and respected facilitators in coordinating
groups of landholders has been demonstrated in a range of natural resource
management programs (e.g. Carr 1995, Edwards & Traill 2002, Stoll-Kleeman &
O’Riordan 2002, and many others), and the impact of the loss of such facilitators
from multi-tenure reserve networks should not be underestimated. This highlights the
158
importance of security of funding for continuity of facilitators and a need for
capacity building so facilitators that are capable keep coming through.
It is likely that the organisational arrangements for the three networks will continue
to evolve. As more multi-tenure networks form under a variety of banners the ability
to determine the most effective format for a particular area will increase. However,
experience in the USA suggests that “no real consensus” exists for defining certain
networks (e.g. greenline parks) (Mason 1994 p. 213). This evolution contrasts with
protected area bureaucracies’ preference for stability and certainty, and the longevity
of particular network structures may be required for such networks to be considered a
viable alternative to strict protected areas (e.g. Figgis 2002). Such a juxtaposition is
one of the greatest challenges to the sustainability of such networks.
159
CHAPTER 8
Discussion and Conclusion
8.1 Introduction
Multi-tenure reserve networks seek to tackle one of the great inhibitors to achieving
the goal of landscape-scale conservation: a lack of coordination and cooperation in
management of natural areas across a range of tenures. Mason and Michaels (2001)
believe that there is little basis for creating public support for ecological management
without convincing and compelling science. Thus researching and documenting the
attributes of these networks and lessons learnt in the establishment and operation of
multi-tenure reserve networks is an important step in the identification of specific
factors influencing their operation, the scale at which they operate, and ultimately
leading to improvements in their workability and function.
The results presented in Chapters 3-7 of this thesis indicate that multi-tenure reserve
networks have the potential to contribute to regional and national biodiversity
conservation objectives in Australia. This study also indicates that there are a number
of limitations which currently restrict this potential. This chapter aims to highlight the
potential for multi-tenure reserve networks to contribute to biodiversity conservation
objectives in Australia, to examine their limitations and suggest appropriate methods
to overcome these limitations. Specific recommendations will be made at the end of
this chapter.
8.2 The potential of multi-tenure reserve networks
8.2.1 Summary of major findings
This thesis has demonstrated the ability of Biosphere Reserves and Conservation
Management Networks to incorporate and coordinate the management of conservation
160
lands over varying tenure and with varying protection mechanisms. While the size of
components varied between networks, they included a range of tenures, from strict
protected areas on public land through to voluntary, binding agreements on private
land (see Chapter 3). Constraints on the number and size of components within multi-
tenure reserve networks are likely to be influenced by a number of often interrelated
factors including: the number and size of allotments (i.e. the degree of subdivision);
the amount of native vegetation or other conservation assets remaining in a region; the
willingness of landholders to participate; and the aims and/or geographic constraints
of the network.
Evidence that multi-tenure reserve networks could be applied in a variety of
landscapes was presented in Chapter 4. Connectivity and landscape context varied
significantly between networks. One of the networks (Grassy Box Woodlands CMN),
was set in a heavily cleared and fragmented landscape and comprised of mostly
isolated components separated by lengthy distances, stretching across the entire inland
slopes of NSW. Conversely, the bulk of land within the Bookmark BR was within
semi-arid rangeland and the majority of components adjoined another parcel within
the BR.
All networks contributed to the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the
existing public protected area system, though to varying degrees (see Chapter 5). In
particular, land outside of the public protected area estate also contributed to
enhancing comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of the existing
reserve system in each of the three networks. Although limited to some extent by the
varying scales and coverage of vegetation mapping, it was evident that all networks
acted to protect threatened and poorly-reserved ecosystems. The Grassy Box
Woodlands CMN, in particular made a substantial contribution, with most
components protecting remnants of an endangered vegetation community.
Importantly, networks provided a mechanism for reporting on the protection of these
ecosystems outside of the public reserve estate, thus providing input into biodiversity
conservation planning decisions.
This thesis has highlighted that different landholders and managers involved in multi-
tenure reserve networks perceived the aims of their network in different ways
161
(Chapter 6). This has the potential to cause uncertainty and may lead to conflict if
decisions made in the name of the network are contrary to a manager’s expectations.
The level of communication amongst land managers and landowners varied
significantly between networks. Geographic spread and property connectivity
appeared to have a bearing on this. Although land managers considered insufficient
time and finances to be the major limitation towards achieving network objectives,
almost all other perceived limitations and suggested improvements related to issues
that can be influenced by the networks’ coordinating body. Despite the limitations, the
vast majority of managers and landowners involved in the networks considered their
experience to be positive. Encouragingly, the high level of enthusiasm displayed by
managers to be recognised within a national reserve system, particularly for private
landowners, has important and positive policy implications for conservation planning
in Australia.
The results of this study have highlighted important differences in aims, structure,
authority and reporting mechanisms between multi-tenure reserve networks (see
Chapter 7). These differences are based on a number of factors including: a) the
legislative/institutional arrangements of the jurisdiction; b) the strength/attractiveness
of voluntary conservation mechanisms; c) the level of commitment/knowledge of
ecological processes and mechanisms; d) the densities of population in the focus
region; and e) the physical nature of the landscape (e.g. amount of
subdivision/remnant vegetation).
The move towards becoming incorporated bodies by two of the three networks is
significant, considering that both of these new bodies have formed independently and
from opposite ends of the institutional spectrum (i.e. top-down – Bookmark BR;
bottom-up – Gippsland Plains CMN). This suggests that an ‘organic’ fluid evolution
of network structures is likely, which is juxtaposed by the desire for legalistic and
administrative rigidity promoted by government agencies.
8.2.2 The contribution of multi-tenure reserve networks to biodiversity
conservation
This thesis set out to evaluate the role of multi-tenure reserve networks in protecting
biodiversity, and in so doing investigated the physical, ecological, social,
162
organisational and legal elements of three case studies. The extent to which this thesis
has been able to achieve the objectives outlined in Chapter 1 is discussed below. The
aims of this thesis were:
1) To establish a systematic approach to classifying and accounting for land
managed for conservation across all tenures;
This thesis has developed a new, original and systematic approach to classification
and accounting for lands managed for conservation across all tenures – the
Conservation Land Classification (Fitzsimons & Wescott 2004). This has been
applied to the multitude of tenures/protection types that are within multi-tenure
reserve networks and its use has the potential for significant improvements in
conservation planning.
2) To critically examine whether and/or to what extent the networks enhance the
existing public protected area estate and the implications for biodiversity
conservation;
This thesis has shown there to be tradeoffs between reserve design efficiency at a
network level and the relative contribution networks make to a comprehensive,
adequate and representative reserve system. This ranged from Bookmark BR which
had high connectivity, strong reserve design integrity but a lower contribution to
protecting poorly-reserved ecosystems, to the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN which
had a high contribution to improved protection of endangered and poorly reserved
ecosystems yet poor connectivity. This poses significant challenges for concepts of
achieving ‘viable’ reserves that sample variation in biodiversity in a comprehensive
and representative manner.
3) To establish whether the current structure of the networks allows the effective
integration of public and private conservation lands to occur;
Although it is the aim of all networks to achieve the integration of public and private
conservation estates, the degree to which this was achieved varied. Both quantifiable
and anecdotal evidence suggests that all three networks were yet to fully integrate
public conservation reserves at the time of analysis. In the case of the two CMNs
163
much of the ‘start up’ work has focused on private land. Conversely, Bookmark was
formed from a core of public protected areas. This suggests there is a tradeoff between
the role of the network to incorporate and account for all conservation lands and their
role in actively protecting remnants most at threat.
4) To develop a framework for identifying physical and social landscapes where
particular network types may be most appropriately implemented to achieve
biodiversity conservation goals.
Wherever there is fragmentation of habitat and/or land tenure either the Conservation
Management Network or Biosphere Reserve models could be applied to facilitate
greater cross-tenure coordination of management. As was their original intention,
CMNs are likely to be more appropriate in fragmented landscapes, whereas Biosphere
Reserves may require more contiguous natural or semi-natural landscapes to achieve
their zonational objectives (although as previously mentioned this is not always the
case, e.g. Mornington Peninsula and Western Port BR, which is based around the
relatively developed semi-urban fringe of Melbourne). It is clear that successful
networks are likely to require a minimum participating population, and thus it may be
harder to establish networks in more sparsely populated areas.
This thesis suggests that existing networks will continue to evolve and new networks
operating at different scales will be initiated (e.g. WildCountry networks). It is also
recognised that other types of networks such as those based around the needs of fauna
(e.g. Superb Parrot network) may be better in harnessing community/landowner
interest.
In addition to the findings relating to the aims described above, a number of other
significant findings have emerged from this research. One such revelation has been
the role and involvement of NGOs in initiating major landscape conservation projects,
particularly on private land. Specifically, this has involved a state-based or national
private conservation group purchasing one or more large, high-quality properties with
financial assistance from the National Reserve System Program. All three case study
networks illustrate this but other recent examples include Broken Boosey CMN,
Northern Plains Grasslands CMN, Barkindji BR proposal (all with strong
164
involvement from the Trust for Nature) and Wychitella-Wedderburn CMN and the
Gondwana Link (with support of the Australian Bush Heritage Fund). The NGOs are
aware of the real and potential role they play in seeding multi-tenure reserve networks
(e.g. Bently et al. 2002). They are increasingly able to secure funds for land purchase
and management and are able to act quickly without the restrictions of government
processes. The increased capacity of NGOs in this role contrasts sharply with
government agencies which are increasingly inflexible and less capable of delivery.
Local communities are increasingly forming networks with different interpretations
and applications of existing network models. This situation has affinities to Mason’s
(1987 p. 22) observation that despite a lack of a formal ‘greenline’ program in the
United States, there were “numerous examples of greenline-type parks throughout
(that) country”.
While, it is recognised that the retention, protection and management of habitat is of
vital importance for species conservation, in most planning scenarios there are more
sites of biological value than it would be possible to declare as reserves (Prendergast
et al. 1999). Networks have the potential to increase the protection of remnants in a
region in two ways:
1) By increasing communication to landholders and other stakeholders regarding the
plight of the ecosystem/s and the resultant recognition by the landholders of this;
and
2) By providing a structured and strategic approach to conservation in a region which
may make it more attractive for governments and/or NGOs to invest resources for
increased conservation effort (for example through provision of extension staff,
financial incentives and land purchase).
Thus multi-tenure reserve networks have the potential to fill a sizeable gap in
coordinating management across a variety of tenures.
Furthermore, networks offer opportunities to measure change over time as well as
being a potential stimulus for change. Although it is difficult to determine whether an
increase in the level of protection or management is the direct result of the networks,
anecdotal evidence suggests that they would have had an influential role. Multi-tenure
reserve networks provide an identifiable and tangible entity that land managers and
165
the community in general can associate with. As such they have significant potential
to act as delivery mechanisms for bioregional planning programs.
8.3 Limitations to successful achievement of conservation
objectives
The results of this study indicate that there are several factors that could limit the
potential of multi-tenure reserve networks to contribute to national and regional
biodiversity conservation objectives. These are discussed below.
8.3.1 The definition of a network
Bennett and Lowe (2002) suggest that in southern Australia there is a wide
recognition of the need for conservation networks but their implementation is not
straightforward. The multi-tenure reserve networks studied in this research alone have
shown there are a number of different interpretations of the term ‘network’ and these
may influence establishment, operation and outcomes. For example, the term
‘conservation networks’ could mean:
a) a physical entity of parcels of land (e.g. reserve system);
b) a group of managers undertaking onground conservation management actions; or
c) a communicative structure designed for the flow of information.
To some degree Conservation Management Networks and Biosphere Reserves aim to
incorporate all of these definitions. However, while all are related to some extent,
there are obvious important differences between a physical entity and communicative
structure which often gets lost in definition and understanding of a ‘network’. The
varying and disparate responses of land managers in this study to the questions of
their perception of the aims of their respective “network’s” highlights this potential
confusion. The two most common broad responses were ‘protection of conservation
areas’ and ‘education of land managers/information source/involvement of
community’. While some managers mentioned both, many from the same network
stated one or the other. Defining what a network means in a particular context must be
done early so as not to confuse, and potentially disillusion, participants.
166
It is important to recognise that networks will not offer everything to everyone in
biodiversity conservation. Thus the purpose of the networks needs to be clear for
reporting purposes and for comparison across networks. For example, Murphy (1999
p. 79), believes that the “final test” for the conservation value of woodland remnants
in the NSW South West Slopes will be whether they can maintain their current
woodland-dependent fauna. However, it would be difficult to argue that the small,
relatively intact remnants of Grassy White Box Woodland protected within cemeteries
of the GBWCMN were not of high conservation value or not worth protecting, despite
their size precluding them from maintaining most woodland fauna. Conversely,
remnants of different vegetation types may be more critical for faunal movements
than nearby remnants of the same vegetation community scattered over 800 km.
8.3.2 The Biosphere Reserve and Conservation Management Network models
Major differences between the two types of networks lie in the significance attached
to a site. The Conservation Management Network model in theory recognises all sites
equally, although with an increased emphasis on those of a higher conservation
significance, higher quality, and higher level of protection, whereas the Biosphere
Reserve model has a defined framework which is broadly expected to be followed
(internationally at least). The terms ‘core’, ‘buffer’ and ‘transition’ zones within
Biosphere Reserves have the potential to diminish the recognition of smaller private
properties actively conserving biodiversity. For example, the placement of SA
National Trust reserves within the ‘transition zone’ in Bookmark BR (Appendix 4)
implies that these reserves are merely carrying out activities that do not impact
negatively on the ‘core’. In reality they have the same management purpose as the
larger properties within the core (i.e. biodiversity conservation). This designation
supports Martino’s (2001) contention that there is still considerable ambiguity in
defining the role of buffer zones. The application of buffer zones to mitigate potential
pressures from outside of protected areas, although desirable, are likely to be
precluded due to pressures on land availability (especially in more higher populated or
‘use-intensive’ areas) (Prendergast et al. 1999).
Unlike other international designations (such as World Heritage, Ramsar wetlands),
legal boundaries for Biosphere Reserves as a whole are not well-defined and there is
167
no real penalty (internationally or nationally) for breach of objectives (although see
Coffman’s (2001) contention). Although the application of stricter national or
international legal compliance requirements may deter the involvement of some
private landholders within Biosphere Reserves, it should be recognised that without
individually negotiated binding agreements, long-term protection cannot be assured.
For example, little of the private land within Bookmark has legally-binding
agreements so if that network were to collapse, individual remnants would not
necessarily be protected in the long-term. In many respects, networks act to exemplify
many of the broader challenges of biodiversity conservation – the interplay between
using either binding or non-binding agreements in off-reserve conservation. While
binding agreements improve theoretical protection, they may also discourage some
landowners from participating. Thus a conundrum arises: Is it better to incorporate
more sites with non-binding agreements into the network or to focus on those with
binding agreements of which there are likely to be fewer in number? Multi-tenure
reserve networks have the potential provide a setting for encouraging landowners to
move from non-binding to binding agreements over time (and for measuring this
progression).
CMNs differed in their approach between Victorian and NSW case studies, with the
former focussing on all remnants within a set geographic area and the latter specific
vegetation communities across their entire range. There is likely to be a much higher
ecological interaction between GBWCMN components and other nearby patches of
non-Grassy White Box Woodland than another GBWCMN site some 22 km away
(the average minimum distance between sites in that network).
The lack of clear government policy relating to CMNs and, to a lesser extent BRs,
also has the potential for confusion and duplication of conservation effort. For
example, there is currently a proposal to have the entire Australian Capital Territory
declared a Biosphere Reserve (Eastburn 2003) while a regional or ACT-based
Conservation Management Network for grassy ecosystems has been proposed by the
ACT Government (2003). More recent trends for Australian Biosphere Reserves has
seen the use of a number of fragmented ‘core’ areas which further blur the distinction
between the two models (e.g. Mornington Peninsula-Western Port BR and Barkindji
BR – see Appendices 22 and 23 respectively).
168
The attraction of international recognition, accreditation and potential funding that is
associated with the Biosphere Reserve program may influence the model chosen by
stakeholders (particularly local stakeholders). Comparatively, the CMN model is still
a relatively new concept and despite having more onground examples currently in
existence than true ‘multi-tenure’ Biosphere Reserves in Australia, this model
receives relatively little recognition at a national level. Thus a Biosphere Reserve may
be chosen over a CMN in an ecologically fragmented landscape which is theoretically
more suited to the latter model.
8.3.3 Transparency in participation criteria, goals and targets
Quantifiable measures of success have been shown to be lacking for many private
land conservation programs (Fitzsimons 1999a) and public-private conservation
partnerships both in Australia and internationally (Toupal 2000, Wallace 2003). There
is a need to better audit the types of conservation activities being undertaken so that
return for investment can be evaluated and appropriate priorities can be set. However,
herein lies a dilemma: Is it acceptable for community-based measures of success to be
developed or for none to be present at all? Or should these measures be in line with
jurisdictional or national objectives? As biophysical condition, tenure, legislative,
population, and social dynamics will vary between regions, standardised objectives or
criteria for Conservation Management Networks, Biosphere Reserves or other forms
of networks may be hard to achieve. This raises important challenges for conservation
planning at the State, national and international levels. A categorisation system and
accreditation process for networks, similar to that for individual protected areas, may
be required as networks increase in number and variety.
The development of more consistent jurisdictional spatial datasets would also assist in
progressing the ability to compare network performance across Australia.
Realistically, this would be done through the jurisdictional nature conservation
agencies. Despite Australia being recognised as a world leader in the strategic
development of public reserve systems, debates about the appropriateness of
particular targets and measures of success are still strong (e.g. Freudenberger et al.
2000, Recher 2003). Thus it may be unrealistic to expect such measures to be
developed in inherently more complex situations, such as multi-tenure reserve
169
networks, when after one hundred years they are only now being applied to public
reserve systems.
What is clear is that the multi-tenure reserve networks in this study were articulate in
their focus on goals over process, a trait which Wallace (2003) considered to be
lacking in many Landcare groups in Australia and a major barrier to that program.
Interestingly, Fraser and Jamieson (2003) found that the ‘official’ objectives and
processes of the Man and Biosphere program were impeding the understanding of the
principles governing a newly formed Biosphere Reserve in Canada.
Criteria for a participant’s ‘entry’ into a network is another important determinant of
how networks operate and are perceived. All networks had some difficulty rigidly
defining which properties were actually formally part of the network. This suggests
more transparent entry requirements such as minimum standards for protection
mechanisms, management intent, quality and size all need to be clarified if networks
are to be considered in biodiversity conservation auditing. Further, this requirement
will become increasingly important for justifying outcomes resulting from public
funding for such networks.
8.3.4 The ability for networks to assess biodiversity conservation efforts
This thesis has demonstrated that the networks could be used as a mechanism for
accounting for biodiversity protection and management across a range of tenures.
However, this potential is not being realised at present due to broader institutional
obstacles relating to the lack of recognition of the role of private land within the
greater conservation estate, combined with a lack of a centralised body to collate
outcomes. This in part may be due to the relatively rapid evolution of private land
conservation mechanisms which has resulted in a policy vacuum in Australia and
internationally, compared with over 100 years of development and acceptance of
public protected areas such as national parks.
The draft Directions Paper for the National Reserve System provided no greater
clarity and instead referred to Conservation Management Networks by their former
moniker of ‘Protected Area Networks’ (NRMMC 2004). Despite the GBWCMN
receiving establishment funding from the NRSP in 1998 to act as a model to account
170
for off-reserve conservation mechanisms there is little evidence that it has been
utilised for that purpose. This thesis has shown the majority of landowners in
networks would like to be considered part of a ‘bigger picture’, a national reserve
system of conservation lands. Harnessing this support is important not only for the
status of the NRS but for broader conservation planning exercises. Further, if
involvement of landowners and managers is related to the perceived importance of the
network, government agencies could yield a greater return for the conservation dollar
by adequately promoting multi-tenure reserve networks.
The input of multi-tenure reserve network data into national programs such as the
National Reserve System and the National Land and Water Resources Audit would
greatly enhance the usefulness of such programs for conservation planning, though
privacy issues will need to be resolved. A national committee overseeing such
networks, such as those currently in place for Biosphere Reserves in Australia
(Commonwealth DEH 2004b), and in other parts of the world (e.g. Herrera Alvarez
2001, Meese et al. 2003), is warranted.
8.3.5 Prioritising the location of networks
Multi-tenure reserve networks are often initiated from outside the public park service
bureaucracy. Thus they present a real challenge for the involvement of conservation
planners and for the development of a CAR reserve system if they are not developed
in priority areas. Networks have the potential to increase awareness of the plight of an
ecosystem and/or particular sites within a region. If the establishment of networks
target those ecosystems most in need of conservation the networks have the potential
to be largely positive. However, if networks are established in areas of lesser
conservation significance, they have the potential to draw resources away from higher
priority areas. Governments, which broadly support landscape-scale approaches to
biodiversity conservation, are unlikely to hold back endorsement of such networks for
fear of being perceived as ‘spoilers’.
If it is a government authority initiating or promoting a network which includes other
lands, it will be important that their reserves are well managed so as not to convey an
image of relying on private landowners to make up for their shortfalls. However,
Dudley et al. (1999) believe that while suggestions from NGOs that some form of
171
official verification or certification system for protected areas may be warranted,
governments may wish to avoid potential exposure to criticism of their management
practices.
The development of sophisticated and systematic conservation planning procedures
(e.g. Scotts & Drielsma 2003, Platt & Lowe 2002, Cowling et al. 2003a) have the
potential to enhance both prioritisation for expansion of existing networks and for the
formation of new networks. However, ensuring the use of such technically and data
intensive procedures are adopted at the network level may prove to be a significant
challenge.
The non-inclusion of inter-jurisdictional conservation lands may suggest that while it
may not be the policy of a network to restrict their operations within state boundaries,
existing administration, coordination or financing arrangements by state nature
conservation agencies could practically result in the recognition of artificial
administrative boundaries on the area of operation.
Networks have the potential to act as mechanisms for the implementation of
bioregional planning principles. However, as biogeographic regions may not always
be consistent with social, political and economic regions (Saunders & Briggs 2002,
Fall 2004, Lane et al. 2004), network boundaries may operate across bioregions and
but may also be restricted to areas within bioregions. The perception of ‘place’ is
often critical to cooperative land management partnerships (Michaels et al. 1999b)
and may also influence network boundaries. Further demographic and social analysis
is required for both existing networks and areas for potential networks in order to
better understand the influence these factors may have on the scale a network operates
at.
Any network of sites will have some spatial reality. Herein lies a struggle between the
desire to coordinate an overall landscape approach and the onground realities of
physically and adequately managing a number of different sites (in terms of tenure,
size, habitats etc). Some of the problems in measuring success may stem from a
failure to set boundaries and thus limit the ability to compare outcomes with a similar
172
area elsewhere. While artificial in construct, networks may need to set clearly defined
nominal boundaries or ‘areas of interest’.
Networks will evolve based on both vision and the reality of implementing that
vision. For example, during the course of this research the Gippsland Plains CMN has
moved from the local (Perry River) to the regional (Gippsland Plains). While
expansion in sites or area within networks is generally straightforward , shrinking or
splitting a network if so desired maybe less clear. For example, although it was
originally envisaged that different vegetation communities within a similar geographic
range could comprise separate CMNs (e.g. White Box Woodlands, Yellow Box
Woodlands, Fuzzy Box Woodlands; Prober et al. 2001) it is unlikely that this would
be feasible or practical on the ground. This could have involved splitting a
reserve/remnant that may contain part White Box Woodland and part Yellow Box
Woodland into two separate CMNs.
However, there is likely to be a critical number (if not geographical size) of sites a
network can effectively support. The larger a network gets the potential for smaller
sites to get ‘lost in the system’ increases (as does the alienation of individual
participants). Attempting to establish multi-tenure reserve networks at an IBRA
subregional scale may be inappropriate considering the corresponding decrease in
communication between individual managers within larger geographic areas as
indicated in this research. Striking a balance between the importance of social
cohesion of participants and optimal scales of operation for biodiversity conservation
is a major challenge but likely to be essential if networks are to operate effectively.
This thesis has shown that jurisdictional boundaries still inhibit regional conservation
networks, as evidence by the BBR and GBWCMN being restricted to their State of
establishment despite similar protected vegetation located across borders. Funding
and legal frameworks are likely to be the main reasons for this, although there are
signs that this may be changing (e.g. Barkindji BR, WildCountry program), rather
than social factors related to participants.
173
8.3.6 Long-term financial security
Considering the scale and range of tenures over which they operate, multi-tenure
reserve networks serve to highlight deficiencies in funding for conservation assessed
on a landscape scale. The need for improved resourcing for biodiversity conservation
activities is required on at least four levels.
Firstly, long-term resource security is essential for achieving lasting onground
outcomes. However, current resourcing arrangements which are typified by short-term
funding and a reliance on externally-provided grant-based resources such as the
Natural Heritage Trust (e.g. Jennings & Moore 2000) run counter to this. A socially
skilled and respected extension officer/coordinator with credibility in the region and a
well-developed regional action plan are considered prerequisites for multi-tenure
reserve networks to succeed (Edwards & Traill 2002, Stoll-Kleeman & O’Riordan
2002). With this level of importance comes the risk that if key individuals were to
move the network could easily collapse. Without adequate job security and
appropriate remuneration, particularly in more remote locations, the risk of this
occurring is likely to increase.
Secondly, it is widely recognised that efforts to establish a CAR reserve system from
public land alone will not be achievable with current levels of funding for land
purchase (Young & Howard 1996, James et al. 1999, Humann 2001, Possingham et
al. 2002, Bartlett 2004). Humann (2001) believed that the $20 million per annum that
has been notionally provided between 1996 and 2001 needed to be doubled over the
following five years (i.e. $200 million) if Australia “is to challenge losses through
land degradation and protect biodiversity through the process of the National Reserve
System”. For the 2001-2002 financial year, it is believed that only ~$5 million was
available from the Commonwealth Government for land purchase though the NRSP
(Fitzsimons & Wescott 2002), with no signs of any increase in the immediate future.
Thirdly, as the public protected area estate increases in size to meet international
biodiversity conservation objectives, increases in the spatial extent is not being
matched with commensurate increases in funding for management (Wescott 1995,
Wilkie et al. 2001).
174
Lastly, the provision of stewardship payments for conservation and active
management of natural areas on private land is lacking in most parts of Australia.
Management of natural areas on private land requires the same level of resources as
equivalent natural areas on public land.
8.4 Recommendations for the advancement of multi-tenure
reserve networks
Emanating from the findings of this thesis the following recommendations are
presented to enhance the development and operation of multi-tenure reserve networks
both in Australia and internationally.
1. Greater public and institutional discourse
Greater public and institutional discourse is needed in Australia regarding the
direction for Conservation Management Networks, Biosphere Reserves and other
similar models, particularly from public conservation institutions and park staff,
environment groups and most importantly from the managers of privately owned
natural areas. There is a particular need for greater policy determination, recognition
and leadership from government institutions on the status of multi-tenure reserve
networks and their role within the conservation estate. Government agencies will need
to be flexible and recognise the diversity of network structures to ensure networks are
not operating in isolation and distant from conservation plans and policies. Further,
the provision of efficient means by which individual networks can report their
contribution to biodiversity conservation are required. The Commonwealth
Government (through the National Reserve System) has an obvious role in
coordinating this as an umbrella body and a strong responsibility to promote it.
2. More explicit aims and targets are required to assess the effectiveness of
network in achieving biodiversity conservation goals
As outlined in 8.3.3 more explicit aims and targets are required for both Biosphere
Reserves and Conservation Management Networks, particularly in relation to defining
which sites are part of a network and the management/protection status of those sites.
175
While setting uniform and prescriptive aims and targets will not be appropriate across
all networks, the provision of general guidance for target setting and the
encouragement of greater consistency in reporting outcomes will enhance the ability
to assess the effectiveness of networks in achieving biodiversity conservation goals.
3. Greater promotion of the nature conservation aspects of Biosphere
Reserves
Greater promotion of the nature conservation aspects of Biosphere Reserves is
important to inspire greater public recognition and support for the program. Each site
protecting biodiversity should be recognised as such. Implying that private land sites
are simply ‘buffering’ public protected areas and not necessarily important
conservation lands in their own right does not adequately recognise their contribution.
While it may be argued that focussing on sustainable production and best practice in
citrus, viticulture or wheat production within various Australian Biosphere Reserves
gives such practices important promotion, such images may not necessarily be
capturing the public imagination or inspiring conservation groups to campaign
actively on their behalf.
4. Funding
Although beyond the control of most individual networks, increased funding, both in
real monetary terms and in terms of resource security is required. Increased security
of funding would allow greater certainty for managers and the ability to strategically
plan ahead. Embracing and encouraging financial input via programs such as
BushTender and the Private Forest Reserve Program (which offer stewardship
payments) would allow a more targeted approach to the permanent protection of key
sites and be linked to management actions.
8.5 Future directions for research
As this study was the first of its kind in Australia or internationally, there remain a
number of areas in need of further research. Further investigation of three areas in
particular would complement the work undertaken in this thesis, increase our
176
understanding of networks, and would ultimately lead to an increase in the
effectiveness of multi-tenure reserve networks.
1. Increased research into social dynamics of networks
Further work is needed to understand the social, political and economic dynamics of
landscapes and communities. Improved knowledge of the social and demographic
characteristics of those landowners participating in networks and those that are not
could provide important information and allow approaches to be tailored to attract
landowners in the future.
2. Longer-term changes in network characteristics
Long-term research and analysis of all of the characteristics studied in this thesis
would enhance our understanding of the social, political and ecological forces that
shape multi-tenure reserve networks. Of particular interest is the identification of
reasons for their persistence or failure. The impact that the failure of an established
network may have on landowners involved is of particular interest because
disenfranchisement may lead to negative outcomes for biodiversity conservation.
Longer-term research would also enable a more thorough evaluation of the
contribution of networks to biodiversity conservation.
3. Comparison with other networks in Australia or internationally
As both Biosphere Reserves and Conservation Management Networks proliferate in
Australia, comparing other onground examples in other jurisdictions would build on
the findings of this research. Furthermore, comparisons with other models both within
Australia (e.g. WildCountry) and internationally (greenline parks and transboundary
protected areas) will also provide greater insight into the characteristics of multi-
tenure reserve networks and their role in protecting biodiversity. Ultimately, this will
assist in identifying more effective and efficient models for biodiversity conservation
across the landscape.
177
8.6 Conclusion
The thesis concludes that multi-tenure reserve networks can make a significant
contribution to biodiversity conservation and fill a sizeable gap in coordinating
management across a variety of tenures. This contribution varies between networks
with an apparent ‘tradeoff’ between reserve design efficiency and the contribution
they make to enhancing the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of
the conservation estate. The key factors influencing the current and potential future
contribution that such networks make are: (1) the aims, directions and restrictions set
by or imposed upon the coordinating body; and (2) the biophysical nature of the
landscape the network operates within and resultant historical land use and tenure
patterns.
Multi-tenure reserve networks offer a tangible means of implementing bioregional
planning principles. However, they also provide a prime example of the tension
between encouraging community involvement in nature conservation and ensuring
limited resources are used in the highest priority areas as determined by scientific
research. Ultimately both aspirations will have to be accommodated if these models
are to become accepted.
The rise of non-government organisations which purchase land for conservation is
having an increasing, and potentially positive, influence on efforts to achieve cross-
tenure biodiversity conservation, in Australia and other parts of the world. As
evidenced by this thesis, their influence is multi-faceted, ranging from direct land
purchase to network coordination to onground management to the raising of a
network’s profile by association.
Although understanding of the networks’ role and aims was mixed between
participants, the overwhelming majority of landowners and managers considered their
involvement in the network to be a positive experience. Further, the high level of
enthusiasm from private landowners to participate in a national reserve system
provides an important stimulus to strengthen the coordination of activities between
public and private conservation lands at a national level.
178
Although the successful operation of multi-tenure reserve networks ultimately relies
on the willing participation of private landholders, ongoing institutional support is
likely to be required for maintaining networks in the longer term. Considering that
networks are increasingly formed outside of the influence of government institutions,
this presents a significant challenge for effective coordinated conservation in future.
179
References ACT Government (2003) Draft ACT Lowland Woodland Conservation Strategy.
Action Plan No. 27. Environment ACT, Canberra.
Adam, P. (1998) Biodiversity - the biggest of big pictures. In: Lunney, D., Lawson,
T. & Dickman, C.R. (Eds) Is the Biodiversity Tail Wagging the Zoological Dog?
pp. 6-14. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales,
Mosman.
Agrawal, A. (2000) Adaptive management in transboundary protected areas: the
Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve as a case study. Environmental
Conservation 27, 326-333.
AHC (2003) Australian Heritage Commission Register of the National Estate
Database. Available: http://www.ahc.gov.au [Accessed 21 January 2003].
Ahern, J. (1995) Greenways as a planning strategy. Landscape and Urban Planning
33, 131-155.
Ahern, J.F. (2002) Greenways as Strategic Landscape Planning: Theory and
Application. Doctoral thesis. Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Alphandéry, P. & Fortier, A. (2001) Can a territorial policy be based on science
alone? The system for creating the Natura 2000 network in France. Sociologia
Ruralis 41, 311-328.
Anon. (2002a) Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve. Stage 1
Nomination. May 2002. Submission to UNESCO, Paris.
Anon. (2002b) National parks estate with Grassy White Box Woodland in NSW.
Woodland Wanderings 2, 3.
180
Anon. (2003) CMN appoints first committee. On the Plains I (V), 1, 3-4.
Anon. (2004) Meet an old friend with a new name. On the Plains I (VII), 1.
Antos, M.J. & White, J.G. (2004) Birds of remnant vegetation on the Mornington
Peninsula, Victoria, Australia: the role of interiors, edges and roadsides. Pacific
Conservation Biology 9, 294-301.
ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private Land (1996) Nature
Conservation on Private Land: Commonwealth, State and Territory Legislation
and Programs. ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private
Land, Canberra.
ANZLIC Metadata Working Group (2001) ANZLIC Metadata Guidelines: Core
Metadata Elements for Geographic Data in Australia and New Zealand, Version
2, February 2001. ANZLIC, Canberra.
Austin, M.P., Cawsey, E.M., Baker, B.L., Yialeloglou, M.M., Grice, D.J. & Briggs,
S.V. (2000) Predicted Vegetation Cover in the Central Lachlan Region. Final
Report of the Natural Heritage Trust Project AA 1368.97. CSIRO Wildlife and
Ecology, Canberra.
Babbie, E. (1990) Survey Research Methods. 2nd Edition. Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont, California.
Baker-Gabb, D. (2001) Recovery Plan for the Black-eared Miner Manorina
melanotis 2002 - 2006: Conservation of old-growth dependent mallee fauna.
Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.
Balmford, A., Mace, G.M. & Ginsberg, J.R. (1998) The challenges to conservation in
a changing world: putting processes on the map. In: Mace, G.M., Balmford, A.
& Ginsberg, J.R. (Eds) Conservation in a Changing World. pp. 1-28. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
181
Bani, L., Baietto, M., Bottoni, L. & Massa, R. (2002) The use of focal species in
designing a habitat network for a lowland area of Lombardy, Italy. Conservation
Biology 16, 826-831.
Barborak, J.R. (1995) Institutional options for managing protected areas. In:
McNeely, J.A. (Ed.) Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. pp. 30-38. Island
Press, Washington D.C.
Barkindji Biosphere (2004) Potential Barkindji Biosphere Establishment - Map.
Barkindji Biosphere, Mildura. Available:
http://www.barkindjibiosphere.org/pdf/categories_map.pdf [Accessed 20 August
2004].
Barlow, T. (1998) Grassy Guidelines: How to manage native grasslands and grassy
woodlands on your property. Trust for Nature (Victoria), Melbourne.
Barrett, G. (1997) Site Assessment Criteria for Land Acquisition by Birds Australia.
Birds Australia Report Series No 1. Birds Australia, Melbourne.
Bartlett, A. (2004) Government makes massive cuts to the national reserve system
program. Press release. Senator Andrew Bartlett. 26 March 2004.
Batisse, M. (1982) The Biosphere Reserve: a tool for environmental conservation
and management. Environmental Conservation 9, 101-114.
Batisse, M. (1993) The silver jubilee of the MAB and its revival. Environmental
Conservation 20, 107-112.
Beer, J. & Fox, M. (2000) Weed invasion in rural eucalypt forest remnants in eastern
Australia. In: Craig, J.L., Mitchell, N. & Saunders, D.A. (Eds) Nature
Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production Environments - Managing
the Matrix. pp. 103-110. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
182
Belcher, E.H. & Wellman, J.D. (1991) Confronting the challenge of greenline parks:
limits of the traditional administrative approach. Environmental Management
15, 321-328.
Bennett, A.F. (1990) Habitat Corridors - Their Role in Wildlife Management and
Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.
Bennett, A.F. (1991) Is the reserve system enough? Wildlife conservation on private
land. In: Victoria’s Flora and Fauna: Can it survive the greenhouse effect?
Proceedings of the Conference of Sunday 3 March 1991. pp. 39-41. Victorian
National Parks Association, Melbourne.
Bennett, A.F. (1999) Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and
Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK.
Bennett, A.F. & Lowe, K.W. (2002) From design to implementation: insights from
ecological networks in southern Australia. Paper presented at the Society for
Conservation Biology 16th Annual Meeting July 14-July 19 2002. Canterbury,
UK. Available:
http://www.kent.ac.uk/anthropology/dice/scb2002/abstracts/symposia/sympnine.
html.
Benson, J. (1989) Establishing priorities for the conservation of rare or threatened
plants and plant associations in New South Wales. In: Hicks, M. & Eiser, P.
(Eds) The Conservation of Threatened Species and Their Habitats. pp. 17-82.
ACIUCN Occasional Paper No. 2. Australian Committee for IUCN, Canberra.
Benson, J. (1991) The effect of 200 years of European settlement on the vegetation
and flora of New South Wales. Cunninghamia 2, 343-370.
Benson, J. (1999) Setting the Scene: The Native Vegetation of New South Wales.
Background Paper No. 1. Native Vegetation Advisory Council of New South
Wales, Sydney.
183
Bentley, J., Cowell, S., Fitzsimons, J., Cramer, V., Hopkins, K. & Jungalwalla, S.
(2002) Dunnies, smokewater, salt and other science. Bush Heritage News
Spring 2002, 2-4.
Binning, C. & Fielman, P. (2000) Landscape Conservation and the Non-government
Sector. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation,
Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation, Research Report
3/2000, Environment Australia, Canberra.
Binning, C.E. (1997) Beyond reserves: options for achieving nature conservation
objectives in rural landscapes. In: Klomp, N. & Lunt, I. (Eds) Frontiers in
Ecology: Building the Links. pp. 155-168. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Binning, C.E. (2000) Creating private markets for nature conservation. In: Barlow, T.
& Thornburn, R. (Eds) Balancing Conservation and Production in Grassy
Landscapes, Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference,
Clare, South Australia 19-21 August 1999. pp. 87-96. Environment Australia,
Canberra.
Binning, C.E. & Young, M.D. (1997) Motivating People: Using management
agreements to conserve remnant vegetation. Paper 1/97, National Research and
Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of
Remnant Vegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Bioret, F. (2001) Biosphere reserve manager or coordinator? Parks 11 (1), 26-29.
Bookmark Biosphere Trust (1995) Introducing Bookmark: The Bookmark Biosphere
Reserve Action Plan. Bookmark Biosphere Trust, Berri.
Bookmark Biosphere Trust (1999) Bookmark Biosphere Reserve Management Zones
- Map. Bookmark Biosphere Trust, Berri.
184
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. (1999) Collaborative management of protected areas. In:
Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (Eds) Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for
Planning and Management of Protected Areas. pp. 215-223. Earthscan
Publications, London.
Bower, H. & Parkes, T. (2002) The Big Scrub Rainforest Landcare Group - northern
NSW. Ecological Management & Restoration 3, 73-74.
Brechin, S.R., Wilshusen, P.R., Fortwangler, C.L. & West, P.C. (2002) Beyond the
square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity
conservation as social and political process. Society and Natural Resources 15,
41-64.
Bridgewater, P., Cresswell, I., Szabo, S. & Thackway, R. (1999) Indigenous
protected areas: a new approach to the use of IUCN Categories V and VI in
Australia. In: Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (Eds) Partnerships for Protection: New
Strategies for Planning and Management of Protected Areas. pp. 69-78.
Earthscan Publications, London.
Bridgewater, P. & Walton, D. (1996) Biosphere reserves and the IUCN
categorisation system. Australian Parks & Recreation 32 (1), 31-35.
Bridgewater, P.B. (2002) Biosphere reserves: special places for people and nature.
Environmental Science & Policy 5, 9-12.
Briers, R.A. (2002) Incorporating connectivity into reserve selection procedures.
Biological Conservation 103, 77-83.
Briggs, S. (2001a) Book review: ‘Bioregional Planning: Resource Management
Beyond the New Millennium’ (2001) by David J. Brunckhorst, Harwood
Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Ecological Management &
Restoration 2, 237-238.
185
Briggs, S.V. (2001b) Linking ecological scales and institutional frameworks for
landscape rehabilitation. Ecological Management & Restoration 2, 28-35.
Briggs, S.V. (2002) Integrating people and nature for landscape conservation. In:
Lunney, D., Dickman, C. & Burgin, S. (Eds) A Clash of Paradigms: Community
and Research-Based Conservation. pp. 64-73. Royal Zoological Society of New
South Wales, Mosman.
Brock, R.E. & Kelt, D.A. (2004) Influence of roads on the endangered Stephens’
Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi): are dirt tracks and gravel roads different?
Biological Conservation 118, 633-640.
Brooks, T.M., da Fonesca, G.A.B. & Rodrigues, A.S.L. (2004) Protected areas and
species. Conservation Biology 18, 616-618.
Brown, A.J. (2001) Beyond public native forest logging: National Forest Policy and
Regional Forest Agreements after South East Queensland. Environmental and
Planning Law Journal 18, 189-210.
Brown, A.J. (2002) Collaborative governance versus constitutional politics: decision
rules for sustainability from Australia’s South East Queensland forest
agreement. Environmental Science & Policy 5, 19-32.
Brunckhorst, D. (2001) Building capital through bioregional planning and biosphere
reserves. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) 2001, 19-32.
Available: http://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2001/article2.pdf
Brunckhorst, D.J. (2000) Bioregional Planning: Resource Management Beyond the
New Millennium. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Brunckhorst, D.J. (2002) Institutions to sustain ecological and social systems.
Ecological Management & Restoration 3, 108-116.
186
Brunckhorst, D.J. (2003) Factors in the success of common property resource
institutions. Ecological Management & Restoration 4, 72-73.
Brunckhorst, D.J., Bridgewater, P. & Parker, P. (1997) The UNESCO Biosphere
Reserve Program comes of age: learning by doing; landscape models for
sustainable conservation and resource use. In: Hale, P. & Lamb, D. (Eds)
Conservation Outside Nature Reserves. pp. 176-182. Centre for Conservation
Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Bryan, B.A. (2002) Reserve selection for nature conservation in South Australia:
past, present and future. Australian Geographical Studies 40, 196-209.
Budowski, G. (2003) Transboundary protected areas as a vehicle for peaceful co-
operation. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Transboundary Protected Areas
in the Governance Stream of the 5th World Parks Congress. Durban, South
Africa, 12-13 September 2003. Available:
http://www.tba.net/docs/WPCGovernance/GeradoBudowski.pdf
Burkhard, D.R. & Newman, D.H. (1996) Legal boundaries and fragmentation of
Georgia’s (USA) nature reserves. Natural Areas Journal 16, 24-35.
Burroughs, R.H. & Clark, T.W. (1995) Ecosystem management: a comparison of
Greater Yellowstone and Georges Bank. Environmental Management 19, 649-
663.
Byrne, N. (1998) Towards truly-national national parks. In: Hamilton-Smith, E. (Ed.)
Celebrating the Parks: Proceedings of the first Australian Symposium on Parks
History, Mount Buffalo, 16-19 April 1998. pp. 117-122. Rethink Consulting Pty
Ltd, Melbourne.
Carr, A. (1995) Innovation of diffusion: Landcare and information exchange. Rural
Society 5 (2), 56-66.
187
Castelló i Vidal, J.I. & López Lillo, A. (1993) Co-ordination mechanisms in the
Spanish biosphere reserves. Nature & Resources 29 (1-4), 12-16.
Catherine Brown & Associates Pty Ltd (2002) The Barkindji Biosphere Reserve:
Realising the vision - an implementation plan. Australian Inland Botanic
Gardens Inc., Mildura.
CEM (1999) Mid-Term Review of the Natural Heritage Trust: National Reserve
System Program. Centre for Environmental Management, University of Ballarat,
Ballarat.
Charters, T., Gabriel, M. & Prasser, S. (Eds) (1996) National Parks: Private Sector’s
Role. University of Southern Queensland Press, Toowoomba.
Coffey, B. (2001) National park management and the commercialisation of nature:
the Victorian experience. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 8,
70-78.
Coffman, M.S. (2001) Who really owns our biosphere’s and World Heritage sites?
Available: http://www.libertymatters.org/bioreserve-who_owns.htm [Accessed 9
February 2004]
Cohn, J.P. & Lerner, J.A. (2003) Integrating Land Use Planning and Biodiversity:
Workshop Discussion. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC. Available:
http://www.biodiversitypartners.org/pubs/landuse/04.shtml
Colvin, R.A. (2002) Community-based environment protection, citizen participation,
and the Albany Pine Bush Preserve. Society and Natural Resources 15, 447-454.
Commonwealth and Victorian RFA Steering Committee (1996) Comprehensive
Regional Assessment East Gippsland - Environment and Heritage Report.
Ecological vegetation classes: the practical intersection of a vegetation
classification and planning for biodiversity conservation and ecological
188
management (Appendix G). Commonwealth and Victorian RFA Steering
Committee, Canberra.
Commonwealth DEH (2004a) Bookmark Biosphere Reserve. Commonwealth
Department of Environment and Heritage. Available:
http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/biosphere/reserves/book.html [Accessed 30 April
2004]
Commonwealth DEH (2004b) UNESCO Working Group on Biosphere Reserves.
Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage. Available:
http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/biosphere/working/index.html [Accessed 25
October 2004]
Commonwealth of Australia (1992) National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable
Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (1995) National Forest Conservation Reserves:
Commonwealth Proposed Criteria. A position paper. Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (1996) National Strategy for the Conservation of
Australia’s Biological Diversity. Department of Environment, Sport &
Territories, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (1999) Australian Guidelines for Establishing the
National Reserve System. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (2001) National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity
Conservation 2001-2005. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia & State of Victoria (2000) West Victoria Regional
Forest Agreement. Commonwealth of Australia & State of Victoria, Canberra.
189
Cooper, N.S. (2000) How natural is a nature reserve?: An ideological study of British
nature conservation landscapes. Biodiversity and Conservation 9, 1131-1152.
Corangamite CMA (2005) Corangamite Native Vegetation Plan. Corangamite
Catchment Management Authority, Colac.
Costello, C. & Polasky, S. (2004) Dynamic reserve site selection. Resource and
Energy Economics 26, 157–174.
Cottam, E. (2003) Bookmark Biosphere Reserve - A governance model. Australian
Biosphere Reserve News July 2003, 9-10.
Council of Australian Governments (1992) National Strategy for Ecologically
Sustainable Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Lombard, A.T., Desmet, P.G. & Ellis, A.G. (1999)
From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of
conservation areas in the species-rich mediterranean-climate desert of southern
Africa. Diversity and Distributions 5, 51-71.
Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Rouget, M. & Lombard, A.T. (2003a) A conservation
plan for a global biodiversity hotspot - the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa.
Biological Conservation 112, 191-216.
Cowling, R.M., Pressey, R.L., Sims-Castley, R., le Roux, A., Baard, E., Burgers, C.J.
& Palmer, G. (2003b) The expert or the algorithm? - comparison of priority
conservation areas in the Cape Floristic Region identified by park managers and
reserve selection software. Biological Conservation 112, 147-167.
Craig, J.L., Saunders, D.A. & Mattiske, E.M. (1995) Effective conservation requires
people networked for action. In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M.
(Eds) Nature Conservation 4: The Role of Networks. pp. 653-660. Surrey Beatty
& Sons, Chipping Norton.
190
Cresswell, I.D. & Thomas, G.M. (Eds) (1997) Terrestrial and Marine Protected
Areas in Australia (1997). Biodiversity Group, Environment Australia,
Canberra.
Cripps, E., Binning, C. & Young, M. (1999) Opportunity Denied: Review of the
Legislative Ability of Local Government to Conserve Native Vegetation.
National R&D Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of
Remnant Vegetation, Research Report 2/99, Environment Australia, Canberra.
Crist, P.J. (2000) Mapping and Categorizing Land Stewardship Version: 2.1.0. In: A
Handbook for Conducting Gap Analysis. Gap Analysis Program. US Geological
Survey, Biological Resources Division, Moscow, ID. Available:
http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/handbook/Stewardship/default.htm.
Crist, P.J., Prior-Magee, J.S. & Thompson, B.C. (1996) Land management status
categorization in Gap Analysis: A potential enhancement. GAP Analysis Bulletin
5, Available: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Bulletins/5/LMSCiGA.html.
Crow, T.R., Host, G.E. & Mladenoff, D.J. (1999) Ownership and ecosystem as
sources of spatial heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA.
Landscape Ecology 14, 449-463.
Crowley, K. (2001) Effective environmental federalism? Australia’s Natural
Heritage Trust. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 3, 255-272.
Cumming, G. (2002) Habitat shape, species invasions, and reserve design: insights
from simple models. Conservation Ecology 6, (1): 3. Available:
http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art3.
Curran, D. (2000) The conservation of biological diversity on private property in
NSW. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 17, 34-59.
191
Curtis, A., Robertson, A. & Race, D. (1998) Lessons from recent evaluations of
natural resource management programs in Australia. Australian Journal of
Environmental Management 5, 109-119.
Czaja, R. & Blair, J. (1996) Designing Surveys: Decisions and Procedures. Pine
Forge Press, Thousands Oaks, California.
Dargavel, J. (1998) Politics, policy and process in the forests. Australian Journal of
Environmental Management 5, 25-30.
de Salaberry, N. & Reid, D.G. (1999) Linking societal values with biosphere reserve
imperatives: opportunities for awareness. Parks and Protected Areas Research
in Ontario. Proceedings of the Parks Research Forum of Ontario (PRFO)
Annual General Meeting. pp. 161-169. University of Guelph, Ontario, 22-23
April 1999.
DellaSala, D.A., Staus, N.L., Strittholt, J.R., Hackman, A. & Iacobelli, A. (2001) An
updated protected areas database for the United States and Canada. Natural
Areas Journal 21, 124-135.
DENR (1995) Danggali Conservation Park Management Plan. National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Murraylands Region.
Denys Slee and Associates (1998) Remnant Native Vegetation - Perceptions and
Policies: A review of legislation and incentive programs. National Research and
Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of
Remnant Vegetation. Research Report 2/98. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Department of Environment and Heritage (2000) Strategic overview for management
of the World Heritage Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves of Australia
(CERRA). Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
192
Diamond, J.M. (1975) The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies
for the design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 7, 129-146.
Dillman, D.A. (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method.
Second edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York.
Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Memtsas, D. & Troumbis, A.Y. (2004) Questioning the
effectiveness of the Natura 2000 Special Areas of Conservation strategy: the
case of Crete. Global Ecology and Biogeography 13, 199-204.
Dobbie, S. (2004) Grassy White Box Woodland Recovery Plan: Draft for Public
Comment. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville. Available:
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/grassy-
woodland/pubs/grassy-woodlands.pdf
Dobson, A., Ralls, K., Foster, M., Soulé, M.E., Simberloff, D., Doak, D., Estes, J.A.,
Mills, L.S., Mattson, D., Dirzo, R., Arita, H., Ryan, S., Norse, E.A., Noss, R.F.
& Johns, D. (1999) Corridors: reconnecting fragmented landscapes. In: Soulé,
M.E. & Terborgh, J. (Eds) Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of
Regional Reserve Networks. pp. 129-170. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Donaldson, A. & Bennett, A. (2004) Ecological Effects of Roads: implications for
the internal fragmentation of Australian parks and reserves. Parks Victoria
Technical Paper Series No. 12. Parks Victoria, Melbourne.
DSE (2004) Conservation status of Ecological Vegetation Classes in Victorian
Bioregions. Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne. [Accessed
3 March 2004].
Dudley, N., Hockings, M. & Stolton, S. (1999) Measuring the effectiveness or
protected area management. In: Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (Eds) Partnerships for
Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management of Protected Areas.
pp. 249-257. Earthscan Publications, London.
193
Dudley, N. & Stolton, S. (1998) Protected Areas for the New Millennium. The
implications of IUCN’s protected area categories for forest conservation. A
joint IUCN and WWF Discussion Paper, Gland, Switzerland.
Eastburn, D. (2003) Proposed ACT Biosphere Reserve Project. Nature & Society
April/May 2003. Available:
http://www.natsoc.org.au/html/publications/journalApr03.html#bio.
ECC (2000) Box-Ironbark Forests and Woodlands Investigation Draft Report for
Public Comment. Environment Conservation Council, Melbourne.
ECC (2001) Box-Ironbark Forests and Woodlands Investigation Final Report.
Environment Conservation Council, Melbourne.
Edwards, R. (1999) Saving the Red Gum Woodlands of the Gippsland Plains.
Conservation Bulletin Summer 1999, 3-7.
Edwards, R., Orr, R. & Ryan, H. (2002) Network news. Conservation Bulletin 22, 6-
8.
Edwards, R. & Traill, B. (2002) Getting beyond field days: targeting extension to
protect threatened ecosystems on private land. Ecological Management &
Restoration 3, 229-231.
Egbert, S., Peterson, A.T., Price, K. & Sánchez-Cordero, V. (1999) Modelling
conservation priorities in Veracruz, Mexico. In: Morain, S. (Ed.) GIS Solutions
in Natural Resource Management: Balancing the Technical-Political Equation.
pp. 141-150. OnWord Press, Sante Fe, USA.
Elix, J. & Lambert, J. (1997) More Than Just the Odd Tree: Report on Incentives and
Barriers to Rural Woodland, Using Grassy White Box Woodlands as a Model.
National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management
and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation, Research Report 1/98. Environment
Australia: Biodiversity Group, Canberra.
194
Endicott, E. (Ed.) (1993) Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Environment ACT (2003) National Recovery Plan for Natural Temperate Grassland
of the Southern Tablelands (NSW and ACT): an endangered ecological
community. Environment ACT, Canberra.
Environment Australia (1998) Recovery Plan for the Mt. Lofty Ranges Southern
Emu-wren (Stipiturus malachurus intermedius) 1999-2003. Mt Lofty Ranges
Southern Emu-wren Recovery Team, Environment Australia, Canberra.
Environment Australia (1999) The National Reserve System Program Strategic Plan.
Department of the Environment and Heritage, Reserve System Section,
Canberra.
Environment Australia (2000) Revision of the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation
for Australia (IBRA) and Development of Version 5.1 - Summary Report.
Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Available:
http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/ibra/version5-1/summary-report/pubs/ibrav5-
summary-report.doc.
Environment Australia (2002) Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database
2002. Available: http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/2002/index.html
[Accessed 3 March 2003]
Faith, D.P., Margules, C.R., Walker, P.A., Stein, J.L. & Natera, G. (2001) Practical
application of biodiversity surrogates and percentage targets for conservation in
Papua New Guinea. Pacific Conservation Biology 6, 289-303.
Fall, J. (2004) Divide and rule: Constructing human boundaries in ‘boundless
nature’. GeoJournal 58, 243-251.
195
Fall, J.J. (1999) Transboundary biosphere reserves: a new framework for
cooperation. Environmental Conservation 26, 252-255.
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.
Farrier, D. & Tucker, L. (1998) Beyond a walk in the park: the impact of
international nature conservation law on private land in Australia. Melbourne
University Law Review 22, 564-591.
Fensham, R.J. & Fairfax, R.J. (2002) Aerial photography for assessing vegetation
change: a review of applications and the relevance of findings for Australian
vegetation history. Australian Journal of Botany 50, 415-429.
Fensham, R.J., Low Choy, S.J., Fairfax, R.J. & Cavallaro, P.C. (2003) Modelling
trends in woody vegetation structure in semi-arid Australia as determined from
aerial photography. Journal of Environmental Management 68, 421-436.
Figgis, P. (1999) Australia’s National Parks and Protected Areas: Future Directions.
ACIUCN Occasional Paper No. 8. Australian Committee for IUCN Inc.,
Sydney.
Figgis, P. (2002) In praise of national parks. In: Lunney, D. & Dickman, C. (Eds) A
Zoological Revolution: Using Native Fauna to Assist its Own Survival. pp. 101-
107. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales and Australian Museum,
Mosman.
Figgis, P. (2003) The changing face of nature conservation: Reflections on the
Australian experience. In: Adams, W. & Mulligan, M. (Eds) Decolonising
Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post Colonial Era. pp. 197-219.
Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
196
Figgis, P. (2004) Conservation on Private Lands: the Australian Experience. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Fischer, J. & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2002) Small patches can be valuable for
biodiversity conservation: two case studies on birds in southeastern Australia.
Biological Conservation 106, 129-136.
Fitzherbert, K. (2004) Our first reserve in Victoria. Bush Heritage News Summer
2004, 1-3.
Fitzsimons, J. (1999a) Habitat conservation on private land: roles and relationships in
Victoria. BSc Honours thesis. School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin
University, Melbourne.
Fitzsimons, J. (1999b) Reservation Status of Broad Vegetation Types in Victorian
IBRA Regions -1999. Report for the Department of Natural Resources &
Environment, Melbourne.
Fitzsimons, J. & Wescott, G. (2001) The role and contribution of private land in
Victoria to biodiversity conservation and the protected area system. Australian
Journal of Environmental Management 8, 142-157.
Fitzsimons, J. & Wescott, G. (2002) Policy implications of the transfer of ownership
of Scotia Sanctuary for the National Reserve System in Australia. Environmental
and Planning Law Journal 19, 329-332.
Fitzsimons, J.A. (2002) Attitudes and Perceptions of Land Managers and Owners in
the Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network. Report for the
NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service. School of Ecology & Environment,
Deakin University, Melbourne.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Ashe, C. (2003) Some recent strategic additions to Victoria’s
protected area estate 1997-2002. Victorian Naturalist 120, 98-108.
197
Fitzsimons, J.A., FitzSimons, P. & Ashe, C. (2004) Further strategic additions to
Victoria’s public protected area system: 2002-2004. Victorian Naturalist 121,
214-225.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Robertson, H.A. (2003) Wetland reservation status and reserve
design in the Wimmera, Victoria. Ecological Management & Restoration 4, 140-
143.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Robertson, H.A. (in press) Freshwater reserves in Australia:
directions and challenges for the development of a comprehensive, adequate and
representative system of protected areas. Hydrobiologia.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Wescott, G. (2004) The classification of lands managed for
conservation: existing and proposed frameworks, with particular reference to
Australia. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 477-486.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Wescott, G. (2005) History and attributes of selected Australian
multi-tenure reserve networks. Australian Geographer 36, 75-93.
Ford, H.A. & Barrett, G. (1995) The role of birds and their conservation in
agricultural systems. In: Bennett, A., Backhouse, G. & Clark, T. (Eds) People
and Nature Conservation: Perspectives on Private Land Use and Endangered
Species Recovery. pp. 128-134. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales,
Mosman.
Ford, H.A., Barrett, G.W., Saunders, D.A. & Recher, H.F. (2001) Why have birds in
the woodlands of southern Australia declined? Biological Conservation 97, 71-
88.
Foreman, P. (2000) Conserving threatened plants and communities in Victoria: the
Protected Area Network. Danthonia 9 (2), 1, 4-5.
Forman, R.T.T. (1995) Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
198
Forman, R.T.T. & Alexander, L.E. (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29, 207-231.
Fraser, R. & Jamieson, G. (2003) Community environmental education: Challenges
within the Biosphere Reserve concept. Prospects 33, 293-302.
Freudenberger, D., Noble, J. & Morton, S. (2000) A comprehensive, adequate and
representative reserve system for the Southern Mallee of NSW: principles and
benchmarks. How Much Native Vegetation is Enough? Setting Targets for the
Conservation and Management of Native Vegetation in NSW. A workshop
organised by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW Friday 31st March 2000.
Available: http://www.nccnsw.org.au/veg/home/freudenberger.html.
Game, M. (1980) Best shape for nature reserves. Nature 287, 630-631.
Garbutt, S. (2002) Media release from the Minister for Conservation and
Environment: “New conservation initiative for Box-Ironbark parks”. 1 October
2002.
Geoscience Australia (2003) Land Tenure. Available:
http://www.auslig.gov.au/facts/tenure.htm [Accessed 26 February 2003]
Goodwin, B.J. & Fahrig, L. (2002) How does landscape structure influence
landscape connectivity? Oikos 99, 552-570.
Graham, J., Amos, B. & Plumptre, T. (2003) Governance Principles for Protected
Areas in the 21st Century. Prepared for the Fifth World Parks Congress, Durban,
South Africa. Institute on Governance, Ottawa. Available:
http://www.iog.ca/publications/pa_governance2.pdf
Griffiths, D., Stirling, W.D. & Weldon, K.L. (1998) Understanding Data - Principles
and Practice of Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Milton.
199
Groves, C.R., Kutner, L.S., Stoms, D.M., Murray, M.P., Scott, J.M., Schafale, M.,
Weakley, A.S. & Pressey, R.L. (2000) Owning up to our responsibilities: Who
owns lands important for biodiversity? In: Stein, B.A., Kutner, L.S. & Adams,
J.S. (Eds) Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. pp.
275-300. Oxford University Press, New York.
Hamilton, S.D., Dettman, P.D. & Curtis, A.L. (1999) Landholder Perceptions on
Remnant Vegetation on Private Land in the Box-Ironbark Region of Northern
Victoria. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation,
Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Research Report 1/00.
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Hardy, A.M. (Ed.) (2001) Terrestrial Protected Areas in Australia: 2000 Summary
Statistics from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD).
Environment Australia, Canberra.
Hargis, C.D., Bissonette, J.A. & David, J.L. (1998) The behavior of landscape
metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape
Ecology 13, 167-186.
Heijnis, C.E., Lombard, A.T., Cowling, R.M. & Desmet, P.G. (1999) Picking up the
pieces: a biosphere reserve framework for a fragmented landscape - the Coastal
Lowlands of the Western Cape, South Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation 8,
471-496.
Hermann, S.M., Guyer, C., Waddle, J.H. & Nelms, M.G. (2002) Sampling on private
property to evaluate population status and effects of land use practices on the
Gopher Tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus. Biological Conservation 108, 289-298.
Herrera Alvarez, M. (2001) Coordination of the National Networks of Biosphere
Reserves - experience in Cuba. Parks 11 (1), 30-35.
200
Hiedanpää, J. (2002) European-wide conservation versus local well-being: the
reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland.
Landscape and Urban Planning 61, 113-123.
Hill, M. (1994) Cooperative natural area management. In: Meek, I., Willis, A., Weir,
I. & Frey, J. (Eds) Proceedings of the ANZECC 6th Australasian Regional
Seminar on National Parks and Wildlife Management. Australian Alps, 13-27
March 1994. pp. 51-60. ANZECC, Canberra.
Hnatiuk, R. (2003) Classification of plant communities. In: Attiwill, P. & Wilson, B.
(Eds) Ecology: An Australian Perspective. pp. 212-229. Oxford University
Press, Melbourne.
Hobbs, R. & Saunders, D. (2000) Nature conservation in agricultural landscapes: real
progress or moving deckchairs? In: Craig, J.L., Mitchell, N. & Saunders, D.A.
(Eds) Nature Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production Environments
- Managing the Matrix. pp. 1-12. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Hobbs, R.J. (2002) Habitat networks and biological conservation. In: Gutzwiller, K.J.
(Ed.) Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. pp. 150-170.
Springer, New York.
Hoctor, T.S., Carr, M.H. & Zwick, P.D. (2000) Identifying a linked reserve system
using a regional landscape approach: the Florida Ecological Network.
Conservation Biology 14, 984-1000.
Hodgkins, D. (1995) Participation in action: networks for environmental repair in the
Peel-Harvey Catchment of Western Australia. In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. &
Mattiske, E.M. (Eds) Nature Conservation 4: The Role of Networks. pp. 405-
415. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Hodgkins, D., Goldney, D., Watson, G. & Tyson, G. (1999) The attitudes of
landholders to a range of environmental issues, including the values of remnant
bushland in the central western region of New South Wales. In: Hobbs, R.J. &
201
Yates, C.J. (Eds) Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology,
Conservation, Management and Restoration. pp. 336-350. Surrey Beatty &
Sons, Chipping Norton.
Horwitz, P. & Calver, M. (1998) Credible science? Evaluating the Regional Forest
Agreement Process in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Environmental
Management 5, 213-225.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the
Arts (HoRESCA) (1992) Biodiversity: The Contribution of Community-based
Programs. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the
Arts (HoRESCA) (1993) Biodiversity: The Role of Protected Areas. Australian
Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Hudson, W.E. (Ed.) (1991) Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Humann, D. (2001) Briefing Paper for the National Reserve System Programme.
Australian Bush Heritage Fund, Hobart.
Industry Commission (1997) A Full Repairing Lease: Inquiry into ecologically
sustainable land management. Industry Commission, Belconnen.
IUCN (1978) Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
IUCN (1994) Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. CNPPA with
the assistance of WCMC. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN (2003a) Speaking a Common Language: An Assessment of the Application of
the IUCN System of Categorising Protected Areas - Background. Available:
202
http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/pascat/pascatrev_bpap
er.pdf
IUCN (2003b) Draft Case Study: Linking governance to the IUCN Protected Area
Management Categories. Available: http://www.cf.ac.uk/cplan/sacl/cs-
governance.pdf
James, A.N., Gaston, K.J. & Balmford, A. (1999) Balancing the Earth’s accounts.
Nature 401, 323-324.
JANIS (1997) Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive,
Adequate and Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia. 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,
Canberra.
Jeanrenaud, S. (1999) People-oriented conservation: progress to date. In: Stolton, S.
& Dudley, N. (Eds) Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning
and Management of Protected Areas. pp. 126-134. Earthscan Publications,
London.
Jennings, S.F. & Moore, S.A. (2000) The rhetoric behind regionalization in
Australian natural resource management: myth, reality and moving forward.
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 2, 177-191.
Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust (2001) Borenore Karst Conservation Reserve Plan of
Management. Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust, Sydney.
Johnson, M. (2000) Rail corridor native vegetation: legal compliance and sustainable
management. Environmental and Planning Law Journal 17, 60-75.
Johnson, N., Miller, K.R. & Miranda, M. (2001) Bioregional approaches to
conservation: local strategies to deal with uncertainty. In: Handmer, J.W.,
203
Norton, T.W. & Dovers, S.R. (Eds) Ecology, Uncertainty and Policy: Managing
Ecosystems for Sustainability. pp. 43-65. Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex, England.
Jongman, R.H.G. (1995) Nature conservation planning in Europe: developing
ecological networks. Landscape and Urban Planning 32, 169-183.
Jongman, R.H.G., Külvik, M. & Kristiansen, I. (2004) European ecological networks
and greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning 68, 305-319.
Kabii, T. (2001) Landholder’s perceptions and attitudes to conservation covenants in
WA and Victoria: a comparative overview. Paper presented to the National
Forum - Taking Care of the Bush: Nature Conservation on Private Land
conference 21-23 March 2001, Perth. Available:
http://www.ntwa.com.au/forum/paperTKabii.pdf
Kahrimanis, M.J., Carruthers, S., Oppermann, A. & Innes, R. (2001) Biodiversity
Plan for the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin. Department for
Environment & Heritage, Adelaide.
Kanowski, P.J., Gilmour, D.A., Margules, C.R. & Potter, C.S. (1999) International
Forest Conservation: Protected Areas and Beyond. A discussion paper for the
Intergovernmental Forum on Forests. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Kellert, S.R. (1986) Public understanding and appreciation of the biosphere reserve
concept. Environmental Conservation 13, 101-105.
Kelly, P.A. & Rotenberry, J.T. (1993) Buffer zones for ecological reserves in
California: replacing guesswork with science. In: Keeley, J.E. (Ed.) Interface
Between Ecology and Land Development in California. pp. 85-92. Southern
California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Kirkpatrick, J. (1999) Developing and applying criteria for forest protected areas -
the Australian experience. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
204
Kirkpatrick, J.B. (1998) Nature conservation and the regional forest agreement
process. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 5, 31-37.
Kneeland, D. & Waide, J. (1999) Classification systems for protected forest areas.
Background paper for the International Experts Meeting on Protected Forest
Areas sponsored the governments of Brazil and the United States. Available:
http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/reuniao/doc/classificationsys.pdf
Lacey, C. (1998) Legislative frameworks for conserving biodiversity on the
travelling stock routes of NSW. Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law
and Policy 5, 129-152.
Lambeck, R.J. (1997) Focal species: A multi-species umbrella for nature
conservation. Conservation Biology 11, 849-856.
Lane, M.B. (2001) Affirming new directions in planning theory: comanagement of
protected areas. Society and Natural Resources 14, 657-671.
Lane, M.B. (2003) Decentralization or privatization of environmental governance?
Forest conflict and bioregional assessment in Australia. Journal of Rural Studies
19, 283-294.
Lane, M.B., McDonald, G.T. & 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.
Langholz, J.A. & Lassoie, J.P. (2001) Perils and promise of privately owned
protected areas. BioScience 51, 1079-1085.
Langholz, J.A., Lassoie, J.P., Lee, D. & Chapman, D. (2000) Economic
considerations of privately owned parks. Ecological Economics 33, 173-183.
LCC (1983) Gippsland Lakes Hinterland Area Final Recommendations. Land
Conservation Council, Melbourne.
205
LCC (1988) Statewide Assessment of Public Land Use, Victoria. Land Conservation
Council, Melbourne.
Lee, G. & Szabo, S. (2000) The private lives of protected areas: private land in the
National Reserve System. In: Craig, J.L., Mitchell, N. & Saunders, D.A. (Eds)
Nature Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production Environments -
Managing the Matrix. pp. 502-510. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Lees, A. (1995) Innovative partnerships: the value of nongovernmental organisations
in establishing and managing protected areas. In: McNeely, J.A. (Ed.)
Expanding Partnerships in Conservation. pp. 188-196. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Li, W., Wang, Z., Ma, Z. & Tang, H. (1999a) Designing the core in a biosphere
reserve based on suitable habitats: Yancheng Biosphere Reserve and the red
crowned crane (Grus japonensis). Biological Conservation 90, 167-173.
Li, W., Wang, Z. & Tang, H. (1999b) Designing the buffer zone of a nature reserve:
a case study in Yancheng Biosphere reserve, China. Biological Conservation 90,
159-165.
Lockwood, M., Bos, D.G. & Glazebrook, H. (1997) Integrated protected area
selection in Australian biogeographic regions. Environmental Management 21,
395-404.
Lovett-Doust, J. & Kuntz, K. (2001) Land ownership and other landscape-level
effects on biodiversity in southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Biosphere
Reserve, Canada. Landscape Ecology 16, 743-755.
Lowe, K., Fitzsimons, J., Straker, A. & Gleeson, T. (2003) Mechanisms for
improved integration of biodiversity conservation in regional natural resource
management planning within Australia - Literature Review. In: Synapse
Research & Consulting & Associates (Ed.) Pathways for Biodiversity
206
Conservation. pp. i-xxxiii. Report for Land & Water Australia by Synapse
Research & Consulting & Associates, Brisbane. Available:
http://www.lwa.gov.au/downloads/final_reports/SYN5_lit_review.pdf.
Loyn, R.H. (1987) Effects of patch area and habitat on bird abundances, species
numbers and tree health in fragmented Victorian forests. In: Saunders, D.A.,
Arnold, G.W., Burbidge, A.A. & Hopkins, A.J.M. (Eds) Nature Conservation:
The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. pp. 65-77. Surrey Beatty & Sons,
Chipping Norton.
Lucas, P.H.C. (1992) Protected Landscapes: A guide for policy makers and
planners. Chapman & Hall, London.
Luck, G.W., Possingham, H.P. & Paton, D.C. (1999a) Bird responses at inherent and
induced edges in the Murray Mallee, South Australia. 1. Differences in
abundance and diversity. Emu 99, 157-169.
Luck, G.W., Possingham, H.P. & Paton, D.C. (1999b) Bird responses at inherent and
induced edges in the Murray Mallee, South Australia. 2. Nest predation as an
edge effect. Emu 99, 170-175.
Lunt, I.D. (1997a) The distribution and environmental relationships of native
grasslands on the lowland Gippsland Plain, Victoria: an historical study.
Australian Geographical Studies 35, 140-152.
Lunt, I.D. (1997b) Effects of long-term vegetation management on remnant grassy
forests and anthropogenic native grasslands in south-eastern Australia.
Biological Conservation 81, 287-297.
Lunt, I.D. (1997c) Tree densities last century on the lowland Gippsland Plain,
Victoria. Australian Geographical Studies 35, 342-348.
Lynch, J.F. (1987) Responses of breeding bird communities to forest fragments. In:
Saunders, D.A., Arnold, G.A., Burbidge, A.A. & Hopkins, A.J.M. (Eds) Nature
207
Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation. pp. 123-146. Surrey
Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Mac Nally, R., Bennett, A.F., Brown, G.W., Lumsden, L.F., Yen, A., Hinkley, S.,
Lillywhite, P. & Ward, D. (2002) How well do ecosystem-based planning units
represent different components of biodiversity? Ecological Applications 12, 900-
912.
Macintosh, A. (2004) Why the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act’s referral, assessment and approval process is failing to
achieve its environmental objectives. Environmental and Planning Law Journal
21, 288-311.
Mackinnon, J. (Ed.) (1997) Protected Areas Systems Review of the Indo-Malayan
Realm. Asian Bureau for Conservation and World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Canterbury, U.K.
Mahanty, S. (2002) Building bridges: lessons from the Arnavon Management
Committee, Solomon Islands. Development Bulletin 58, 88-91.
Mahanty, S. & Russell, D. (2002) High stakes: lessons from stakeholder groups in
the biodiversity conservation network. Society and Natural Resources 15, 179-
188.
Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., Chandrasekhar, K., Gavali, R. & Saxena, G.
(2000a) Analysis and resolution of protected area–people conflicts in Nanda
Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Conservation 27, 43-53.
Maikhuri, R.K., Rana, U., Rao, K.S., Nautiyal, S. & Saxena, G. (2000b) Promoting
ecotourism in the buffer zone areas of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve: an option
to resolve people-policy conflict. Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology 7, 333-342.
208
Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S. & Saxena, K.G. (2001) Conservation policy-
people conflicts: a case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (a World
Heritage Site), India. Forest Policy and Economics 2, 355-365.
Margules & Partners Pty Ltd, P. and J. Smith Ecological Consultants & Department
of Conservation, Forests and Lands (1990) Riparian Vegetation of the River
Murray. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
Margules, C.R. (1995) Principles for planning reserve networks. In Sharp, S. &
Rehwinkel, R. (Eds) Management of Relict Lowland Grasslands. Proceedings of
a workshop and public seminar. Conservation Series 8. pp. 18-28. Canberra,
ACT Parks and Conservation Service.
Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature
405, 243-253.
Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L. & Williams, P.H. (2002) Representing biodiversity:
data and procedures for identifying priority areas for conservation. Journal of
Biosciences 27, 309-326.
Martino, D. (2001) Buffer zones around protected areas: a brief literature review.
Electronic Green Journal 15, Available:
http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj15/martino1.html
Mason, R.J. (1987) Greenline parks: an accommodation of metropolitan and rural
interests? Operational Geographer 13, 22-24.
Mason, R.J. (1994) The greenlining of America: managing private lands for public
purposes. Land Use Policy 11, 208-221.
Mason, R.J. & Michaels, S. (2001) Sentimental ecology, science and sustainable
ecosystem management. In: Handmer, J.W., Norton, T.W. & Dovers, S.R. (Eds)
Ecology, Uncertainty and Policy: Managing Ecosystems for Sustainability. pp.
66-82. Prentice Hall, Harlow, Essex, England.
209
McCarthy, M.A., Parris, K.M., van der Ree, R., McDonnell, M.J., Burgman, M.A.,
Williams, N.S.G., McLean, N., Harper, M.J., Meyer, R., Hahs, A. & Coates, T.
(2004) The habitat hectares approach to vegetation assessment: An evaluation
and suggestions for improvement. Ecological Management & Restoration 5, 24-
27.
McDonnell, M.D., Possingham, H.P., Ball, I.R. & Cousins, E.A. (2002)
Mathematical methods for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environmental
Modelling and Assessment 7, 107-114.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. & Smith, W. (1999) Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An
Introduction to Community-based Social Marketing. New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island.
McLellan, R. & Brown, L. (2002) Filling a niche: Woodland Watch in Western
Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration 3, 148-150.
McNeely, J.A. (1999) Protected area institutions. In: Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (Eds)
Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management of
Protected Areas. pp. 195-204. Earthscan Publications, London.
MCPFE (2001) MCPFE Classification of Protected and Protective Forests and
Other Wooded Land (according to recommendations of the MCPFE Workshop
on Protected Forest Areas 28 - 30 November 2001, Køge, Denmark). Ministerial
Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Vienna. Available:
http://www.ogm.gov.tr/yukle/protected.pdf.
Meese, R.J., Neronov, V.M., Alestchenko, G.M. & Ruggiero, M. (2003) Rapid
acquisition and dissemination of standardized biological inventories from
Russian Biosphere Reserves. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 1421-1429.
210
Mendel, L. (2002) The consequences for wilderness conservation in the development
of the national parks system in Tasmania, Australia. Australian Geographical
Studies 40, 71-83.
Mendel, L.C. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. (2002) Historical progress of biodiversity
conservation in the protected-area system of Tasmania, Australia. Conservation
Biology 16, 1520-1529.
Michaels, S., Mason, R.J. & Solecki, W.D. (1999a) Motivations for ecostewardship
partnerships: examples from the Adirondack Park. Land Use Policy 16, 1-9.
Michaels, S., Mason, R.J. & Solecki, W.D. (1999b) The importance of place in
partnerships for regional environmental management. Environmental
Conservation 26, 159-162.
Michaels, S., Mason, R.J. & Solecki, W.D. (2001) Participatory research on
collaborative environmental management: Results from the Adirondack Park.
Society and Natural Resources 14, 251-255.
Miller, C. (2000a) State defends forest rezoning. The Age 20 March 2000, 7.
Miller, C. (2000b) Owl conservation zone logged. The Age 5 May 2000, 6.
Miller, K.R. (1999) Bioregional planning and biodiversity conservation. In: Stolton,
S. & Dudley, N. (Eds) Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning
and Management of Protected Areas. pp. 42-49. Earthscan Publications,
London.
Milliken, S.T. (1995) Calperum and the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve: A Model for
the Future. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Moilanen, A. & Hanski, I. (2001) On the use of connectivity measures in spatial
ecology. Oikos 95, 147-151.
211
Moilanen, A. & Nieminen, M. (2002) Simple connectivity measures in spatial
ecology. Ecology 83, 1131-1145.
Moore, S.A. (1995) The role of trust in social networks: formation, function and
fragility. In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M. (Eds) Nature
Conservation 4: The Role of Networks. pp. 148-154. Surrey Beatty & Sons,
Chipping Norton.
Moore, S.A., Jennings, S. & Tacey, W.H. (2001) Achieving sustainable natural
resource management outcomes on the ground: the key elements of stakeholder
involvement. Australian Journal of Environmental Management 8, 91-98.
Morgan, G. (2001) Landscape Health in Australia: A Rapid Assessment of the
Relative Condition of Australia’s Bioregions and Subregions. Environment
Australia and National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
Muldoon, J. (2001) Use of Biosphere Reserves to achieve biodiversity conservation
and sustainable use - An Australian case study. In: People and Places: Pacific
island approaches to integrated coastal conservation and sustainable human
development. The Second Meeting of Asia Pacific Co-operation for the
Sustainable Use of Renewable Natural Resources in Biosphere Reserves and
Similarly Managed Areas (ASPACO) (7-10 November 2001, Apia, Samoa). pp.
20-29.
Murphy, M.J. (1999) The conservation value of small woodland remnants on the
New South Wales South Western Slopes: a case study from Wagga Wagga.
Australian Zoologist 31, 71-81.
Neagle, N. (1995) An Update of the Conservation Status of the Major Plant
Associations of South Australia. Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Adelaide.
NLWRA (2001) Australian Native Vegetation Assessment 2001. National Land &
Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
212
Noss, R.F. (1987) Protecting natural areas in fragmented landscapes. Natural Areas
Journal 7, 2-13.
Noss, R.F. (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: A hierarchical approach.
Conservation Biology 9, 355-364.
Noss, R.F. (2003) A checklist for wildlands network designs. Conservation Biology
17, 1270-1275.
Noss, R.F., Dinerstein, E., Gilbert, B., Gilpin, M., Miller, B.J., Terborgh, J. &
Trombulak, S. (1999) Core areas: where nature reigns. In: Soulé, M.E. &
Terborgh, J. (Eds) Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional
Reserve Networks. pp. 99-128. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
NPWS (2000) Preliminary Bioregional Vegetation Project (Stage 1): Brigalow Belt
South, Western Regional Assessments. Resource and Conservation Assessment
Council, Sydney.
NPWS (2001a) New South Wales South West Slopes Bioregion Scoping Study Draft
Report. NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
NPWS (2001b) State of the Parks 2001. NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service,
Hurstville.
NPWS (2002) The Native Vegetation of the Boorowa Shire. NSW National Parks &
Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
NRE (1996) IUCN Categories and Other Key Datasets for Parks and Conservation
Reserves in Victoria. National Parks and Reserves Branch, National Parks
Service, Department of Natural Resources & Environment, Melbourne.
NRMMC (2004) Directions for the National Reserve System - A Partnership
Approach. For comment. Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council,
213
Canberra. Available:
http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/directions/pubs/directions.pdf.
NSW Scientific Committee (2002) White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum
Woodland Final Determination for listing as an Endangered Ecological
Community under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.15 March
2002. Available: http://www.npws.nsw.gov.au/news/tscdets/f020315a.htm
[Accessed 27 November 2002]
OCE (1991) Agriculture and Victoria’s Environment: 1991 State of the Environment
Report. Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, Melbourne.
O’Connor, R.J., Neville, P.R.H. & Bennett, T.B. (1999) Indicators of resources and
landscapes. In: Morain, S. (Ed.) GIS Solutions in Natural Resource
Management: Balancing the Technical-Political Equation. pp. 165-181.
OnWord Press, Sante Fe, USA.
Oliver, I., Smith, P.L., Lunt, I. & Parkes, D. (2002) Pre-1750 vegetation, naturalness
and vegetation condition: What are the implications for biodiversity
conservation? Ecological Management & Restoration 3, 176-178.
Opdam, P. (2002) Assessing the conservation potential of habitat networks. In:
Gutzwiller, K.J. (Ed.) Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation.
pp. 381-404. Springer, New York.
Oppenheim, A.N. (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude
Measurement. New Edition. Pinter Publishers, New York.
Parker, P. (1993) Biosphere Reserves in Australia: A Strategy for the Future.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Parkes, D., Newell, G. & Cheal, D. (2003) Assessing the quality of native vegetation:
The ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management & Restoration 4, S29-
S38.
214
Parkes, D., Newell, G. & Cheal, D. (2004) The development and raison d’être of
‘habitat hectares’: A response to McCarthy et al. (2004). Ecological
Management & Restoration 5, 28-29.
Parks Victoria (2000) State of the Parks 2000. Parks Victoria, Melbourne.
Pence, G.Q.K., Botha, M.A. & Turpie, J.K. (2003) Evaluating combinations of on-
and off-reserve conservation strategies for the Agulhas Plain, South Africa: a
financial perspective. Biological Conservation 112, 253-273.
Phillips, A. (1999) Working landscapes as protected areas. In: Stolton, S. & Dudley,
N. (Eds) Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and
Management of Protected Areas. pp. 205-214. Earthscan Publications, London.
Phillips, A. (2002) Management Guidelines for IUCN Category V Protected Areas
Protected Landscapes/Seascapes. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines
Series No. 9. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Pigram, J.J. & Sundell, R.C. (Eds) (1997) National Parks and Protected Areas:
Selection, Delimitation, and Management. Centre for Water Policy Research,
University of New England, Armidale.
Platt, S. (2001) Land for Wildlife: triggering nature conservation in rural Victoria.
Ecological Management & Restoration 2, 5-16.
Platt, S.J. & Lowe, K.W. (2002) Biodiversity Action Planning: Action Planning for
Native Biodiversity at Multiple Scales - Catchment, Bioregional, Landscape,
Local. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.
Poiani, K.A., Baumgarter, J.V., Buttrick, S.C., Green, S.L., Hopkins, E., Ivey, G.D.,
Seaton, K.P. & Sutter, R.D. (1998) A scale-independent, site conservation
planning framework in The Nature Conservancy. Landscape and Urban
Planning 43, 143-156.
215
Polasky, S. & Doremus, H. (1998) When the truth hurts: endangered species policy
on private land with imperfect information. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 35, 22-47.
Possingham, H., Ryan, S., Baxter, B. & Morton, S. (2002) Setting Biodiversity
Priorities. A paper prepared as part of the activities of the working group
producing the report Sustaining our Natural Systems and Biodiversity for the
Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council in 2002.
Department of Education, Science and Training, Canberra. Available:
http://www.dest.gov.au/science/pmseic/documents/Setting_Biodiversity_Prioriti
es.pdf
Pouliquen-Young, O. (1997) Evolution of the system of protected areas in Western
Australia. Environmental Conservation 24, 168-181.
Prendergast, J.R., Quinn, R.M. & Lawton, J.H. (1999) The gaps between theory and
practice in selecting nature reserves. Conservation Biology 13, 484-492.
Pressey, R.L. (1994) Ad hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing
representative reserve systems? Conservation Biology 8, 662-668.
Pressey, R.L. (1995) Conservation reserves in New South Wales: Crown jewels or
leftovers? Search 26, 47-51.
Pressey, R.L. & Cowling, R.M. (2001) Reserve selection algorithms in the real
world. Conservation Biology 15, 275-277.
Pressey, R.L., Ferrier, S., Hager, T.C., Woods, C.A., Tully, S.L. & Weinman, K.M.
(1996) How well protected are the forests of north-eastern New South Wales? -
Analyses of forest environments in relation to formal protection measures, land
tenure, and vulnerability to clearing. Forest Ecology and Management 85, 311-
333.
216
Pressey, R.L., Hager, T.C., Ryan, K.M., Schwarz, J., Wall, S., Ferrier, S. & Creaser,
P.M. (2000) Using abiotic data for conservation assessments over extensive
regions: quantitative methods applied across New South Wales, Australia.
Biological Conservation 96, 55-82.
Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I. & Williams, P.H.
(1993) Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic reserve selection.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8, 124-128.
Pressey, R.L., Johnson, I.R. & Wilson, P.D. (1994) Shades of irreplaceability:
towards a measure of the contribution of sites to a reservation goal. Biodiversity
and Conservation 3, 242-262.
Pressey, R.L. & Logan, V.S. (1997) Inside looking out: findings of research on
reserve selection relevant to “off-reserve” nature conservation. In: Hale, P. &
Lamb, D. (Eds) Conservation Outside Nature Reserves. pp. 407-418. Centre for
Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Pressey, R.L. & Taffs, K.H. (2001a) Sampling of land types by protected areas: three
measures off effectiveness applied to western New South Wales. Biological
Conservation 101, 105-117.
Pressey, R.L. & Taffs, K.H. (2001b) Scheduling conservation action in production
landscapes: priority areas in western New South Wales defined by
irreplaceability and vulnerability to vegetation loss. Biological Conservation
100, 355-376.
Pressey, R.L. & Tulley, L. (1994) The cost of ad hoc reservation: a case study in
western New South Wales. Australian Journal of Ecology 19, 375-384.
Pressey, R.L., Whish, G.L., Barrett, T.W. & Watts, M.E. (2002) Effectiveness of
protected areas in north-eastern New South Wales: recent trends in six measures.
Biological Conservation 106, 57 –69.
217
Price, M.F. (2002) The periodic review of biosphere reserves: a mechanism to foster
sites of excellence for conservation and sustainable development. Environmental
Science & Policy 5, 13-18.
Prober, S. & Thiele, K. (1993a) Surviving in cemeteries - the Grassy White Box
Woodlands. National Parks Journal 37, 13-15.
Prober, S. & Thiele, K. (1996) Reserve Concepts and Conceptual Reserves: The
Grassy White Box Woodlands and Beyond. A Discussion Paper. Ecological
Interactions, Martins Creek via Orbost.
Prober, S.M. (1996) Conservation of the Grassy White Box Woodlands: rangewide
floristic variation and implications for reserve design. Australian Journal of
Botany 44, 57-77.
Prober, S.M. & Brown, A.H.D. (1994) Conservation of the grassy white box
woodlands: population genetics and fragmentation of Eucalyptus albens.
Conservation Biology 8, 1003-1013.
Prober, S.M., Spindler, L.H. & Brown, A.H.D. (1998) Conservation of the Grassy
White Box Woodlands: effects of remnant population size on genetic diversity in
the allotetraploid herb Microseris lanceolata. Conservation Biology 12, 1279-
1290.
Prober, S.M. & Thiele, K.R. (1993b) The ecology and genetics of remnant Grassy
White Box Woodlands in relation to their conservation. Victorian Naturalist
110, 30-36.
Prober, S.M. & Thiele, K.R. (1995) Conservation of the Grassy White Box
Woodlands: relative contribution of size and disturbance to floristic composition
and diversity of remnants. Australian Journal of Botany 43, 349-366.
218
Prober, S.M., Thiele, K.R. & Higginson, E. (2001) The Grassy Box Woodlands
Conservation Management Network: picking up the pieces in fragmented
woodlands. Ecological Management & Restoration 2, 179-188.
Productivity Commission (2001) Constraints on Private Conservation of
Biodiversity. Commission Research Paper. AusInfo, Canberra.
Productivity Commission (2002) Pastoral Leases and Non-Pastoral Land Use.
Productivity Commission Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra.
Punturiero, M. (2002) The business case for biosphere reserves. In: Biospheres:
Creating Sustainable Regional Communities. Summary of Proceedings of a
Seminar held 20 September 2002, Shearwater Cape Schanck Conference Centre.
pp. 5-7. Earthwatch Institute, Melbourne.
Rao, K.S., Nautiyal, S., Maikhuri, R.K. & Saxena, G. (2003) Local peoples’
knowledge, aptitude and perceptions of planning and management issues in
Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environmental Management 31, 168-181.
Reading, R.P., Clark, T.W. & Kellert, S.R. (1994) Attitudes and knowledge of
people living in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Society and Natural
Resources 7, 349-365.
Recher, H.F. (2002) Scientists in the wilderness. Australian Zoologist 32, 139-149.
Recher, H.F. (2003) WildCountry. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 221-222.
Reid, J.W. (1999) Threatened and declining birds in the New South Wales sheep-
wheat belt: diagnosis, characteristics and management. Report to NSW
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Rémy, E. & Mougenot, C. (2002) Inventories and maps: cognitive ways of framing
nature policies in Europe. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 4, 313-
322.
219
Roberts, J. & Ludwig, J.A. (1990) Riparian habitats on the Chowilla Floodplain of
the River Murray, South Australia. Wetlands 9, 13-19.
Robertson, H.A. & Fitzsimons, J.A. (2004) Hydrology or floristics? Mapping and
classification of wetlands in Victoria, Australia, and implications for
conservation planning. Environmental Management 34, 499-507.
Robinson, D. (1999) Lowering the goals? Habitat requirements of vertebrates and
other wildlife groups in Victoria’s Northern Plains and how well they match up.
In: Craigie, V. & Hocking, C. (Eds) Down to Grass Roots: Proceedings of a
Conference on the Management of Grassy Ecosystems, Victoria University, St
Albans 9-10 July 1998. pp. 49-59. Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources and Parks Victoria, Melbourne.
Robinson, D. & Traill, B.J. (1996) Conserving woodland birds in the wheat and
sheep belts of southern Australia. RAOU Conservation Statement 10. RAOU,
Melbourne.
Robson, C. (1996) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioner-Researchers. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, U.K.
Röper, M. (2000) On the way to a better state? The role of NGOs in the planning and
implementation of protected areas in Brazil. GeoJournal 52, 61-69.
Ross, J., Lowe, K.W., Boyle, C. & Moorrees, A. (2003) Landscape Plans for the
Eastern Zones in the Victorian Volcanic Plain Bioregion. Parks, Flora and Fauna
Division, Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne.
Sample, V.A. (1994) Building partnerships for ecosystem management on mixed
ownership landscapes. Journal of Forestry 92 (8), 41-44.
Saunders, D. (1998) Towards a representative system of conservation reserves for
Victoria. In: Hamilton-Smith, E. (Ed.) Celebrating the Parks: Proceedings of the
220
First Australian Symposium on Parks History, Mount Buffalo, 16-19 April 1998.
pp. 49-55. Rethink Consulting, Melbourne.
Saunders, D.A. (1990) The landscape approach to conservation: community
involvement, the only practical solution. Australian Zoologist 26, 49-53.
Saunders, D.A. & 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
Urban Planning 61, 71-82.
Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M. (Eds) (1995) Nature Conservation 4:
The Role of Networks. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Saunders, D.A. & Hobbs, R.J. (Eds) (1991) Nature Conservation 2: The Role of
Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd, Chipping Norton.
Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J. & Margules C.R. (1992) Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5, 18-22.
Sayer, J.A. (1999) Globalization, localization and protected areas. In: Stolton, S. &
Dudley, N. (Eds) Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and
Management of Protected Areas. pp. 29-38. Earthscan Publications, London.
Schonewald-Cox, C.M. & Bayless, J.W. (1986) The boundary model: a geographic
analysis of design and conservation of nature reserves. Biological Conservation
38, 305-322.
Schonewald-Cox, C.M., Buechner, M., Sauvajot, R. & Wilcox, B.A. (1992) Cross-
boundary management between national parks and surrounding lands: a review
and discussion. Environmental Management 16, 273-282.
Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H.,
Caicco, S., D’Erchia, F., Edwards Jr., T.C., Ulliman, J. & Wright, R.G. (1993)
221
Gap Analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity.
Wildlife Monographs 123, 1-41.
Scott, J.M., Norse, E.A., Arita, H., Dobson, A., Estes, J.A., Foster, M., Gilbert, B.,
Jensen, D.B., Knight, R.L., Mattson, D. & Soulé, M.E. (1999) The issues of
scale in selecting and designing biological reserves. In: Soulé, M.E. & Terborgh,
J. (Eds) Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve
Networks. pp. 19-37. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Scotts, D. & Drielsma, D. (2003) Developing landscape frameworks for regional
conservation planning; an approach integrating fauna spatial distributions and
ecological principles. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 235-254.
Seddon, J., Briggs, S. & Doyle, S. (2002) Little River Catchment Biodiversity
Assessment. A report for the TARGET project. NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service and CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.
Seddon, J., Drew, A., Doyle, S., Clayton, M., Davey, C., Briggs, S. & Freudenberger,
D. (2003a) Birds in woodland remnants in the Little River and Weddin
Catchments, Central West NSW. A report for the TARGET project. NSW
National Parks & Wildlife Service and CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems,
Canberra.
Seddon, J.A., Briggs, S.V. & Doyle, S.J. (2003b) Relationships between bird species
and characteristics of woodland remnants in central New South Wales. Pacific
Conservation Biology 9, 95-119.
Shafer, C.L. (1990) Nature Reserves: Island Theory and Conservation Practice.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Shafer, C.L. (2001) Inter-reserve distance. Biological Conservation 100, 215-227.
Siitonen, P., Tanskanen, A. & Lehtinen, A. (2003) Selecting forest reserves with a
multiobjective spatial algorithm. Environmental Science & Policy 6, 301-309.
222
Silori, C.S. (2002) Biosphere reserve management in theory and practice: Case of
Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, western Himalaya, India. Journal of
International Wildlife Law and Policy 4, 205-219.
Smith, S. (2001) Getting paid to keep your native forests! Paper presented to the
National Forum - Taking Care of the Bush: Nature Conservation on Private
Land, Perth 21-23 March 2001. Available:
http://www.ntwa.com.au/forum/paperSSmith.pdf
Smyth, D. & Sutherland, J. (1996) Indigenous Protected Areas: Conservation
Partnerships With Indigenous Landholders. Department of Environment, Sport
& Territories, Canberra.
Soulé, M.E. (1991) Conservation tactics for a constant crisis. Science 253, 744-749.
Soulé, M.E. (1995) An unflinching vision: networks of people defending networks of
land. In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M. (Eds) Nature
Conservation 4: The Role of Networks. pp. 1-8. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping
Norton.
Soulé, M.E. & Terborgh, J. (1999) The policy and science of regional conservation.
In: Soulé, M.E. & Terborgh, J. (Eds) Continental Conservation: Scientific
Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. pp. 1-17. Island Press, Washington,
D.C.
Specht, R.L., Specht, A., Whelan, M.B. & Hegarty, E.E. (1995) Conservation Atlas
of Plant Communities in Australia. Centre for Coastal Management, Southern
Cross University, East Lismore.
Stafford Smith, D.M., Morton, S.R. & Ash, A.J. (1997) On the future of pastoralism
in Australia’s rangelands. In: Klomp, N. & Lunt, I. (Eds) Frontiers in Ecology:
Building the Links. pp. 7-16. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.
223
State of New South Wales (1999) New South Wales Biodiversity Strategy. National
Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
State of Victoria (1997) Victoria’s Biodiversity - Directions in Management.
Department of Natural Resources & Environment, Melbourne.
State of Victoria (2002) Biosphere Reserve Proposals - State Government policy.
State of Victoria, Melbourne. Available:
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/web/root/domino/cm_da/NRECPR.nsf/2fc3379bd0005bd64a
2566cf00283d52/e8c72597ed280289ca256c8b00032c0a/$FILE/state+govt+policy.pdf
[Accessed 5 October 2004]
Stephens, S. (2001) Visions and viability: How achievable is landscape conservation
in Australia? Ecological Management & Restoration 2, 189-195.
Stephens, S. (2002) National Survey of Landholder Views on Conservation
Covenants. Report on findings. Bush for Wildlife, Canberra.
Stephens, S., Lambert, J., Elix, J., Morrison, C. & Kennedy, M. (2002) Conservation
covenants: A national survey of landholders’ views. Ecological Management &
Restoration 3, 146-148.
Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001a) Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: A model
explaining opposition to protected areas. Journal of Environmental Psychology
21, 369-385.
Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2001b) Opposition to the designation of protected areas in
Germany. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 44, 109-128.
Stoll-Kleemann, S. & O’Riordan, T. (2002) From participation to partnership in
biodiversity protection: experience from Germany and South Africa. Society and
Natural Resources 15, 161-177.
224
Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (Eds) (1999) Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies
for Planning and Management of Protected Areas. Earthscan Publications,
London.
Stone, M. (1997) Development of the protected area system: The next 100 years. In:
Victoria’s National Parks - The Next Century Conference Proceedings. pp. 25-
28. Victorian National Parks Association, Melbourne.
Stone, S. (2003) Commonwealth Government Supports Barkindji Biosphere Reserve
Nomination. Media Release from The Hon Dr Sharman Stone, Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. 22 March 2003.
Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A. & Strappazzon, L. (2003) Auctions for
conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial.
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47, 477-500.
Stoneham, G., Crowe, M., Platt, S., Chaudhri, V., Soligo, J. & Strappazzon, L.
(2000) Mechanisms for Biodiversity Conservation on Private Land. Department
of Natural Resources & Environment, Melbourne.
Suárez de Freitas, G. (1999) The role of NGOs in promoting alliances for
biodiversity conservation. In: Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (Eds) Partnerships for
Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management of Protected Areas.
pp. 163-172. Earthscan Publications, London.
Sun, D., Hnatiuk, R.J. & Neldner, V.J. (1997) Review of vegetation classification
and mapping systems undertaken by major forested land management agencies
in Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 45, 929-948.
Synapse Research and Consulting & Capital Ag Consulting (2001) Improving
Natural Resource Management Behaviour at the Farm and Regional Levels.
Synapse Research and Consulting & Capital Ag Consulting, Brisbane.
225
Tasmanian Public Land Use Commission (1997) Inquiry into Areas to be Reserved
Under the Tasmanian-Commonwealth Regional Forest Agreement Proposed
Recommendations Report Part II - Consultation Report: Mechanisms for
achieving conservation management on private forested land. Tasmanian Public
Land Use Commission, Hobart.
Taylor, S.G. (1987) Conservation strategies for human-dominated land areas: the
South Australian example. In: Saunders, D.A., Arnold, G.A., Burbidge, A.A. &
Hopkins, A.M. (Eds) Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native
Vegetation. pp. 313-322. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Thackway, R. & Brunckhorst, D.J. (1998) Alternative futures for indigenous cultural
and natural areas in Australia’s rangelands. Australian Journal of Environmental
Management 5, 169-181.
Thackway, R. & Cresswell, I.D. (Eds) (1995) An Interim Biogeographic
Regionalisation for Australia: A Framework for Setting the Priorities for the
National Reserve System Cooperative Program, Version 4.0. Australian Nature
Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Thackway, R. & Cresswell, I.D. (1997) A bioregional framework for planning the
national system of protected areas in Australia. Natural Areas Journal 17, 241-
247.
Thackway, R. & Olsson, K. (1999) Public/private partnerships and protected areas:
selected Australian case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 44, 87-97.
The Wilderness Society (2004) WildCountry. Available:
http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/wildcountry/ [Accessed 11 May 2004]
Theobald, D.M. & Hobbs, N.T. (2002) A framework for evaluating land use
planning alternatives: protecting biodiversity on private land. Conservation
Ecology 6, (1): 5. Available: http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art5.
226
Thiele, K. & Prober, S. (2000) Conservation Management Networks - a model for
coordinated protection and management of remnant vegetation. In: Barlow, T. &
Thornburn, R. (Eds) Balancing Conservation and Production in Grassy
Landscapes, Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference,
Clare, South Australia 19-21 August 1999. pp. 58-63., Environment Australia,
Canberra.
Thiele, K.R. & Prober, S.M. (1999) Reserve concepts and conceptual reserves:
options for the protection of fragmented ecosystems. In: Hobbs, R.J. & Yates,
C.J. (Eds) Temperate Eucalypt Woodlands in Australia: Biology, Conservation,
Restoration and Management. pp. 351-358. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping
Norton.
Thiele, K.R., Prober, S.M., Higginson, E. & Bell, L. (2002) Conservation
Management Networks: A working National Framework for their establishment
and operation, A discussion paper prepared in conjunction with the National
Workshop on Conservation Management Networks (Canberra, March 5-6 2001).
Thorsell, J. & Harrison, J. (1990) Parks that promote peace: a global inventory of
transfrontier nature reserves. In: Thorsell, J. (Ed.) Parks on the Borderline:
Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. pp. 3-21. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK.
Tischendorf, L. & Fahrig, L. (2000) On the usage and measurement of landscape
connectivity. Oikos 90, 7-19.
Todd, J.A. (2000) Developing a Conservation Management Network - A Pilot Study.
Report prepared for the Department of Natural Resources & Environment,
Parks, Flora and Fauna Division, Melbourne.
Toupal, R.S. (2000) “Cowboys” and conservation: the influence of private
landowners on the success of conservation partnerships in the western United
States. High Plains Applied Anthropologist 20, 53-66.
227
Traill, B.J. & Duncan, S. (2000) Status of birds in the New South Wales temperate
woodlands region. Report to the New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife
Service, Dubbo.
Trombulak, S.C. & Frissell, C.A. (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14, 18-30.
TSSC (2001) Recommendation to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) on a public
nomination for an ecological community listing on the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Forest Red Gum Grassy community.
Available:
http://deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/unsuccessful/redgum.html
UNESCO (1995) Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the Statutory
Framework for the World Network. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO (2003a) How are Biosphere Reserves organized? Available:
http://www.unesco.org/mab/nutshell.htm#How [Accessed 20 January 2003]
UNESCO (2003b) World Network of Biosphere Reserves List. UNESCO MAB
Secretariat, Paris. Available: http://www.unesco.org/mab//brlist.htm [Accessed
20 August 2004]
Verissimo, A., Cochrane, M.A., Souza, C., Jr & Salomão (2002) Priority areas for
establishing national forests in the Brazilian Amazon. Conservation Ecology 6,
(1): 4. Available: http://consecol.org/vol6/issue1/art4.
Walker, R.T. & Solecki, W.D. (1999) Managing land use and land-cover change:
The New Jersey Pinelands Biosphere Reserve. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 89, 220-237.
228
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.
Warman, L.D., Sinclair, A.R.E., Scudder, G.G.E., Klinkenberg, B. & Pressey, R.L.
(2004) Sensitivity of systematic reserve selection to decisions about scale,
biological data, and targets: case study from southern British Columbia.
Conservation Biology 18, 655-666.
Watson, J., Lullfitz, W., Sanders, A. & McQuoid, N. (1995) Networks and the
Fitzgerald River National Park Biosphere Reserve, Western Australia. In:
Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M. (Eds) Nature Conservation 4: The
Role of Networks. pp. 482-487. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Watson, J. & Sanders, A. (1997) Fitzgerald River National Park Biosphere Reserve
1978-1997: the evolution of integrated protected area management. Parks 7 (7),
9-19.
Watson, J., Watson, A., Paul, D. & Freudenberger, D. (2003) Woodland
fragmentation is causing the decline of species and functional groups of birds in
southeastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 261-270.
WCPA Australia and New Zealand Region (2000) Application of IUCN Protected
Area Management Categories: Draft Australian Handbook. World Commission
on Protected Areas Australia and New Zealand Region, Australia.
Wells, G.D., Williams, R.D. & Taylor, P.M. (1995) Queensland’s “off-park” nature
conservation scheme. In: Bennett, A.F., Backhouse, G. & Clark, T. (Eds) People
and Nature Conservation: Perspectives on Private Land Use and Endangered
Species Recovery. pp. 217-222. Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society of
New South Wales, Mosman.
229
Wescott, G. (1995) Victoria’s national park system: can the transition from quantity
of parks to quality of management be successful? Australian Journal of
Environmental Management 2, 210-223.
Wescott, G. (2002) Integrated natural resource management in Australia: the
opportunity offered by a National Coastal Policy. Australian Journal of
Environmental Management 9, 138-140.
Wescott, G.C. (1991) Australia’s distinctive national parks system. Environmental
Conservation 18, 331-340.
West, G. (2001) Biosphere Reserves for developing quality economies: the
Fitzgerald River Biosphere Reserve, Australia. Parks 11 (1), 10-17.
Wild, R., Cunningham, A.B. & Mutebi, J. (1995) People, parks and plant use:
networks to enhance the conservation of montane forests in Uganda, East Africa.
In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M. (Eds) Nature Conservation 4:
The Role of Networks. pp. 112-121. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.
Wilkie, D.S., Carpenter, J.F. & Zhang, Q. (2001) The under-financing of protected
areas in the Congo Basin: so many parks and so little willingness-to-pay.
Biodiversity and Conservation 10, 691-709.
Williams, J. (2000) Managing the Bush - research findings from the LWA National
Remnant Vegetation R&D Program. Research Report 4/00. Land and Water
Australia, Canberra.
Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L. & West, P.C. (2002) Reinventing
a square wheel: critique of a resurgent “protection paradigm” in international
biodiversity conservation. Society and Natural Resources 15, 17-40.
Wilson, A. (1992) The Culture of Nature: North American Landscapes from Disney
to the Exxon Valdez. Blackwell, Oxford.
230
Wilson, J.A. & Lowe, K.W. (2003) Planning for the restoration of native biodiversity
within the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Victoria, using spatial modelling.
Ecological Management & Restoration 4, 212-219.
Woinarski, J., Fensham, R., Whitehead, P. & Fisher, A. (2000) Developing an
Analytical Framework for Monitoring Biodiversity in Australia’s Rangelands: A
manual for biodiversity monitoring. A report to the National Land & Water
Resources Audit by the Tropical Savannas Cooperative Research Centre,
Darwin.
Woodgate, P.W., Peel, B.P., Coram, J.E., Farrell, S.J., Ritman, K.T. & Lewis, A.
(1996) Old-growth forest studies in Victoria, Australia: concepts and principles.
Forest Ecology and Management 85, 79-94.
Worboys, G., Lockwood, M. & De Lacy, T. (2001) Protected Area Management:
Principles and Practice. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Wright, R.G. & Tanimoto, P.D. (1998) Using GIS to prioritize land conservation
actions: integrating factors of habitat diversity, land ownership, and development
risk. Natural Areas Journal 18, 38-44.
WWF (1998) European Forest Scorecards 1998: Report. World Wide Fund for
Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
Young, M. & Howard, B. (1996) Can Australia afford a representative reserve
network by 2000? Search 27, 22-26.
Young, M.D. (1995) Some socio-economic and ecological implications of alternative
biological diversity conservation strategy options. 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. 360-364. Surrey Beatty &
Sons, Chipping Norton.
231
Young, M.D., Gunningham, N., Elix, J., Lambert, J., Howard, B., Grabosky, P. &
McCrone, E. (1996) Reimbursing the Future: An Evaluation on Motivational,
Voluntary, Price-based, Property-right, and Regulatory Incentives for the
Conservation of Biodiversity. Parts 1&2. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 9.
Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.
Young, O.R. (2004) Environmental governance: The role of institutions in causing
and confronting environmental problems. International Environmental
Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 3, 377-393.
232
Personal Communication
Bruce Cummings, Assistant Director, National Reserve System Section,
Environment Australia
Jim Muldoon, Assistant Director, Parks Strategic Development Section, Parks
Australia, Department of the Environment and Heritage
Lorraine Oliver, Threatened Species Education Officer, Grassy Box Woodlands
Conservation Management Network, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
Cameron Williams, Project Officer, Public Land Management – Parks Branch,
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment
233
Appendices
Appendix 1. Publication: Environmental Science & Policy
Citation: Fitzsimons, J.A. & Wescott, G. (2004) The classification of lands managedfor conservation: existing and proposed frameworks, with particular reference toAustralia. Environmental Science & Policy 7, 477-486.
The classification of lands managed for conservation: existing and
proposed frameworks, with particular reference to Australia
James A. Fitzsimons*, Geoff Wescott1
School of Ecology and Environment, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway,
Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia
Abstract
Comprehensive classification systems to accurately account for lands managed for biodiversity conservation, are an essential component
of conservation planning and policy. The current international classification systems for lands managed for nature conservation are reviewed,
with a particular emphasis on Australia. The need for a broader, all-encompassing, categorisation of lands managed for conservation is
presented and a proposed broader categorisation system is developed—the Conservation Lands Classification. This classification system has
the advantage of incorporating data on both tenure and protection mechanisms and has been applied in this paper using conservation lands in
three Australian jurisdictions as examples. It is envisaged that this method of classification has the potential to significantly improve the ability
to measure current and future trends in nature conservation across all land types at a variety of scales and hence is put forward in order to
stimulate discussion on this important topic.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Protected Area; Public land; Private land; Conservation; Classification; IUCN
1. Introduction
In any field of environmental management, ensuring that
comprehensive classification systems are in place allows for
more informed management decisions. This is particularly
true for the fields of conservation planning and policy where
the protection of biodiversity is often complicated not only
by the fragmentation of habitats and land ownership, but by
the varied and often fragmented application of protection
mechanisms used to address different tenures. Thus, the
ability to identify and account for those parts of the
landscape that are being managed for biodiversity con-
servation, the mechanisms under which they are being
managed, and by whom, is essential for accurate and
informed conservation planning.
Broad categorisations of land managed for nature
conservation are necessary to compare and account for
the myriad of separate reserve categories and other
protection mechanisms that exist worldwide. This paper
outlines the current classifications of lands managed for
conservation (herein referred to as ‘conservation lands’) at
an international level and within Australia. The need for a
broader, all encompassing, categorisation of conservation
lands is presented and a proposed broader classification
system is developed. This review emanated from an
investigation into the tenure and protection mechanisms
of networks of public and private lands managed for
conservation, namely, Biosphere Reserves and Conservation
Management Networks. The proposed new classification
system is then applied to conservation lands within three
Australian jurisdictions in which multi-tenure conservation
networks occur as examples (i.e. South Australia, New
South Wales and Victoria). While describing the broad
international and national situation, it is beyond the scope of
this paper to undertake a detailed analysis of all protected
area networks and off-reserve nature conservation schemes,
www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9251 7439; fax: +61 3 9251 7626.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.A. Fitzsimons),
[email protected] (G. Wescott).1 Tel.: +61 3 9251 7623; fax: +61 3 9251 7626.
1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2004.08.005
but the results of the case study in Australia should be of
interest in other jurisdictions.
2. Current international practice in the classification of
conservation lands
2.1. Worldwide classification of protected areas
2.1.1. IUCN Protected Area categorisation
Since the reservation of Yellowstone National Park in
1872, and particularly since the 1960s, the number and type
of protected areas has grown dramatically. Their purpose for
establishment often varied, as did their names and form of
legislative backing. The Commission on National Parks and
Protected Areas (now World Commission on Protected
Areas) of the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), recognising the
potential for confusion and a need for a consistent and
universally applicable terminology and standards published
its first attempt at an international categorisation system for
protected areas in 1978 (IUCN, 2003a).
Between 1978 and 1994, the IUCN recognised ten
categories of protected areas, including natural World
Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves (IUCN, 1978). These
two categories were not discrete management categories but
international designations generally overlain on other
categories. Biosphere Reserves, in particular, usually
contain a series of management zones and different land-
use categories with varying management objectives, and
thus, were not included in the updated IUCN 1994 Protected
Area Categorisation (Bridgewater and Walton, 1996). Since
1994, six categories of protected areas have been recognised
by the IUCN and are distinguished by their primary
management objectives (IUCN, 1994) (Table 1). Signifi-
cantly, the IUCN (1994) also addressed a major limitation of
the previous classification by defining a ‘protected area’ as:
‘An area of land/or sea especially dedicated to the protection
and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and
associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or
other effective means’.
In theory, a protected area is designated to the IUCN
classification which best reflects its management aim, regard-
less of its legal title, within the jurisdictions. For example, a
small Protected Area reserved as a ‘national park’ may be
more appropriately classed as a Category III protected area.
2.1.2. Other international categorisations for conservation
lands
Although, the IUCN categorisation is recognised world-
wide, alternate classifications have developed independently
for particular regions or purposes. For example, DellaSala et
al. (2001), in compiling a revised protected area database for
the USA and Canada, used protection codes described in the
Scott et al. (1993) Gap Analysis Program. The Scott et al.
(1993) categorisation (updated by Crist et al., 1996 and
Crist, 2000) incorporates aspects, such as ‘permanence of
protection’, ‘amount of the land unit managed for natural
cover’, ‘inclusiveness of the management (i.e. single feature
or species versus all biota)’, and ‘type of management and
degree that it is mandated through legal and institutional
arrangements’ in defining four distinct categories of
protection.
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486478
Table 1
IUCN Protected Area Management Categories (IUCN, 1994)
Category Description
Ia Strict Nature Reserve: Protected Area managed mainly for science. Area of land and/or sea possessing some outstanding or
representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features and/or species, available primarily for scientific research and/or
environmental monitoring.
Ib Wilderness Area: Protected Area managed mainly for wilderness protection. Large area of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or sea,
retaining its natural character and influence, without permanent or significant habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve
its natural condition.
II National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation. Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to:
(a) protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for this and future generations, (b) exclude exploitation or occupation
inimical to the purposes of designation of the area and (c) provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor
opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.
III Natural Monument: Protected Area managed for conservation of specific natural features. Area containing one or more specific
natural or natural/cultural feature, which is of outstanding value because of its inherent rarity, representative or aesthetic qualities or
cultural significance.
IV Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected Area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention. Area of
land and/or sea subject to active intervention for management purposes so as to ensure the maintenance of habitats and/or to meet the
requirements of specific species.
V Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected Areas managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and recreation. Area of land,
with coast and seas as appropriate, where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with
significant aesthetic, cultural and/or ecological value, and often with high biological diversity. Safeguarding the integrity of this
traditional interaction is vital to the protection, maintenance and evolution of such an area.
VI Managed Resource Protected Areas: Protected Area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems. Area containing
predominantly unmodified natural systems, managed to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of biological diversity, while
providing at the same time a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community needs.
The Natura 2000 network of ecological reserves,
currently being implemented by Member States of the
European Union comprises two types of areas: (i) Special
Protection Areas (SPAs) designated directly the under the
Birds Directive (1979) and (ii) Special Areas of Conserva-
tion (SACs) proposed by the Member States under the
Habitats Directive (1992) and then subjected to a community
selection procedure. Each Member State is responsible for
the planning and implementation of its own network and is
free to choose the method and type of measures to be taken
(e.g. statutory, administrative or contractual) (Alphandery
and Fortier, 2001; Hiedanpaa, 2002; Remy and Mougenot,
2002; Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2004). Also in Europe, the
MCPFE Classification of Protected and Protective Forests
and Other Wooded Land incorporates the main management
objectives with ‘restrictions to interventions’ in defining five
categories of protected forests and wooded lands (MCPFE,
2001). Importantly, MCPFE takes account of protected and
protective forests and other wooded land based on voluntary
contributions without legal basis. Where possible, the
MCPFE categories are associated to the respective IUCN
categories (MCPFE, 2001).
In a comprehensive review of ‘private protected areas’
worldwide, Langholz and Lassoie (2001) devised a typology
of 10 categories of such areas to reflect different manage-
ment objectives and purposes. Kneeland and Waide (1999)
provide further details on regional, national and sub-national
classification systems in existence worldwide.
2.2. Classification of conservation lands in Australia
Australia has a long history of protected area declaration
and poses an extensive and diverse protected area system
(Wescott, 1991; Figgis, 1999). Reporting of land managed
for conservation in Australia is mainly confined to public
land, which is considered to be a ‘Protected Area’, as defined
by the IUCN. In most instances, this public land is reserved
under a specific Act of Parliament within the respective
jurisdiction or by the Commonwealth.2 Australia has
adopted the IUCN guidelines of protected area classification
in order to compare the more than 40 different terrestrial and
11 different marine protected area categories currently in
existence throughout the various jurisdictions (Cresswell
and Thomas, 1997; Hardy, 2001). The use of this
categorisation has been strongly advocated in Australia in
order to allow comparison between the various reserve
types, however, it appears to be applied inconsistently
throughout the jurisdictions, particularly for reserves
other than National Parks and strict Nature Reserves.
Within Australia it is up to the jurisdictions, namely, the
environment departments of the state and territory govern-
ments, to decide on the protected area status of public
land.
The development of protected area systems within
Australia, has been described previously by Wescott
(1991), Figgis (1999) and Worboys et al. (2001), and more
specifically at the state level by Wescott (1995), Pouliquen-
Young (1997) and Bryan (2002), amongst others. Since the
early 1990s, there has been a more concerted effort to
coordinate the development of protected area systems
between Australian State and Territory Governments,
through national programs, such as the National Reserve
System (NRS) Program3 and the Regional Forest Agreement
(RFA) process,4 and specifically to establish a reserve
system, which samples ecosystems in a comprehensive,
adequate and representative (CAR) manner. The RFA
process in particular, has seen the advent of a number of new
‘reserve’ categories, often with less security or legal
protection, in order to meet specific targets for ecosystem
reservation.
For example, in Victoria, which is considered to have a
comparatively comprehensive system of protected areas by
Australian and world standards (Wescott, 1995), approxi-
mately 95% of the newly ‘reserved’ area declared in the RFA
process since the mid-1990’s has been informal Special
Protection Zones within State Forests. These are not
considered to be dedicated protected areas but are still
considered to contribute to the State and Commonwealth’s
obligations to establish a loosely defined ‘CAR reserve
system’. It is interesting to note that such designations
appear not to comply with the nationally agreed criteria used
to guide the establishment of the forest reserve system
(JANIS, 1997, p. 7) which states that:
‘‘All reasonable effort should be made to provide for
biodiversity and old-growth forest conservation and wild-
erness in the Dedicated Reserve system on public land.
However, where it is demonstrated that it is not possible or
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486 479
2 Within Victoria, of the 2523 Nature Conservation Reserves and
Natural Features Reserves that are considered Protected Areas, only
1159 (45.9%) are officially reserved for their intended purpose (C. Wil-
liams, personal communication, 2002). However, they are managed for
biodiversity according to adopted recommendations of the Victorian Envir-
onment Assessment Council (and its predecessors, the Land Conservation
Council and Environment Conservation Council), and are thus, considered
Protected Areas (WCPA, 2000). Furthermore, the Victorian Protected Area
system has up to six categories of land that consist of areas where there are
specific additional declarations over land, which is already reserved for a
particular purpose (NRE, 1996). These ‘overlay’ categories exist to allow or
restrict particular uses within those Protected Areas (e.g. Reference Areas,
Education Areas, Wilderness Zones). As occurred in a previous assessment
of Victorian bioregional reservation levels (Fitzsimons, 1999), these zones
have been incorporated into the underlying park or reserve for analysis in
this paper.
3 The National Reserve System Program focuses on ensuring rapid and
significant improvements in the terrestrial reserve system by seeking to add
poorly reserved environments to the reserves system (Commonwealth of
Australia, 1999; NRMMC, 2004).4 An inter-governmental process seeking to end conflict in the use and
management of Australian forests, by striking a balance between conserva-
tion (mainly through reserve declaration) and providing resource security
for the sustainable harvesting of forest products. See Dargavel (1998),
Horwitz and Calver (1998), Kirkpatrick (1998), Brown (2001, 2002) and
Lane (2003) for detailed reviews of the process.
practicable to meet the criteria in the Dedicated Reserve
system, other approaches will be required. For example,
conservation zones in approved forest management plans
and covenants on private land that bind successors in title
could be used, in conjunction with Dedicated Reserves, to
define the CAR reserve system for a particular region.’’
2.3. The treatment of private conservation lands within
classification systems
It is now widely acknowledged that protected areas on
public land will not conserve all or even most biodiversity
within a region, particularly within Australia, where 62.8%
is managed as private land (freehold and leasehold) and a
further 14.3% as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land
(Geoscience Australia, 2003). Recognising this, targeted
conservation programs by governments and non-govern-
ment organisations have seen a dramatic increase in the
number of private landholders protecting biodiversity on
their properties, land purchase for the creation of private
Nature Reserves, and conservation management agreements
with indigenous landowners (e.g. Thackway and Olsson,
1999; Stephens, 2001; Figgis, 2004).
Although, the IUCN categorisation is theoretically
supposed to be assigned irrespective of tenure, assigning
IUCN categories to protected private land occurs rarely in
Australia and elsewhere. This is possibly due to the
relatively recent emphasis on private land conservation
initiatives combined with concerns from public protected
area planners and conservationists about the long-term
security of private conservation sites (e.g. Centre for
Environmental Management, 1999).
For the purposes of this analysis, protected areas in
Australia were considered those that are reported to the
Commonwealth Government by the States and Territories as
part of the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database
2000 (CAPAD) (Hardy, 2001). The limitations of this
database are that almost all protected areas reported are
public land or Indigenous Protected Areas. Covenanting
arrangements and the contractual requirements for land
purchased for conservation with funding from the National
Reserve System Program of the Commonwealth Govern-
ment’s Natural Heritage Trust5 by non-government organi-
sations are such that they are considered protected areas (B.
Cummings, personal communication, 2002), but they are not
being reported in the recent versions of CAPAD (Hardy,
2001; Environment Australia, 2002). However, confusion
still exists amongst policy makers. A recent directions
statement for the National Reserve System (produced by all
Australian jurisdictions and the Commonwealth) suggested
that a good example of a private protected area was the
Naringaningalook Grassland Reserve in Victoria, as it had a
permanent conservation covenant attached to the title
(NRMMC, 2004). The reserve, owned by the Trust for
Nature (a body which both acquires land and facilitates
covenants with individual landowners), has no such
covenant as the Trust is unable sign a covenant with itself.
Furthermore, the Draft Australian Handbook for the
Application of IUCN Protected Area Categories gives
examples of various Australian protected areas and their
appropriate IUCN Protected Area Category (WCPA, 2000).
South Australian Heritage Agreements, legally binding
protective agreements over private or leasehold land, are
given as an example of a Category Ia protected area in
WCPA (2000) yet this is not recorded in Hardy (2001)
(although they have been included in the latest CAPAD;
Environment Australia, 2002). This highlights the lack of
firm policy relating to ‘protected areas’ other than the usual
publicly owned and managed reserves in Australia.
3. A broader classification system for conservation
lands
3.1. The need for a revised classification system for
conservation lands
The IUCN protected area concept and categories are seen
to be increasingly more flexible in terms of their aims,
definition, size and approaches to management (Dudley and
Stolton, 1998). However, the IUCN (2003a,b) appear to have
more recently recognised the difficulties in ‘‘recognising
community-based protected areas’’ within their existing
categorisation.
Despite this, land which is privately owned and managed
for nature conservation under a variety of protection
mechanisms often lacks formal recognition under the IUCN
protected area categorisation, particularly in Australia
(Fitzsimons and Wescott, 2001). In cases, where some
private conservation lands are considered to be a ‘protected
area’ and given an IUCN protected area category, others of a
similar management intent and/or protection mechanism are
not (Fitzsimons and Wescott, 2002). This inconsistent
application, affects the eligibility for inclusion in national
reporting frameworks for protected areas, such as the
National Reserve System, and ultimately inhibits conserva-
tion planning.
Within Australia, the number and variety of private
conservation mechanisms, and the number of properties
involved, has risen dramatically in all jurisdictions in the last
decade. This has often resulted in overlap and lack of
coordination between programs (Curran, 2000). Further-
more, agreements and mechanisms for biodiversity con-
servation on lands owned or managed by other forms of
government (such as local councils), and for public land not
primarily reserved or dedicated for biodiversity conservation
also are becoming increasingly utilised.
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486480
5 The NHT is AUD$ 2.5 billion environmental policy initiative. Funds
are allocated by the national government to Australian States and Terri-
tories, generating matching funds or in-kind resources for investing in
biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management
(see Crowley, 2001, for a detailed review of the program).
3.2. Developing a classification system for all conservation
lands
A new classification system, based broadly on the IUCN
protected area category principles, is needed to adequately
reflect and account for the variety of tenures, protection
mechanisms and management intent of conservation lands
across the landscape.
In this new system, the categories are deliberately broad
to account for the variety of different Protected Area types
and private protection mechanisms (e.g. ANZECC, 1996;
Stoneham et al., 2000; Productivity Commission, 2001;
Figgis, 2004). These categories incorporate the varying land
tenure and protection mechanisms in Australia and, while
they could be successfully applied in many regions
worldwide, are put forward for further discussion and
development in terms of their application in other countries.
This classification will be referred to herein as the
Conservation Lands Classification system.
Unlike the IUCN categorisation, the proposed Con-
servation Lands Classification places a greater emphasis on
tenure and/or management of the land as well as the
protection mechanism. This is to account in part for the
current lack of recognition or inconsistent application of the
term ‘protected area’ to private land as described previously,
and to incorporate lands managed for conservation that do
not have a legally binding protective agreement. Whilst
legally secure protection of natural areas is perceived/
considered to be advantageous for long-term stability,
discounting lands managed for nature conservation with less
binding mechanisms from national inventories and con-
servation planning activities ignores important conservation
efforts. The new classification also recognises the real
differences in terms of management requirements, ability
and responsibility that exist between owners/managers of
these various land types. Not only would such a
classification system benefit conservation planners, but it
would allow for more informed public discussion on the
current and future roles that the various categories may have
in a region.
In applying this classification, it is recognised that the
intent to manage a particular site for biodiversity conserva-
tion is the key (as for the IUCN protected area categorisa-
tion) and it does not represent a comment on how well a
particular area is actually managed (WCPA, 2000). Like the
IUCN protected area categories, the proposed classification
does not suggest that existing on-ground jurisdictional
names or categories should be altered. The proposed
classification of all lands managed for the conservation of
natural areas based on tenure and protection mechanisms is
presented in Fig. 1 and these categories are further described
in Table 2. An explanation/justification for allocating certain
tenures or protection mechanisms in a particular category of
Table 2 is presented below:
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486 481
Fig. 1. Relative security of protection mechanisms on land tenures in the Conservation Lands Classification. Shading indicates strength of protection
mechanism on land type from high (dark shading) to low (light shading), while bar spacing indicates likely variation in the protection strengths depending on
jurisdiction of implementation.
3.2.1. Separation of IUCN Protected Area Categories
IUCN Protected Area Categories V–VI are usually
separated from Categories I–IV (referred to as highly
protected reserves) for reporting processes as the former
generally involve greater intervention and modification (e.g.
MacKinnon, 1997; Pressey and Logan, 1997; WWF, 1998;
Environment Australia, 1999; Hardy, 2001). Within Aus-
tralia, and particularly within developing countries Category
V is not extensively used (Phillips, 1999), while Category VI
usually allows for activities, such as mining, hunting of
game, or grazing by non-indigenous species to continue at
least until the protective status (and category) is elevated.
3.2.2. Indigenous lands
Despite being allocated an IUCN Protected Area
category in the Australian National Reserve System (usually
Category Vor VI), lands owned and managed by indigenous
people for conservation (namely, Indigenous Protected
Areas) have been given a separate category in this instance
as they form a distinct tenure type in Australia (Smyth and
Sutherland, 1996; Thackway and Brunckhorst, 1998;
Bridgewater et al., 1999; Lee and Szabo, 2000), and are
likely to do so elsewhere.
3.2.3. Leasehold lands
Pastoral leasehold land exists on around 44% (338
million hectares) of Australia’s mainland area, mainly in
arid and semi-arid areas and in tropical savannas (Produc-
tivity Commission, 2002). A pastoral lease is issued for a
specified time, area and purpose as a contract between a
State or Territory Government and a lessee and provides
lessees with an exclusive right to conduct activities
associated with pastoralism (mainly grazing of livestock).
While pastoral leasehold tenure provides a more restricted
range of property rights than freehold land, any activities not
within the terms of a lease, such as private nature
conservation, are subject to government approval (Produc-
tivity Commission, 2002).
For the purpose of this classification system pastoral
leases in general are considered to be effectively ‘private
land’ (as per land categorisation in Productivity Commis-
sion, 2001; Geoscience Australia, 2003). Exceptions to this
rule are made depending on the type of owner of the lease
and intention of management. For example, within the last
decade a number of large leasehold properties have been
purchased: (1) by private land purchase groups for the
primary aim of nature conservation, (2) by state/territory
governments to add to their protected area estate and (3) by
the Commonwealth government (through the Director of
National Parks and Wildlife) to manage primarily for nature
conservation but with some areas set aside for research into
the sustainable use of natural resources.6
The latter proves particularly difficult to classify as they
could be considered de facto protected areas due to their
owner and management intent, but have no legisla-
tion backing their designation as an area for nature conser-
vation.
3.2.4. Other reserves
While there has been some attempt to standardise similar
categories of reserves in some jurisdictions (e.g. in Victoria,
see LCC, 1988), the commitment to establish a compre-
hensive, adequate and representative reserve system, with
minimum area criteria for much of the forested regions (i.e.
JANIS, 1997), has seen the advent of a number of new
‘reserve’ categories over the past decade. These have tended
to be legislatively weaker (e.g. Special Protection Zones in
Victorian State Forests) or allow for activities, such as
mining (e.g. State Conservation Areas in New South Wales).
Neither of these tenures are considered to be dedicated
‘protected areas’ under the IUCN definition yet constitute
part of a loosely defined CAR reserve system in Australia.
The increasing number and area covered by such land uses
also highlights the limitations of the current IUCN
categorisation in Australia, and probably globally.
3.2.5. Fixed-term agreements
More flexible agreements on private land, such as the
BushTender Trial7 in Victoria, also make the distinction
between binding and non-binding agreements difficult.
Under the BushTender program, landowners receive
payment from the Victorian Government for managing
biodiversity assets on their properties (Stoneham et al.,
2003), by signing 3, 6, 10 year, or permanent, binding
agreements. Similar medium-term management agreements
occur in New South Wales (Prober et al., 2001). Legal
enforceability and an articulated length of duration are both
features that distinguish binding and non-binding agree-
ments.
3.2.6. Local government reserves
Although, reserves owned and managed by local
government for conservation purposes, are not strictly
Crown Land (i.e. public land), they may be more accurately
described as ‘freehold public open space’ and have thus been
included in the ‘Other Public Reserves’ category.
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486482
6 In such cases, an overall category chosen for the leasehold area would
be based on the form of management applied to the largest proportion of the
leasehold area as per WCPA (2000).
7 BushTender is a program, run by the State Government of Victoria,
which offers landholders the opportunity to receive payment for entering
into agreements to provide management services that improve the quality or
extent of native vegetation on their land. These services are based on
management commitments over and above those required by current
obligations and legislation. Landholders set their own price for the manage-
ment services they are prepared to offer with this price forming the basis for
their bid, which is compared with the bids from all other landholders
participating in the process. Independent measures of biodiversity signifi-
cance and likely habitat improvements are assessed with the bid to form a
‘Biodiversity Benefits Index’. The successful bids are those that offer the
best value for money (Stoneham et al., 2003).
3.2.7. Local government planning schemes
Zonings relating to protection of specific environmental
assets within the local government area, occur in planning
schemes administered by local government in Australia.
This includes local environment plans (LEPs) in NSW.
Whilst these are considered legally binding plans identifying
(and zoning) areas of environmental significance, ‘protec-
tion’ of these areas is based on a restriction of uses that is not
compatible with the zones intent (usually vegetation
clearance) (Cripps et al., 1999). There is no requirement
for the owner of that land to actively manage the natural
feature for conservation purposes. Likewise, Acts of
Parliament dealing with vegetation clearance (e.g. the
NSW Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997) and
endangered species also focus on restriction of use to
achieve their objectives. While a landholder may not be able
to clear a particular vegetation type due to its threatened
status, the Acts cannot prevent an owner allowing such
values to passively degrade through management such as
over-grazing or due to lack of active management (e.g.
whereby environmental weeds are allowed to invade).
Therefore, private or other public land covered only by an
environmental protection zoning would not qualify as a
‘binding agreement’ in this classification system.
3.2.8. Other private land
Within some multi-tenure reserve networks, particularly
Biosphere Reserves, some components are managed
principally for sustainable production or living, and have
little in the way of biodiversity assets. This land is usually
under private ownership. While this category is not included
in the Conservation Lands Classification, it has been
allocated a category for the purpose of inclusiveness: ‘other
land’.
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486 483
Table 2
Description and application of categories within the Conservation Lands Classification
Category name Description
1.0 Public Reserves
1.1 Highly Protected Area Protected Areas on public land, which are primarily focused towards nature conservation
(i.e. Equivalent to IUCN Protected Area Categories Ia, Ib, II, III, IV). Many larger protected areas in
Australia will often have a combination of Ia, Ib or II categories, according to internal zoning
(e.g. Nature Reserves, National Parks).
1.2 Less Protected Area Separated from the above categories as per reporting for the Australian National Reserve System.
Equivalent to IUCN Categories V–VI. Usually allow some form of resource extraction (e.g. mining) or
harvesting of wildlife (e.g. game species; Protected Landscapes, Wildlife Reserves allowing hunting
VIC, Regional Reserves SA).
1.3 Other Public Reserves Public land managed usually named a ‘Reserve’ or ‘Park’ and incorporating natural features but may
have a stronger recreation, historical or potential extraction focus OR not considered to have stronger
enough protection mechanisms to be considered an IUCN Protected Area (Regional Park, Highway
Park VIC, some Forest Reserves SA). This category also includes reserves owned and managed by
Local Government for conservation purposes.
2.0 Other public land
2.1 Other Crown Lands—
binding conservation
agreement
Public land with a primary purpose unrelated to nature conservation but managed sympathetically for
nature conservation with a legally binding protection mechanism (Cemeteries or Travelling Stock
Routes with a Voluntary Conservation Agreement NSW).
2.2 Other Crown Lands—
other/no Agreement
As above but without a legally binding mechanism. This includes mechanisms such as local
government planning zones (Local Environment Plans (LEP) NSW).
3.0 Indigenous land
3.1 Protected indigenous lands Land owned and managed by indigenous peoples with conservation as the (or one of the) primary aims.
4.0 Private land
4.1 Private land—organisation
(binding)
Land owned by an organisation or land trust, usually with specific aims to manage conservation lands.
The organisation may have been set up for the purpose under an Act of Parliament (thus, the land is
considered permanently protected) or the organisation (e.g. Australian Bush Heritage Fund) may have
entered into a legally binding agreement/covenant.
4.2 Private land—individual
(binding)
An individual, couple or family-owned property with a protective, conservation covenant on the title
of the property or through a legally binding agreement with a government agency (conservation covenants
VIC, heritage agreements SA).
4.3 Private land—organisation
(non-binding)
As for 4.1 but lacking a binding protective agreement.
4.4 Private land—individual
(non-binding)
As for 4.2 but without a protective, legally binding agreement. These could be statewide programs,
which require registration, such as ‘Land for Wildlife’ (NSW, VIC). Private land included in a
multi-tenure reserve network without any legally binding agreement would fall within this category
as the owners have agreed to the aims of the network.
Examples of on-ground tenure and protection mechanisms in south eastern Australia are in parenthesis (italicized abbreviations refer to jurisdictions where
listed protection mechanism is present: NSW, New South Wales; SA, South Australia; VIC, Victoria).
4. The Conservation Lands Classification System:
implications for conservation
This paper has outlined the current categorisation of
conservation lands at an international and Australian level,
discussed the current limitations of the existing models for
conservation planning and proposed a new classification
system to incorporate all lands managed for nature
conservation.
It is envisaged that the Conservation Lands Classification
proposed above has the potential to significantly improve the
ability to measure current and future trends in nature
conservation across all land types, at a network (e.g.
Biosphere Reserve), regional and jurisdiction scale. With an
increasing recognition that protected areas alone will not be
able to conserve all, or even most, biodiversity within a
region, and that conservation management at a landscape
scale is likely to be essential, such a classification system is
timely.
While this classification system is designed for applica-
tion to individual conservation lands, establishing a
classification system for networks of various conservation
lands, such as Biosphere Reserves and Conservation
Management Networks, is also warranted and has been
commenced by the authors.8
The categories described in the Conservation Lands
Classification are intended to stimulate discussion on means
of classifying and accounting for the ever-increasing array of
reserve classifications and private conservation mechanisms.
It is not a definitive statement on a new classification system
at this stage. It should be noted that the inclusion of non-
binding agreements within the classification does not imply
that such agreements should be given equal weight as strict
protected areas when meeting on-ground protection targets.
The difficulties in assigning some protection mechanisms
within the classification system are recognised, however,
such difficulties are not unique to this broader system and are
also evident in the existing IUCN protected area classifica-
tion (Kneeland and Waide, 1999). Furthermore, as the use
and protection of natural areas can be critically linked to the
form of tenure and rights held over them (Kanowski et al.,
1999), the classification’s applicability to countries where,
for example, customary rights predominate, also warrants
further research.
Without an appropriate and inclusive classification
system for conservation lands on public and private land,
conservation planning and priority setting are likely to be
hindered. Ultimately, it is hoped that such a classifica-
tion system improves conservation planning and bio-
diversity conservation, for which such mechanisms are
intended.
Acknowledgements
We thank Hugh Robertson, David Mercer, Dianne
Simmons, and three anonymous referees for constructive
comments on earlier versions of this paper, which ultimately
led to significant improvements. Bruce Cummings, James
Todd and Cameron Williams provided important informa-
tion and clarifications. J.A. Fitzsimons received support
from a Deakin University Postgraduate Research Scholar-
ship during this research.
References
Alphandery, P., Fortier, A., 2001. Can a territorial policy be based on science
alone? The system for creating the Natura 2000 network in France.
Sociologia Ruralis 41, 311–328.
ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private Land, 1996.
Nature Conservation on Private Land: Commonwealth, State and Ter-
ritory Legislation and Programs. ANZECC Working Group on Nature
Conservation on Private Land, Canberra.
Bridgewater, P., Cresswell, I., Szabo, S., Thackway, R., 1999. Indigenous
protected areas: a new approach to the use of IUCN Categories Vand VI
in Australia. In: Stolton, S., Dudley, N. (Eds.), Partnerships for Protec-
tion: New Strategies for Planning and Management of Protected Areas.
Earthscan Publications, London, pp. 69–78.
Bridgewater, P., Walton, D., 1996. Biosphere reserves and the IUCN
categorisation system. Aust. Parks Recreation 32 (1), 31–35.
Brown, A.J., 2001. Beyond public native forest logging: National Forest
Policy and Regional Forest Agreements after South East Queensland.
Environ. Plan. Law J. 18, 189–210.
Brown, A.J., 2002. Collaborative governance versus constitutional politics:
decision rules for sustainability from Australia’s South East Queensland
forest agreement. Environ. Sci. Policy 5, 19–32.
Bryan, B.A., 2002. Reserve selection for nature conservation in South
Australia: past, present and future. Aust. Geogr. Stud. 40, 196–209.
Centre for Environmental Management, 1999. Mid-Term Review of the
Natural Heritage Trust: National Reserve System Program. Centre for
Environmental Management, University of Ballarat, Ballarat.
Commonwealth of Australia, 1999. Australian Guidelines for Establishing
the National Reserve System. Environment Australia, Canberra.
Cresswell, I.D., Thomas, G.M. (Eds.), 1997. Terrestrial and Marine Pro-
tected Areas in Australia (1997). Biodiversity Group, Environment
Australia, Canberra.
Cripps, E., Binning, C., Young, M., 1999. Opportunity denied: review of the
legislative ability of local government to conserve native vegetation.
National R&D Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conserva-
tion of Remnant Vegetation, Research Report 2/99. Environment Aus-
tralia, Canberra.
Crist, P.J., 2000. Mapping and categorizing land stewardship version: 2.1.0.
In: A Handbook for Conducting Gap Analysis. Gap Analysis Program.
US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Moscow, ID.
Available: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/handbook/Stewardship/
default.htm.
Crist, P.J., Prior-Magee, J.S., Thompson, B.C., 1996. Land management
status categorization in Gap Analysis: A potential enhancement. GAP
Analysis Bulletin 5. Available: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/Bulletins/5/
LMSCiGA.html.
Crowley, K., 2001. Effective environmental federalism? Australia’s Natural
Heritage Trust. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 3, 255–272.
Curran, D., 2000. The conservation of biological diversity on private
property in NSW. Environ. Plan. Law J. 17, 34–59.
Dargavel, J., 1998. Politics, policy and process in the forests. Aust. J.
Environ. Manage. 5, 25–30.
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486484
8 As part of J.A. Fitzsimons’ Ph.D. thesis: ‘Multi-tenure Reserve Net-
works: Contribution to National and Regional Conservation Objectives’ (in
preparation).
DellaSala, D.A., Staus, N.L., Strittholt, J.R., Hackman, A., Iacobelli, A.,
2001. An updated protected areas database for the United States and
Canada. Nat. Areas J. 21, 124–135.
Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Memtsas, D., Troumbis, A.Y., 2004. Questioning the
effectiveness of the Natura 2000 special areas of conservation strategy:
the case of Crete. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 13, 199–204.
Dudley, N., Stolton, S., 1998. Protected areas for a new millennium:
the implications of IUCN’s protected area categories for forest
conservation. A joint IUCN and WWF Discussion Paper, Gland,
Switzerland. Available: http://www.iucn.org/themes/forests/6/notitle.
html.
Environment Australia, 1999. The National Reserve System Program
Strategic Plan. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Reserve
System Section, Canberra.
Environment Australia, 2002. Collaborative Australian Protected Areas
Database 2002. Available: http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/
2002/index.html (Accessed 3 March 2003).
Figgis, P., 1999. Australia’s National Parks and Protected Areas: Future
Directions. ACIUCN Occasional Paper No. 8, Australian Committee for
IUCN Inc., Sydney.
Figgis, P., 2004. Conservation on Private Lands: The Australian Experience.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Fitzsimons, J., 1999. Reservation status of broad vegetation types in
Victorian IBRA regions, 1999. Report for the Victorian Department
of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.
Fitzsimons, J., Wescott, G., 2001. The role and contribution of private land
in Victoria to biodiversity conservation and the protected area system.
Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 8, 142–157.
Fitzsimons, J., Wescott, G., 2002. Policy implications of the transfer of
ownership of Scotia Sanctuary for the National Reserve System in
Australia. Environ. Plan. Law J. 19, 329–332.
Geoscience Australia, 2003. Land Tenure. Available: http://www.ga.gov.au/
education/facts/tenure.htm (Accessed on 26 February 2003).
Hardy, A.M. (Ed.), 2001. Terrestrial Protected Areas in Australia: 2000
Summary Statistics from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area
Database (CAPAD). Environment Australia, Canberra.
Hiedanpaa, J., 2002. European-wide conservation versus local well-being:
the reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-
Finland. Landscape Urban Plan. 61, 113–123.
Horwitz, P., Calver, M., 1998. Credible science? Evaluating the Regional
Forest Agreement process in Western Australia. Aust. J. Environ.
Manage. 5, 213–225.
IUCN, 1978. Categories, Objectives and Criteria for Protected Areas.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN, 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories.
CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN, 2003a. Speaking a Common Language: An Assessment of the
Application of the IUCN System of Categorising Protected Areas—
Background. Available: http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/
pdfs/outputs/pascat/pascatrev_bpaper.pdf.
IUCN, 2003b. Draft Case Study: Linking Governance to the IUCN Pro-
tected Area Management Categories. Available: http://www.cf.ac.uk/
cplan/sacl/cs-governance.pdf.
JANIS, 1997. Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a
Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for
Forests in Australia. Joint ANZECC/MCFFA National Forest Policy
Statement Implementation Subcommittee, Canberra.
Kanowski, P.J., Gilmour, D.A., Margules, C.R., Potter, C.S., 1999. Inter-
national Forest Conservation: Protected Areas and Beyond. A discus-
sion paper for the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests. Commonwealth
of Australia, Canberra.
Kirkpatrick, J.B., 1998. Nature conservation and the Regional Forest
Agreement process. Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 5, 31–37.
Kneeland, D., Waide, J., 1999. Classification systems for protected forest
areas. Background paper for the International Experts Meeting on
Protected Forest Areas sponsored the governments of Brazil and the
United States of America. Available: http://www.mma.gov.br/port/sbf/
reuniao/classificationsys.html.
Lane, M.B., 2003. Decentralization or privatisation of environmental
governance? Forest conflict and bioregional assessment in Australia.
J. Rural Stud. 19, 283–294.
Langholz, J.A., Lassoie, J.P., 2001. Perils and promise of privately owned
protected areas. BioScience 51, 1079–1085.
LCC, 1988. Statewide Assessment of Public Land Use, Victoria. Land
Conservation Council, Melbourne.
Lee, G., Szabo, S., 2000. The private lives of protected areas: private land in
the National Reserve System. In: Craig, J.L., Mitchell, N., Saunders,
D.A. (Eds.), Nature Conservation 5: Nature Conservation in Production
Environments—Managing the Matrix. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chip-
ping Norton, pp. 502–510.
MacKinnon, J. (Ed.), 1997. Protected Areas Systems Review of the Indo-
Malayan Realm. Asian Bureau for Conservation and World Conserva-
tion Monitoring Centre, Canterbury, UK.
MCPFE, 2001. MCPFE Classification of Protected and Protective Forests
and Other Wooded Land (according to recommendations of the MCPFE
Workshop on Protected Forest Areas 28–30 November 2001. Køge,
Denmark). Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in
Europe, Vienna. Available: http://www.ogm.gov.tr/yukle/protected.pdf.
NRE, 1996. IUCN Categories and Other Key Datasets for Parks and
Conservation Reserves in Victoria. National Parks and Reserves Branch,
National Parks Service, Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
ment, Melbourne.
NRMMC, 2004. Directions for the National Reserve System—A Partner-
ship Approach. For comment. Natural Resource Management Minister-
ial Council, Canberra. Available: http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/
directions/pubs/directions.pdf.
Phillips, A., 1999. Working landscapes as protected areas. In: Stolton, S.,
Dudley, N. (Eds.), Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for
Planning and Management of Protected Areas. Earthscan Publications,
London, pp. 205–214.
Pouliquen-Young, O., 1997. Evolution of the system of protected areas in
Western Australia. Environ. Conserv. 24, 168–181.
Pressey, R.L., Logan, V.S., 1997. Inside looking out: findings of research on
reserve selection relevant to ‘‘off-reserve’’ nature conservation. In:
Hale, P., Lamb, D. (Eds.), Conservation Outside Nature Reserves.
Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland, Brisbane,
pp. 407–418.
Prober, S.M., Thiele, K.R., Higginson, E., 2001. The Grassy Box Wood-
lands Conservation Management Network: picking up the pieces in
fragmented woodlands. Ecol. Manage. Restoration 2, 179–188.
Productivity Commission, 2001. Constraints on Private Conservation of
Biodiversity. Productivity Commission Research Paper. AusInfo, Can-
berra.
Productivity Commission, 2002. Pastoral Leases and Non-Pastoral Land
Use. Productivity Commission Research Paper. AusInfo, Canberra.
Remy, E., Mougenot, C., 2002. Inventories and maps: cognitive ways
of framing nature policies in Europe. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 4,
313–322.
Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C.,
Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D’Erchia, F., Edwards Jr., T.C., Ulliman, J.,
Wright, R.G., 1993. Gap Analysis: a geographic approach to protection
of biological diversity. Wildl. Monogr. 123, 1–41.
Smyth, D., Sutherland, J., 1996. Indigenous Protected Areas: Conservation
Partnerships With Indigenous Landholders. Department of Environ-
ment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.
Stephens, S., 2001. Visions and viability: how achievable is landscape
conservation in Australia? Ecol. Manage. Restoration 2, 189–195.
Stoneham, G., Crowe, M., Platt, S., Chaudhri, V., Soligo, J., Strappazzon, L.,
2000. Mechanisms for Biodiversity on Private Land. Department of
Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.
Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A., Strappazzon, L., 2003. Auctions for
conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s Bush-
Tender trial. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 47, 477–500.
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486 485
Thackway, R., Brunckhorst, D.J., 1998. Alternative futures for indigenous
cultural and natural areas in Australia’s rangelands. Aust. J. Environ.
Manage. 5, 169–181.
Thackway, R., Olsson, K., 1999. Public/private partnerships and protected
areas: selected Australian case studies. Landscape Urban Plan. 44, 87–97.
WCPA Australia and New Zealand Region, 2000. Application of IUCN
Protected Area Management Categories: Draft Australian Handbook.
World Commission on Protected Areas Australia and New Zealand
Region, Australia. Available: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_ar-
eas/categories/australia.pdf.
Wescott, G., 1995. Victoria’s national park system: can the transition from
quantity of parks to quality of management be successful? Aust. J.
Environ. Manage. 2, 210–223.
Wescott, G.C., 1991. Australia’s distinctive national parks system. Environ.
Conserv. 18, 331–340.
Worboys, G., Lockwood, M., De Lacy, T., 2001. Protected Area Manage-
ment: Principles and Practice. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
WWF, 1998. European Forest Scorecards 1998: Report. World Wide Fund
for Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
James Fitzsimons is a PhD candidate at the School of Ecology and
Environment, Deakin University. His current research focuses on analysing
physical, social and ecological aspects of multi-tenure networks of lands
managed for conservation. He has previously worked for Victorian govern-
ment environment departments in the fields of protected area establishment
and policy.
Geoff Wescott is an Associate Professor in Environmental Management on
the Melbourne Campus of Deakin University. He has published widely in
the areas of marine, coastal and protected area policy, planning and
management. He is the Deputy Chair of Parks Victoria and a former Chair
of Victoria’s National Parks Advisory Council. He is currently a member of
the Australian National Oceans Advisory Group and member of the
National Reference Group of the Marine and Coastal Community Network.
J.A. Fitzsimons, G. Wescott / Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 477–486486
244
Appendix 2. Publication: Australian Geographer
Citation: Fitzsimons, J.A. & Wescott, G. (2005) History and attributes of selectedAustralian multi-tenure reserve networks. Australian Geographer 36, 75-93.
History and Attributes of Selected AustralianMulti-tenure Reserve Networks
JAMES A. FITZSIMONS & GEOFF WESCOTT, Deakin University, Australia.
ABSTRACT The need for conservation planning across the landscape, regardless of
tenure, is widely recognised. In Australia, attempts to coordinate the management of
conservation lands are characterised by models such as Biosphere Reserves and
Conservation Management Networks. This paper outlines the history behind the
formation and development of three networks in Australia—the Bookmark Biosphere
Reserve, the Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network, and the Grassy Box
Woodlands Conservation Management Network—with particular emphasis on the tenure
and protection attributes of the various components within these networks. Despite having
a similar number of components, the total area represented in the networks varied
markedly. There were few similarities in the proportion of components of various tenures
and protection mechanisms among networks. Composition of networks is likely to be
strongly influenced by both historical factors (degree of subdivision, land ownership and
remaining vegetation) and contemporary factors (aims of the network and willingness of
landowners to participate). Continued research into both the evolution and the physical
and social dynamics of multi-tenure reserve networks enables a better understanding of
their operation, and will ultimately assist in improved conservation planning across the
landscape.
KEY WORDS Biosphere reserve; conservation management network; protected area;
private land; conservation planning; landscape.
Introduction
To maintain current levels of biodiversity, it is widely recognised that
conservation efforts cannot be constrained to the public reserve system and
that a landscape-scale approach to management is required across all land
tenures (Saunders 1990; Miller 1999; Hobbs 2002). Land ownership is a
significant determinant of the types of conservation that take place in particular
areas of the landscape, although little studied (Crow et al. 1999; Lovett-Doust &
Kuntz 2001). Although there has been much theoretical discussion about the
need for the integration of management across different land uses and tenures,
and particularly conservation lands, detailed analyses and comparison of on-
ground examples are rare. When this has occurred, it is usually of single networks
(e.g. Walker & Solecki 1999; Prober et al. 2001; Silori 2002). There has been
Australian Geographer, Vol. 36, No. 1,
pp. 75–93, March 2005
ISSN 0004-9182 print/ISSN 1465-3311 online/05/010075–19 q 2005 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.
DOI: 10.1080/00049180500050904
an increased interest in the multi-tenure approach to conservation in Australia,
particularly in the last decade, with a number of new networks established and
many others in the formative stages of development. Such models are
characterised by Biosphere Reserves (BRs) and Conservation Management
Networks (CMNs), collectively referred to herein as ‘multi-tenure reserve
networks’.
Biosphere Reserves are concerned primarily with integrating biodiversity
conservation with ecologically sustainable development across a variety of land
tenures and uses (UNESCO 1995; Brunckhorst et al. 1997). The theoretical BR
model revolves around a ‘core’ protected area managed primarily for nature
conservation, a ‘buffer’ zone where activities that impact on the biodiversity of the
core are minimised, and a ‘transition’ zone, where the sustainable use of natural
resources is encouraged (see Batisse 1993; Parker 1993; Brunckhorst et al. 1997).
The ‘Man and the Biosphere Program’, which coordinates the world network of
BRs, was launched by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) in 1971, and has since seen 440 BRs established in 97
participating nations (UNESCO 2004).
A CMN is a network of remnants managed for conservation, their managers and
other interested parties. The CMN model essentially provides a coordinating or
‘umbrella’ body to help coordinate the protection and management of fragmented
ecological communities across a range of tenures and with a variety of protection
mechanisms (Binning & Young 1997; Thiele & Prober 1999, 2000). The model
was in part necessitated by a perceived lack of mechanisms to quantify the
contribution of the non-government sector to achieving nature conservation
objectives (Binning 2000).
The BR concept is a recognised and accepted means of integrating public and
private conservation lands, as well as for developing sustainable land-use
practices in many parts of the world, including Australia. While the
Commonwealth government has a national strategy on BRs (Parker 1993), this
is in need of review in light of more recent advances in cross-tenure conservation
mechanisms.
Commonwealth government recognition of the concept of ‘informal protected
area networks’ was given in the document National objectives and targets for biodiversity
conservation 2001–2005, although no definition was provided (Commonwealth of
Australia 2001). A recent attempt to have a nationally accepted framework for the
establishment and definition of CMNs (i.e. Thiele et al. 2002) has yet to be accepted
by government institutions. Nonetheless, the CMN concept is broadly accepted by
both New South Wales and Victorian State governments and is utilised as a
mechanism for conservation planning at a catchment (Corangamite CMA 2005)
and landscape (ECC 2001; Ross et al. 2003) level in Victoria and for threatened
community recovery planning in New South Wales (Environment ACT 2003;
Dobbie 2004).
Australian examples of multi-tenure reserve networks
Here, we compare the history behind the formation and evolution of selected
Australian multi-tenure reserve networks, with particular emphasis on the tenure
and protection mechanisms of components, and discusses the implications for
conservation planning and future networks.
76 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
Three networks were chosen as case studies for this research: the Bookmark
Biosphere Reserve (South Australia), the Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation
Management Network (New South Wales) and the Gippsland Plains Conservation
Management Network (Victoria). These networks were selected based, in part, on
their stage of development; all networks were established or had just become
established at the commencement of this research (late 1999). Furthermore, their
location in three different States enabled greater scope for investigating the role that
various jurisdictions play in shaping the success and management of such
conservation networks.
The Fitzgerald River Biosphere Reserve in Western Australia was the only other
Australian BR to have incorporated tenures other than the core public protected
area in 1999. However, as the inclusion of these other tenures was ‘notional’ rather
than formally recognised as part of the BR (Watson & Sanders 1997), it was not
included in this analysis. A variety of other networks which aim to integrate public
and private conservation lands have been formed, or have come to greater
prominence since this research began. A summary of some of these networks is
presented in the Appendix (Table A1).
Methods
Recognising that the networks are likely to continue to evolve, a point in time was
required to provide a ‘snapshot’ of network attributes for analysis. The location,
tenure and protection mechanisms for the embryonic Gippsland Plains CMN was
collected immediately after its official launch in February 2000, while data for the
Grassy Box Woodlands CMN was provided by NSW National Parks & Wildlife
Service (NPWS) in May 2000. Basic attribute data were obtained again for all
networks in January 2002 and allowed a comparison of changes in both the number
and area of components over that period.
As components entering Bookmark BR required official registration with
UNESCO, an entry date for each component enabled a chronological timeline to
be developed. As component entry requirements for the CMNs were somewhat less
formal, particularly early in their formation, it was not feasible to construct a
timeline. Thus comparisons between network attributes in early 2000 and early
2002 are presented.
Geospatial data sets were either created from information provided by the
network coordinating body (Gippsland Plains and Grassy Box Woodlands) or
supplied by the network itself (Bookmark). Areas of individual components were
calculated within a geographic information system (ArcView GIS 3.3). Areas for the
Grassy Box Woodlands components were provided by the CMN.
Land tenure and protection categories used for comparison were based on those
usually applied by either the network coordinating bodies or by the jurisdiction of
origin (referred to here as ‘on-ground’ categories). This resulted in varying degrees
of separation of tenures and protection mechanisms between networks (e.g. ‘private
land’ is a single category in the Grassy Box Woodlands, but was further delineated in
Bookmark BR and Gippsland Plains CMN based on the primary aim and/or
protection mechanism). We thus standardised the various tenure and protection
types of network components using the Conservation Lands Classification (see
Fitzsimons & Wescott 2004) to compare the relative contribution of various
components to networks.
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 77
The formation and development of case study networks
Bookmark Biosphere Reserve
The 253 000 ha Danggali Conservation Park was one of nine Australian
protected areas to be designated as a BR under the UNESCO Man and the
Biosphere Program in 1977. At that stage, the Danggali Conservation Park had
only recently been declared (in 1975), with Commonwealth government
funds having been made available to facilitate the purchase of four pastoral
properties (DENR 1995). Located in the northern part of the South Australian
Murray-Mallee region and to the north of Renmark, it adjoins the border of
New South Wales (see Figure 1).
As with the other Australian BRs, Danggali was restricted to the core
protected area until late 1993. The purchase of a 240 000 ha pastoral lease,
Calperum Station, adjoining the southern boundary of Danggali, by the
Commonwealth government, with support from the Chicago Zoological Society,
heralded the formation of the renamed Bookmark BR. The purchase initially
caused ‘consternation amongst the local community’, with fears it would become
an underfunded and unmanaged national park (Punturiero 2002, p. 6). Other
public reserves, both adjoining and nearby, were also included in the expanded
BR in 1993 (see Figure 1).
FIGURE 1. Location of components in the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve (as of January 2002).
Abbreviations: CP (conservation park), FR (forest reserve), GR (game reserve), LGR (local government
reserve), NP (national park), NT (National Trust reserve), PL (pastoral lease), PLC (private land—
conservation) PLS (private land—sustainability), RR (regional reserve). Some small components are not
labelled.
78 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
The purchase of Gluepot Station by Birds Australia and its inclusion within the
BR was important in protecting a large area of long-unburnt mallee and populations
of the nationally endangered black-eared miner (Manorina melanotis). This purchase
introduced a fourth national non-government organisation (NGO) to purchasing
land for the purpose of nature conservation (the others being Australian Bush
Heritage Fund, Australian Wildlife Conservancy and Earth Sanctuaries Ltd). The
Commonwealth furthered its involvement in Bookmark by purchasing the
Taylorville Station pastoral lease and consolidating Calperum and Gluepot (see
Figure 1). Much of the recent focus within Bookmark BR has been on encouraging
the development of production industries (e.g. citrus production) which espouse the
principles of environmentally sustainable development (Brunckhorst 2001;
Muldoon 2001).
Since the expansion of Danggali to Bookmark in 1993, both the total area and
number of individual components have increased, but patterns of growth have
been quite different (see Figure 2). The major increases in total area were the
addition of three large pastoral leases, namely Calperum Station (along with
various public protected areas) to the expanded BR in 1993 (some 362 000 ha),
Gluepot Station in 1997 (54 000 ha) and then Taylorville Station in 1999
(94 000 ha). In contrast, while increases in the number of properties were
sporadic between 1993 and 1997, from 1997 to 1999 relatively high and steady
increases have occurred. This latter growth is due mainly to the participation of
private landowners and the inclusion of reserves owned by the National Trust of
South Australia, which together contributed over 90 per cent of the total
number of components added since 1997. There were no additions to
Bookmark BR between 2000 and 2002. The number and area of components
within ‘on-ground’ categories as of 2002 are presented in Table 1.
FIGURE 2. Chronological development of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve since establishment. The
shaded area represents the cumulative area in the BR, while the single line represents the cumulative
number of sites. Major additions in area are annotated. Note that area and number of sites do not include
the two local government areas in the transition zone.
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 79
The Bookmark Biosphere Trust (formerly the Murraylands Community
Trust), established under the South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act
1972, was formed to manage the BR and included representatives from key
stakeholder groups (Bookmark Biosphere Trust 1995; Milliken 1995). More
recently a community committee has been formed to oversee the reserve
(Cottam 2003).
Two local government authorities in the region, Berri-Barmera and Renmark-
Paringa, are officially components of Bookmark as part of its ‘transition zone’
(see Figure 1). The attributes of these areas as a whole have not been included
in the analysis of Bookmark in this paper as residents of those councils have not
decided individually to become part of the biosphere, and it is probable that
some, if not many, residents would not know or necessarily be interested in the
aims of the network. Also, a number of properties, both public and private,
which fall within these local government areas, are registered separately as part
of the BR.
Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network
The grassy white box woodlands once covered several million hectares of the
inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range stretching from northern Victoria,
through New South Wales, into southern Queensland. Located in what is now
the wheat-sheep belt of eastern Australia, the community has been largely
cleared and degraded, with only about 200 ha (0.01 per cent) estimated to
remain in near original condition in NSW (Prober & Thiele 1993). In an
extensive range-wide study of the woodland’s history (Prober & Thiele 1993),
floristics (Prober 1996), genetics (Prober & Brown 1994; Prober et al. 1998)
and management (Prober & Thiele 1995), it was found that often the best
quality remnants occur on non-reserved public land or on private land and that
to ensure the survival of the ecosystem in the long term these blocks needed to
be managed for conservation.
TABLE 1. Number, area and type of components within the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve (as of
January 2002)
Component type Number Area (ha)
National park 1 13 134
Conservation park 6 256 044
Game reserve 3 21 788
Regional reserve 1 75 148
Forest reserve 3 2631
Pastoral leaseholda 3 394 188
Local government reserve 2 167
National Trust reservea 12 689
Private land (conservation)a 8 5153
Private land (sustainability) 10 411
Notes:
Some private land components have both conservation- and sustainable-use objectives: categorisation is
based on the management objective for the majority of the property.a One of each has a Heritage Agreement on title.
80 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
Recognising that acquisition of private land by government agencies would not be
appropriate in many situations for social, economic and management reasons, a
more flexible approach was developed that involved the application of various forms
of protective instruments under an umbrella body—the Conservation Management
Network (see Prober & Thiele 1996; Thiele & Prober 1999, 2000; Prober et al.
2001; Thiele et al. 2002).
The ‘Grassy White Box Woodlands Protected Area Network’, as it was then
known, was established in September 1998, with funding from the National Reserve
System Program of the Commonwealth government’s Natural Heritage Trust.
The network was to act as a model for the future integration of private lands into the
National Reserve System. The network changed its name in 1999 for two main
reasons:
(1) it was recognised that a number of other grassy box woodland vegetation types
with similar histories of clearance were in need of coordinated management and
protection and were thus included in the network (Prober et al. 2001); and
(2) (2) the term ‘Protected Area Network’ potentially conflicted with the IUCN
(1994) definition of ‘protected area’, and ‘Conservation Management
Network’ was considered to reflect the focus of the network more accurately.
The location of components in the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN is presented in
Figure 3, and the change in the number and area from 2000 to 2002 is presented in
Figure 4. The CMN’s initial focus was on protection of sites which contained the
highest quality remnants of grassy white box woodland (Prober et al. 2001). As a
result, cemeteries, which often contained largely ungrazed remnants spared from
agricultural use, contributed the greatest number of individual components in
FIGURE 3. Location and components of the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN (as of January 2002).
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 81
both years, comprising 61 per cent and 44 per cent of all CMN components in 2000
and 2002, respectively. However, the small size of such sites becomes apparent when
considering that cemeteries comprised only 5.2 per cent of the total area protected in
the network in 2002. The Tarcutta Hills Reserve, owned and managed by the
Australian Bush Heritage Fund, and a Private Protected Area under the National
Reserve System, is the largest single component in the network, protecting some
430 ha. Whilst there was little change in the number of components and their overall
area between 2000 and 2002, a further 10 sites were considered to be ‘under
negotiation’ for addition in early 2002.
Gippsland Plains Conservation Management Network
The lowland Gippsland Plain (or Munro Plain) originally supported extensive
grasslands, grassy forests and woodlands, and riverine scrubland. Since European
colonisation in the 1840s, most indigenous vegetation has been cleared or modified,
and the original grassland ecosystems are now extinct (Lunt 1997a, b, c).
FIGURE 4. Development of (a) the number and (b) the area (ha) of components of the Grassy Box
Woodlands CMN between 2000 (open columns) and 2002 (solid black columns). Component
abbreviations: CEM (cemeteries), TSR (Travelling Stock Routes), COM (town commons), PRI (private
land), PPA (private protected area), LGR (local government reserve), PUB (public protected area),
ROAD (road reserve), RAIL (rail reserve). Categories adapted from Prober et al. (2001).
82 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
The fragmented nature and potential threats to the remaining remnants
prompted the formation of a ‘Perry River Protected Area Network’ by the Trust
for Nature (Victoria) in late 1999 (Edwards 1999). The network was based on
the Grassy Box Woodland CMN model but applied a more geographic
approach, focusing on remnants around the Perry River and Providence Ponds
Flora and Fauna Reserve, with particular emphasis on plains grassy woodlands
(Foreman 2000). At that stage, the Trust had just purchased two properties (the
Bush Family Reserve and Frair’s Reserve) through the National Reserve System
Program which it was to own and manage, as well as signing a number of new
conservation covenants, the result of a targeted extension approach (Edwards &
Traill 2002).
Whilst initially there were no formal arrangements for the network’s structure, the
concept had broad support from local landholders and government agencies at the
regional level. At a workshop of stakeholders to advance the network in May 2001, it
was decided to expand its geographic focus to encompass much of the lowland
Gippsland Plain which once contained forest red gum plains grassy woodland. This
area stretched roughly from Bairnsdale in the east to Heyfield in the north down to
Sale and bordered by the Gippsland Lakes to the south (see Figure 5). Adoption of
the ‘CMN’ moniker also occurred in May 2001.
FIGURE 5. Location of components in the Gippsland Plains CMN (as of January 2002). Abbreviations:
NCR (nature conservation reserves), NFR (natural features reserves), OPL (other public land), SPZ
(State forest special protection zone), TFNR (Trust for Nature reserves). Note: component abbreviations
in parentheses are those that fall within the standardised public land categorisations of the LCC (1988)
even though their official name is different. For example, flora & fauna reserves are now known as nature
conservation reserves, yet some (e.g. Providence Ponds) have had no official name changes. Some small
components are not labelled.
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 83
Coordination arrangements for the network have evolved rapidly since its
formation. The then Victorian Department of Natural Resources and
Environment assumed much of the coordination following the appointment of
a native vegetation officer in the region in mid-2001, and the formation of a
steering committee, including key stakeholders, followed soon after. The steering
committee approach was formalised when the network became an incorporated
body with elected representatives and paid members. A ranger was employed in
2002 specifically to coordinate adaptive management and research trials within
network components.
Almost all protection types increased in the Gippsland Plains CMN between
2000 and 2002, in both number and total area protected (see Figure 6).
Much of this increase, particularly in public protected areas, can be attributed to
FIGURE 6. Development of the (a) number and (b) area (ha) of components of the Gippsland Plains
CMN between 2000 (open columns) and 2002 (solid black columns). Component abbreviations: NCR
(public protected area—nature conservation reserves), NFR (public protected area—natural features
reserves), OPL (other public land), SPZ (State forest special protection zone), TFNR (Trust for Nature
reserves), RF (Revolving Fund properties), COV (conservation covenants), PRI (private land with non-
binding agreements).
84 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
the expansion of the geographic scope of the network, although some increase
was the result of strategic land purchase in the region (Fitzsimons & Ashe
2003).
The one on-ground category which decreased was the ‘Revolving Fund’
properties. These properties were donated to or purchased by the Trust for
Nature specifically for the purpose of ‘on-selling’ with an attached conservation
covenant. The status of these properties therefore changed and they were thus
classified as conservation covenants in the CMN in 2002. The increase in
conservation covenants and non-binding protection programs on private land is
the result of both the geographic expansion of the network and a number of new
signings during that time.
Application of a standardised tenure and protection classification
The variety of both public protected area categories and private land conservation
mechanisms currently in existence throughout Australian jurisdictions necessitates
comparison of jurisdictional conservation lands through a standardised categor-
isation. Components in each of the networks were classified into broad tenure and
protection mechanism categories, referred to as the Conservation Lands
Classification (see Table 2 for a brief description; for further details, see Fitzsimons
& Wescott 2004).
Despite the three networks having a similar number of components, the total area
represented in the networks varied markedly (see Table 3). Other reserves (category
1.3) and private land with non-binding agreements owned by individuals or families
(category 4.4) contributed to a similar proportion of the total area of the three
networks (see Figure 7). Otherwise there were few similarities in the number and
area of components in categories between networks.
Public protected areas (categories 1.1 and 1.2) contributed approximately 90 per
cent of the total area of Bookmark BR1 and 80 per cent of the Gippsland Plains
CMN, yet only 10 per cent of the area in the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN.
Conversely, other public land without a conservation agreement (category 2.2)
contributed the greatest number of components in the Grassy Box Woodlands
CMN, yet this category was not represented in the other networks.
Conclusion: implications for biodiversity conservation
A number of studies have described the chronological development of public
protected area networks in various Australian jurisdictions (e.g. Wescott 1995;
Pouliquen-Young 1997; Bryan 2002; Mendel 2002; Mendel & Kirkpatrick 2002).
Recognising the motives behind particular declarations or phases of growth is
important to the understanding of existing reserve systems. Likewise, tracking the
growth (or decline) within multi-tenure reserve networks and understanding the
reasons for any changes are increasingly important to assist both the ecological and
social fields of conservation planning. Of particular interest is whether the
networks act as a ‘stepping stone’ for private landholders to increase the level of
protection on their properties from non-binding to permanently binding
agreements.
Constraints on the number and size of components and the total area within
a network are likely to be influenced by a number of interrelated factors.
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 85
These include historical factors such as the number and size of allotments (i.e. the
degree of subdivision), the tenure of those allotments and the amount of native
vegetation or other conservation assets remaining in a region; as well as
contemporary factors such as the aims and/or geographic constraints of the network
and the willingness of landholders to participate.
Formal transboundary (cross-jurisdictional) management partnerships for
Australian protected areas currently appear limited to the Australian Alps
National Parks (ACT, NSW and Victoria) and the Central Eastern Rainforest
Reserves (Australia) World Heritage Area (NSW and Queensland). Interestingly,
there are conservation lands in neighbouring states that adjoin or are in close
proximity to both Bookmark BR and the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN but as
TABLE 2. Description and application of categories within the Conservation Lands Classification
Category name Description
1.0 Public reserves
1.1 Highly protected area Protected areas on public land which are focused primarily
towards nature conservation (i.e. equivalent to IUCN
Protected Area categories Ia, Ib, II, III and IV)
1.2 Less protected area Separated from the above categories as per reporting for
the Australian National Reserve System. Equivalent to
IUCN categories V and VI
1.3 Other public reserves Public land managed usually named a ‘reserve’ or ‘park’
and incorporating natural features but may have a stronger
recreation, historical or potential extraction focus OR not
considered to have stronger enough protection mechanisms
to be considered an IUCN protected area. Includes reserves
owned and managed by local government for conservation
purposes
2.0 Other public land
2.1 Other Crown lands—
binding conservation
agreement
Public land with a primary purpose unrelated to nature
conservation but managed sympathetically for nature
conservation with a legally binding protection mechanism
2.2 Other Crown lands—
other/no agreement
As above but without a legally binding mechanism
3.0 Indigenous land
3.1 Protected Indigenous lands Land owned and managed by Indigenous peoples with
conservation as the (or one of the) primary aims
4.0 Private land
4.1 Private land—organisation
(binding agreement)
Land owned by an organisation with a legally binding
agreement on the title or by a land trust with specific aims
to manage conservation lands
4.2 Private land—individual
(binding agreement)
An individual, couple or family-owned property with a
protective, conservation covenant on the title of the
property or through a legally binding agreement with a
government agency
4.3 Private land—organisation
(non-binding agreement)
As for 4.1 but lacking a binding protective agreement
4.4 Private land—individual
(non-binding agreement)
As for 4.2 but without a protective, legally binding
agreement
Other Land not managed for biodiversity conservation but may
be included in some networks (e.g. managed for
sustainable production)
86 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
TA
BL
E3.
Nu
mb
eran
dto
tal
are
aof
com
pon
ents
wit
hin
net
work
sca
tegori
sed
un
der
the
Con
serv
ation
Lands
Cla
ssifi
cation
Nu
mb
erof
com
pon
ents
Tota
lare
aof
com
pon
ents
(ha)
Cate
gory
Bookm
ark
Gip
psl
an
dP
lain
s
Gra
ssy
Box
Wood
lan
ds
Bookm
ark
Gip
psl
an
dP
lain
sG
rass
yB
ox
Wood
lan
ds
1.1
Pu
blic
pro
tect
edare
as
(hig
h)
11
14
1612
333
4073
136
1.2
Pu
blic
pro
tect
edare
as
(les
s)2
10
93
601
6857
0
1.3
Oth
erp
ub
lic
rese
rves
56
52799
1294
176
2.1
Cro
wn
lan
ds—
pro
tect
ive
agre
emen
t0
18
0310
76
2.2
Cro
wn
lan
ds—
no
agre
emen
t0
018
00
223
4.1
Pri
vate
—org
.(b
ind
ing
agre
emen
t)12
31
55
046
479
432
4.2
Pri
vate
—in
div
idu
al
(bin
din
gagre
emen
t)1
14
2151
588
157
4.3
Pri
vate
—org
.(n
on
-bin
din
gagre
emen
t)1
00
1690
00
4.4
Pri
vate
—in
div
idu
al
(non
-bin
din
gagre
emen
t)6
74
3312
292
50
Oth
.O
ther
11
00
423
00
Tot
al
49
46
39
769
355
13
893
1250
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 87
FIGURE 7. Proportion of (a) number of components and (b) total area protected in networks as of January
2002. Bookmark BR (solid black column), Gippsland Plains CMN (shaded grey column), Grassy Box
Woodlands CMN (white column). Abbreviations: 1.1 ¼ public protected areas (high), 1.2 ¼ public
protected areas (lesser), 1.3 ¼ other public reserves, 2.1 ¼ Crown lands—protective agreement,
2.2 ¼ Crown lands—no agreement, 4.1 ¼ private—organisation (binding agreement), 4.2 ¼ private—
individual (binding agreement), 4.3 ¼ private—organisation (non-binding agreement), 4.4 ¼ private—
individual (non-binding agreement), Oth. ¼ other.
88 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
yet are not part of those networks. In both cases, inclusion of these areas would
not only meet the aims of the respective networks but also enhance them.
The non-inclusion of inter-jurisdictional conservation lands may suggest that
while it may not be the policy of a network to restrict their operations within
State boundaries, existing administration, coordination or financing arrange-
ments by State nature conservation agencies could be placing administrative
boundaries on the area of operation. The proposed Barkindji BR aims to
coordinate public and private conservation lands in north-western Victoria and
south-western NSW (Catherine Brown & Associates Pty Ltd 2002), and is
probably the first example of a transboundary, multi-tenure reserve network in
Australia.
It is interesting to note that each network contained at least one relatively large
private reserve owned by an NGO. The involvement of the NGOs may act to
strengthen existing networks in two ways: (1) by increasing the profile of the network
and (2) by acting or being perceived as a respected and impartial land manager
linking public and private land managers. Furthermore, the purchase of land within
a region may also act as a stimulus for the formation of new networks. The
involvement of NGOs owning conservation lands is likely to increase if overseas
trends are followed in Australia.
To measure past and future progress towards national conservation objectives,
such as achieving a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system,
date-stamping of gazettal dates for public protected areas is increasingly important
for spatial data sets (Pressey et al. 2002). At a regional level, this is equally if not
more important for multi-tenure reserve networks, as the non-binding nature of
some private land agreements and the change in status of some components may
make such information difficult to gain retrospectively. Modern conservation
planning increasingly requires analysis of reserve design (both at site and network
level) as well as assessments of the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representa-
tiveness of the reserve system. Such assessments are currently underway for the
three case study networks.2
There is demonstrated growth in existing multi-tenure reserve networks and
widespread interest in the establishment of new networks. Multi-tenure reserve
networks are used increasingly as an on-ground means of implementing cross-tenure
ecosystem management in Australia. Considering this, continued research into both
physical and human dynamics and the evolution of such networks is likely to enable
a better understanding of their operation, and ultimately assist in better planning for
the conservation of biodiversity across the landscape.
Acknowledgements
We thank representatives from the networks for providing important information
during this research, particularly Ed Cottam and Mike Harper (Bookmark BR);
Robyn Edwards and Trish Fox (Gippsland Plains CMN); and Erica Higginson,
Suzanne Prober and Kevin Thiele (Grassy Box Woodlands CMN). Benno Curth
(SA Department of Environment & Heritage) created and supplied GIS data sets for
Bookmark BR. J. Fitzsimons was supported during this research by a Deakin
University Postgraduate Research Scholarship. Constructive comments from Hugh
Robertson, Dianne Simmons, Jim Forrest and two anonymous reviewers on
previous drafts of this paper were greatly appreciated.
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 89
Correspondence: James Fitzsimons, School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin
University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. E-mail:
NOTES
[1] Calperum and Taylorville Stations, whilst not currently counted as IUCN protected areas (Hardy
2001; Environment Australia 2002), were included in category 1.1 for this analysis considering the
owner of the leases (Commonwealth Director of National Parks) and that biodiversity conservation
is the primary use for the majority of both properties.
[2] Currently being undertaken as part of PhD research by J. Fitzsimons.
REFERENCES
Anon (2002) ‘Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve’, Stage 1 Nomination,
Submission to UNESCO, Paris, May 2002.
Batisse, M. (1993) ‘The silver jubilee of the MAB and its revival’, Environmental Conservation, 20,
pp. 107–12.
Binning, C. (2000) ‘Creating private markets for nature conservation’, in Barlow, T. & Thornburn, R.
(eds) Balancing conservation and production in grassy landscapes. Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy
Landscapes Conference, Clare, South Australia, 19–21 August 1999, Environment Australia, Canberra,
pp. 87–96.
Binning, C.E. & Young, M.D. (1997) ‘Motivating people: using management agreements to conserve
remnant vegetation,’ Paper 1/97, National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation,
Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation Environment Australia, Canberra.
Bookmark Biosphere Trust (1995) Introducing Bookmark: the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve action plan,
Bookmark Biosphere Trust, Berri.
Bower, H. & Parkes, T. (2002) ‘The Big Scrub Rainforest Landcare Group—northern NSW’, Ecological
Management & Restoration, 3, pp. 73–4.
Brunckhorst, D. (2001) ‘Building capital through bioregional planning and biosphere reserves’, Ethics in
Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP), 2001 pp. 2019–32, available at: http://www.int-res.com/
articles/esep/2001/article2.pdf.
Brunckhorst, D.J., Bridgewater, P. & Parker, P. (1997) ‘The UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Program
comes of age: learning by doing; landscape models for sustainable conservation and resource use’, in
Hale, P. & Lamb, D. (eds) Conservation outside nature reserves, Centre for Conservation Biology,
University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 176–82.
Bryan, B.A. (2002) ‘Reserve selection for nature conservation in South Australia: past, present and
future’, Australian Geographical Studies, 40, pp. 196–209.
Catherine Brown & Associates Pty Ltd (2002) ‘The Barkindji Biosphere Reserve: realising the vision—
an implementation plan’, Australian Inland Botanic Gardens Inc., Mildura.
Commonwealth of Australia (2001) National objectives and targets for biodiversity conservation 2001–
2005, Environment Australia, Canberra.
Corangamite CMA (2005) Corangamite Native Vegetation Plan, Corangamite Catchment Management
Authority, Colac.
Cottam, E. (2003) ‘Bookmark Biosphere Reserve—a governance model’, Australian Biosphere Reserve
News July 2003, pp. 9–10.
Crow, T.R., Host, G.E. & Mladenoff, D.J. (1999) ‘Ownership and ecosystem as sources of spatial
heterogeneity in a forested landscape, Wisconsin, USA’, Landscape Ecology, 14, pp. 449–63.
DENR (1995) Danggali Conservation Park Management Plan, National Parks and Wildlife Service,
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Murraylands Region.
Dobbie, S. (2004) Grassy White Box Woodland Recovery Plan: draft for public comment, NSW National Parks
and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.
ECC (2000) Box-Ironbark Forests and Woodlands Investigation draft report for public comment, Environment
Conservation Council, Melbourne.
ECC (2001) Box-Ironbark Forests and Woodlands Investigation final report, Environment Conservation
Council, Melbourne.
90 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
Edwards, R. (1999) ‘Saving the red gum woodlands of the Gippsland Plains’, Conservation Bulletin
Summer 1999, pp. 3–7.
Edwards, R., Orr, R. & Ryan, H. (2002) ‘Network news’, Conservation Bulletin, 22, pp. 6–8.
Edwards, R. & Traill, B. (2002) ‘Getting beyond field days: targeting extension to protect threatened
ecosystems on private land’, Ecological Management & Restoration, 3, pp. 229–31.
Environment ACT (2003) National recovery plan for natural temperate grasslands of the Southern Tablelands
(NSW and ACT): an endangered ecological community, Environment ACT, Canberra.
Environment Australia (2002) Collaborative Australian protected areas database 2002, available at: http://
www.deh.gov.au/parks/nrs/capad/2002/index.html.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Ashe, C. (2003) ‘Some recent strategic additions to Victoria’s protected area system
1997–2002’, Victorian Naturalist, 120, pp. 98–108.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Wescott, G. (2004) ‘The classification of lands managed for conservation: existing and
proposed frameworks, with particular reference to Australia’, Environmental Science & Policy, 7, pp.
477–86.
Foreman, P. (2000) ‘Conserving threatened plants and communities in Victoria: the protected area
network’, Danthonia, 9(2), pp. 1, 4, 5.
Garbutt, S. (2002) ‘New conservation initiative for box–ironbark parks’, media release from the Hon
Sherryl Garbutt, Minister for Environment and Conservation, 1 October 2002.
Hardy, A.M. (ed.) (2001) Terrestrial protected areas in Australia: 2000 summary statistics from the
Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD), Environment Australia, Canberra.
Hobbs, R.J. (2002) ‘Habitat networks and biological conservation’, in Gutzwiller, K.J. (ed.) Applying
landscape ecology in biological conservation, Springer, New York, pp. 150–70.
IUCN (1994) Guidelines for protected area management categories, CNPPA with the assistance of WCMC,
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
LCC (1988) Statewide assessment of public land use, Victoria, Land Conservation Council, Melbourne.
Lovett-Doust, J. & Kuntz, K. (2001) ‘Land ownership and other landscape-level effects on biodiversity in
southern Ontario’s Niagara Escarpment Biosphere Reserve, Canada’, Landscape Ecology, 16, pp. 743–55.
Lunt, I.D. (1997a) ‘Effects of long-term vegetation management on remnant grassy forests and
anthropogenic native grasslands in south-eastern Australia’, Biological Conservation, 81, pp. 287–97.
Lunt, I.D. (1997b) ‘The distribution and environmental relationships of native grasslands on the lowland
Gippsland Plain, Victoria: an historical study’, Australian Geographical Studies, 35, pp. 140–52.
Lunt, I.D. (1997c) ‘Tree densities last century on the lowland Gippsland plain, Victoria’, Australian
Geographical Studies, 35, pp. 342–8.
McLellan, R. & Brown, L. (2002) ‘Filling a niche: Woodland Watch in Western Australia’, Ecological
Management & Restoration, 3, pp. 148–50.
Mendel, L. (2002) ‘The consequences for wilderness conservation in the development of the national
parks system in Tasmania, Australia’, Australian Geographical Studies, 40, pp. 71–83.
Mendel, L.C. & Kirkpatrick, J.B. (2002) ‘Historical progress of biodiversity conservation in the
protected-area system of Tasmania, Australia’, Conservation Biology, 16, pp. 1520–9.
Miller, K.R. (1999) ‘Bioregional planning and biodiversity conservation’, in Stolton, S. & Dudley, N.
(eds) Partnerships for protection: new strategies for planning and management of protected areas, Earthscan,
London, pp. 42–9.
Milliken, S.T. (1995) Calperum and the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve: a model for the future, Australian
Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Muldoon, J. (2001) ‘Use of biosphere reserves to achieve biodiversity conservation and sustainable use—
an Australian case study’, People and places: Pacific island approaches to integrated coastal conservation and
sustainable human development, Second Meeting of Asia Pacific Co-operation for the Sustainable Use of
Renewable Natural Resources in Biosphere Reserves and Similarly Managed Areas (ASPACO) 7–10
November 2001, Apia, Samoa; UNESCO, Paris, pp. 20–9.
Parker, P. (1993) Biosphere reserves in Australia: a strategy for the future, Australian Nature Conservation
Agency, Canberra.
Pouliquen-Young, O. (1997) ‘Evolution of the system of protected areas in Western Australia’,
Environmental Conservation, 24, pp. 168–81.
Pressey, R.L., Whish, G.L., Barrett, T.W. & Watts, M.E. (2002) ‘Effectiveness of protected areas in north-
eastern New South Wales: recent trends in six measures’, Biological Conservation, 106, pp. 57–69.
Prober, S.M. (1996) ‘Conservation of the Grassy White Box Woodlands: rangewide floristic variation and
implications for reserve design’, Australian Journal of Botany, 44, pp. 57–77.
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 91
Prober, S.M. & Brown, A.H.D. (1994) ‘Conservation of the Grassy White Box Woodlands: population
genetics and fragmentation of Eucalyptus albens’, Conservation Biology, 8, pp. 1003–13.
Prober, S.M., Spindler, L.H. & Brown, A.H.D. (1998) ‘Conservation of the Grassy White Box
Woodlands: effects of remnant population size on genetic diversity in the allotetraploid herb Microseris
lanceolata’, Conservation Biology, 12, pp. 1279–90.
Prober, S.M. & Thiele, K.R. (1993) ‘The ecology and genetics of remnant Grassy White Box Woodlands
in relation to their conservation’, The Victorian Naturalist, 110, pp. 30–6.
Prober, S.M. & Thiele, K.R. (1995) ‘Conservation of the Grassy White Box Woodlands: relative
contribution of size and disturbance to floristic composition and diversity of remnants’, Australian
Journal of Botany, 43, pp. 349–66.
Prober, S. & Thiele, K. (1996) ‘Reserve concepts and conceptual reserves: the Grassy White Box
Woodlands and beyond’, discussion paper, Ecological Interactions, Martins Creek via Orbost.
Prober, S.M., Thiele, K.R. & Higginson, E. (2001) ‘The Grassy Box Woodlands conservation
management network: picking up the pieces in fragmented woodlands’, Ecological Management &
Restoration, 2, pp. 179–88.
Punturiero, M. (2002) ‘The business case for biosphere reserves’, Biospheres: creating sustainable regional
communities, summary of proceedings of a Seminar held on 20 September 2002, Shearwater Cape
Schanck Conference Centre, Earthwatch Institute, Melbourne, pp. 5–7.
Ross, J., Lowe, K.W., Boyle, C. & Moorrees, A. (2003) Landscape plans for the eastern zones in the
Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion, Parks, Flora and Fauna Division, Department of Sustainability &
Environment, Melbourne.
Saunders, D.A. (1990) ‘The landscape approach to conservation: community involvement, the only
practical solution’, Australian Zoologist, 26, pp. 49–53.
Silori, C.S. (2002) ‘Biosphere reserve management in theory and practice: case of Nanda Devi biosphere
reserve, western Himalaya, India’, Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 4, pp. 205–19.
State of Victoria (2002) Biosphere reserve proposals—state government policy, State of Victoria,
Melbourne, available at: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/web/root/domino/cm_da/NRECPR.nsf/
2fc3379bd0005bd64a2566cf00283d52/e8c72597ed280289ca256c8b00032c0a/$FILE/
state þ govt þ policy.pdf
Stone, S. (2003) ‘Commonwealth government supports Barkindji Biosphere Reserve nomination’, media
release from the Hon Dr Sharman Stone, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and
Heritage, 22 March 2003, available at: http://www.deh.gov.au/minister/ps/2003/psmr22mar03.html
Thiele, K.R. & Prober, S.M. (1999) ‘Reserve concepts and conceptual reserves: options for the protection of
fragmented ecosystems’, in Hobbs, R.J. & Yates, C.J. (eds) Temperate eucalypt woodlands in Australia: biology,
conservation, restoration and management, Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 351–8.
Thiele, K. & Prober, S. (2000) ‘Conservation management networks—a model for coordinated
protection and management of remnant vegetation’, in Barlow, T. & Thornburn, R. (eds) Balancing
conservation and production in grassy landscapes. Proceedings of the Bushcare Grassy Landscapes Conference,
Clare, South Australia, 19–21 August 1999, Environment Australia, Canberra, pp. 58–63.
Thiele, K.R., Prober, S.M., Higginson, E. & Bell, L. (2002) ‘Conservation management networks: a
working national framework for their establishment and operation’, discussion paper prepared in
conjunction with the National Workshop on Conservation Management Networks, Canberra, 5–6
March 2001.
UNESCO (1995) Biosphere reserves: the Seville strategy and the statutory framework for the world network,
UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO (2004) ‘World network of biosphere reserves list’, UNESCO MAB Secretariat, Paris, available
at: http://www.unesco.org/mab/brlist.htm (accessed 20 August 2004).
Walker, R.T. & Solecki, W.D. (1999) ‘Managing land use and land-cover change: the New Jersey
Pinelands Biosphere Reserve’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89, pp. 220–37.
Watson, J., Lullfitz, W., Sanders, A. & McQuoid, N. (1995) ‘Networks and the Fitzgerald River
National Park Biosphere Reserve, Western Australia’, in Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. & Mattiske, E.M.
(eds) Nature conservation 4: the role of networks, Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton, NSW, pp. 482–7.
Watson, J. & Sanders, A. (1997) ‘Fitzgerald River National Park biosphere reserve 1978–1997: the
evolution of integrated protected area management’, Parks, 7(1), pp. 9–19.
Wescott, G. (1995) ‘Victoria’s national park system: can the transition from quantity of parks to quality of
management be successful?’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 2, pp. 210–23.
West, G. (2001) ‘Biosphere reserves for developing quality economies: the Fitzgerald River Biosphere
Reserve, Australia’, Parks, 11(1), pp. 10–17.
92 J. A. Fitzsimons & G. Wescott
APPENDIX
TABLE A1. Some other multi-tenure reserve networks operating in Australia
Network name Description
Fitzgerald River
Biosphere Reserve
Located on the southern coast of Western Australia and based around
the core Fitzgerald River National Park which constitutes half of the
BR’s ‘notional’ area of 1 355 000 ha (West 2001). Other public protected
areas, and vegetated and cleared private lands managed for sustainable
agricultural production comprise the remainder (Watson et al. 1995).
The ‘Gondwana Link’ proposal plans to link the biosphere reserve with
other large protected areas in the landscape
Mornington Peninsula and
Western Port Biosphere
Reserve
Australia’s newest BR, declared by UNESCO in 2002. Located to the
south-east of Melbourne, it claims to be the first BR to incorporate
an urban area. Initiated by the community and local government, its core
area is based around French Island and Mornington Peninsula National
Parks, with sustainable production and urban living likely to be its focus
(Anon 2002)
Southern Tablelands
Grassy Ecosystems CMN,
Monaro Grasslands CMN
Based on the Grassy Box Woodland CMN model, the NSW NPWS has
recently established two more CMNs (with assistance from the World
Wide Fund for Nature) in the south-east of the State to coordinate the
protection of remnants of the heavily cleared and fragmented grassy
ecosystems of these regions
Broken-Boosey CMN Proposed by the former Victorian Environment Conservation Council
(ECC 2000, 2001) and based around the recently declared
Broken-Boosey State Park. Initiated by the Trust for Nature prior to
the government’s acceptance of the proposals and originally referred to
as a Biodiversity Management Network (Edwards et al. 2002)
Northern Plains
Grasslands CMN
Formed by the Trust for Nature and based around the purchase of
the Korrak Korrak and Glassons Grasslands by that organisation. Will
focus on other Victorian Northern Plains grassland remnants on private
land (Edwards et al. 2002)
Wedderburn-Wychitella
CMN
Proposed by the ECC (2000, 2001) and based around the expanded, but
fragmented, Wychitella Nature Conservation Reserve. Originally referred
to as a Local Habitat Conservation Network. Significant areas of box ironbark
and mallee vegetation types on private land link blocks of the public
reserve. A facilitator was appointed by the Victoria Department of
Sustainability & Environment (Garbutt 2002)
Notes:
A number of other networks of similar habitats managed for a common purpose were outlined at a
National Workshop on Conservation Management Networks in 2001 (see Prober et al. 2001 and case
studies within, Bower and Parkes 2002, and McLellan and Brown 2002 for a brief description of some of
these). There has been renewed interest in the establishment of BRs in Australia, particularly from local
governments and communities, with a number of proposals before the Department of the Environment
and Heritage as of December 2002 (J. Muldoon pers. comm. 2002; and see Australian Biosphere Reserve
News for proposals, available at: http://www.deh.gov.au/parks/biosphere/working/news.html). In
supporting the Mornington Peninsula and Western Port BR, the Victorian government placed an 18
month moratorium on new BR proposals (State of Victoria 2002). Interestingly, the proposed Barkindji
BR in north-western Victoria (Catherine Brown & Associates Pty Ltd 2002) gained the support and
financial backing from the Commonwealth government for its application to UNESCO (Stone 2003).
History and Attributes of Reserve Networks 93
264
Appendix 3. Application of Conservation Lands Classification to onground protection mechanisms in New South Wales, SouthAustralia and Victoria (note that this includes the most common, but not all, mechanisms for each jurisdiction).
JurisdictionConservation LandsClassification New South Wales Victoria South Australia
1.0 Public Reserves1.1
Public ProtectedArea (highprotection)
• National Parks• Nature Reserves• Flora Reserves• Karst Conservation Reserve
• National Parks• State Parks• Wilderness Parks• Nature Conservation Reserves• Reference Areas• Natural Features Reserves (some)
• National Parks• Conservation Parks• Conservation Reserves• Game Reserves (some)
1.2 Public ProtectedArea (lessprotection)
• Crown Reserves (some) • Wildlife Reserves,• Gippsland Lakes Reserve• Natural Features Reserves (some)
• Game Reserves (some)• Regional Reserves• Native Forest Reserves (some)
1.3 Other PublicReserves
• Crown Reserves (some)• State Conservation Areas• Local Government Reserves
• Regional Parks• Highway Parks• State Forest Special Protection Zones• Public Land Water Frontage Reserves• Local Government Reserves
• Native Forest Reserves (some)• Local Government Reserves
2.0 Other Public Land2.1 Other Crown
Lands –Bindingconservationagreement
• Cemeteries• Travelling Stock Routes and
Reserves• Roadside ReservesWith protection measures:Voluntary ConservationAgreement
• Railway Reserves• Roadside Reserves• CemeteriesWith protection measures (e.g. Public AuthorityManagement Agreement)
265
JurisdictionConservation LandsClassification New South Wales Victoria South Australia
2.2 Other CrownLands –Other/NoAgreement
• As above but withoutprotection measures
• As above but without protection measures • As above but without protectionmeasures
3.0 Indigenous Land3.1 Protected
IndigenousLands
• Indigenous Protected Areas • Indigenous Protected Areas • Indigenous Protected Areas
4.0 Private Land4.1 Organisation
(Binding)• Land owned by this group
with Voluntary ConservationAgreement, PropertyAgreement
• Trust for Nature-owned reserves• Public Protected Area (allowing sustainable
use)
• Land owned by organisation withHeritage Agreement
• Nature Reserves owned by theNational Trust of SA
4.2 Organisation(Non-binding)
• Wildlife Refuge• Land for Wildlife property
• Land for Wildlife property • Land owned by organisation• Land for Wildlife property
4.3 Individual(Binding)
• Voluntary ConservationAgreement, PropertyAgreement
• Conservation Covenant• BushTender Agreement
• Heritage Agreement
4.4 Individual (Non-binding)
• Wildlife Refuge• Land for Wildlife property
• Individual – Informal • Land for Wildlife property
266
Appendix 4. Bookmark Biosphere Reserve zoning (Source: Bookmark BiosphereTrust 1999)
267
Appendix 5. The Perry River Protected Area Network as at 1999 (Source: Edwards1999)
268
Appendix 6. Components of the Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, GippslandPlains Conservation Management Network and Grassy Box WoodlandsConservation Management Network with associated Conservation LandsClassification codes. Current as at January 2002. Note: Some private properties not identifiabledue to issues of privacy.
Bookmark BRComponent Name Onground category Conservation
LandsClassification
Area(ha)*
Danggali Conservation Park Conservation Park 1.1 252,100Calperum Station Pastoral Lease 1.1 245,610Taylorville Station Pastoral Lease 1.1 94,209Murray River National Park National Park 1.1 13,134Pike River Conservation Park Conservation Park 1.1 227Cooltong Conservation Park Conservation Park 1.1 3,709Rilli Island Conservation Park Conservation Park 1.1 6Media Island Conservation Park Conservation Park 1.1 2Kapunda Island Conservation Park Conservation Park 1.1 1Moorook Game Reserve Game Reserve 1.1 1,250Loch Luna Game Reserve Game Reserve 1.1 2,086Chowilla Regional Reserve Regional Reserve 1.2 75,148Chowilla Game Reserve Game Reserve 1.2 18,453Murtho Forest Reserve Forest Reserve 1.3 1,954Mundic Forest Reserve Forest Reserve 1.3 62Goat Island Reserve Local Government Reserve 1.3 65Paringa Paddock Reserve Local Government Reserve 1.3 103Lyrup Forest Reserve Forest Reserve 1.3 615Gluepot Station Pastoral Lease 4.1 54,369Margaret Dowling (Nat. Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 28Memdelbuik (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 18Wilabalangaloo (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 94Overland Corner (Nat. Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 208Herons Bend (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 18Cave Cliff (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 21Bery Bery (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 11Woolmer (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 2Loveday (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 5Cadell (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 9DB Mack (National Trust) Reserve National Trust Reserve 4.1 262Calperum Hill Private - Conservation 4.1 22Pelican Point Private - Conservation 4.1 15Private (Landowner # 1) Private - Conservation 4.2 151Banrock Station Private - Conservation 4.3 1,690Private (Landowner # 2) Private - Conservation 4.4 213Beldora Station Private Private - Conservation 4.4 2,425Loch Luna Ecostay Private - Conservation 4.4 601Private (Landowner # 3) Private - Conservation 4.4 36Olivewood (National Trust) National Trust Reserve Oth 12Private (Landowner # 4) Private land - Sustainability Oth 102Private (Landowner # 5) Private land - Sustainability Oth 9
269
Component Name Onground category ConservationLands
Classification
Area(ha)*
Private (Landowner # 6) Private land - Sustainability Oth 6Mystere Orchards Private land - Sustainability Oth 18Private (Landowner # 7) Private land - Sustainability Oth 10Private (Landowner # 8) Private land - Sustainability Oth 10Private (Landowner # 9) Private land - Sustainability Oth <1Private (Landowner # 10) Private land - Sustainability Oth <1Private (Landowner # 11) Private land - Sustainability Oth 162Australian Native Produce Industries Private land - Sustainability Oth 93* Rounded to nearest hectare
Gippsland Plains CMNComponent Name Onground category Conservation
LandsClassification
Area(ha)*
Providence Ponds Flora & FaunaReserve
Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 2,416
The Billabong Flora & Fauna Reserve Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 20Moormurng Flora & Fauna Reserve Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 966Swallow Lagoon Nature ConservationReserve
Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 193
Bairnsdale Flora Reserve Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 2Fernbank Nature Conservation Reserve Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 2Sale Common Wildlife Reserve Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 309Saplings Morass Flora & Fauna Reserve Nature Conservation Reserve 1.1 10Meerlieu I15 Bushland Reserve Natural Features Reserve 1.1 129Meerlieu I16 Bushland Reserve Natural Features Reserve 1.1 4Yeerung Bushland Reserve Natural Features Reserve 1.1 10Freestone Creek Streamside Reserve Natural Features Reserve 1.1 9Redbank Streamside Reserve Natural Features Reserve 1.1 1Avon River Streamside Reserve Natural Features Reserve 1.1 2Gippsland Lakes Reserve Natural Features Reserve 1.2 6,857Briagolong Special Protection Zone Special Protection Zone 1.3 112Perry River Water Frontage Reserve Other Crown land 1.3 330Forge Creek PLWFR Other Crown land 1.3 360Toms Creek PLWFR Other Crown land 1.3 187Stratford Highway Park Other Crown land 1.3 70Avon River PLWFR Other Crown land 1.3 236Heyfield-Bairnsdale Railway FloraReserves Complex
Other Crown land 2.1 310
Bush Family TFN Reserve Trust for Nature Reserve 4.1 256Frair TFN Reserve Trust for Nature Reserve 4.1 192West Billabong TFN Reserve Trust for Nature Reserve 4.1 31Covenant (Landowner # 1) Conservation covenant 4.2 81Covenant (Landowner # 2) Conservation covenant 4.2 157Covenant (Landowner # 3) Conservation covenant 4.2 30Covenant (Landowner # 4) Conservation covenant 4.2 19Covenant (Landowner # 5) Conservation covenant 4.2 23Covenant (Landowner # 6) Conservation covenant 4.2 29Covenant (Landowner # 7) Conservation covenant 4.2 10Covenant (Landowner # 8) Conservation covenant 4.2 19
270
Component Name Onground category ConservationLands
Classification
Area(ha)*
Covenant (Landowner # 9) Conservation covenant 4.2 100Covenant (Landowner # 10) Conservation covenant 4.2 5Covenant (Landowner # 11) Conservation covenant 4.2 14Covenant (Landowner # 12) Conservation covenant 4.2 16Covenant (Landowner # 13) Conservation covenant 4.2 19Covenant (Landowner # 14) Conservation covenant 4.2 66Private (Landowner # 1) Private land 4.4 58Private (Landowner # 2) Private land 4.4 4Private (Landowner # 3) Private land 4.4 95Private (Landowner # 4) Private land 4.4 13Private (Landowner # 5) Private land 4.4 3Private (Landowner # 6) Private land 4.4 47Private (Landowner # 7) Private land 4.4 72* Rounded to nearest hectare
Grassy Box Woodlands CMNComponent Name Onground category Conservation
LandsClassification
Area(ha)
Jenolan Caves Reserve (Borenore Caves) Public Protected Area 1.1 136Mt. Parnassus Reserve Local Reserve 1.3 20Burrendong Arboretum Local Reserve 1.3 20Bob Speer Grassy White Box WoodlandReserve, Young
Local Reserve 1.3 6
Bald Hill Reserve Local Reserve 1.3 110Wellington Caves Local Reserve 1.3 20Monteagle Cemetery Cemetery 2.1 4Woodstock Cemetery Cemetery 2.1 9Wallendbeen Cemetery Cemetery 2.1 3North Berry Jerry Cemetery Cemetery 2.1 3Currabubula Cemetery Cemetery 2.1 2Winton Cemetery Cemetery 2.1 1Stockingbingal Cemetery Cemetery 2.1 4Dunedoo Grassy Box Woodland remnant(Dunedoo District Development Group)
Travelling Stock Route 2.1 50
Koorawatha Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 3Muttama Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 3.5South Gundagai Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 1Marrar Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 1Canowindra Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 3Toogong Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 3Baldry Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 5.5Stuart Town Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 5Geurie Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 6Wallabadah Cemetery Cemetery 2.2 8Travelling Stock Route (Young) Travelling Stock Route 2.2 2Dunedoo District Dev. Group town site Travelling Stock Route 2.2 5White Bend (Forbes Urban LandcareGroup)
Travelling Stock Route 2.2 10
271
Component Name Onground category ConservationLands
Classification
Area(ha)
Leumeah Park, Willow Tree Travelling Stock Route 2.2 0.5Wallabadah Common Town Common 2.2 100Gerogery Common Town Common 2.2 50Koorawatha - Young line Rail Reserve 2.2 15Narallen Rd, Murringo Road Reserve 2.2 1Tarcutta Hills Reserve (Australian BushHeritage Fund)
Private Protected Area 4.1 432
Private G18 Private 4.2 154.5Private G15 Private 4.2 2.5Private (near Cumnock) Private 4.4 8Private (near Dubbo) Private 4.4 10Private G13 Private 4.4 20Private G22 Private 4.4 12
272
Appendix 7. Attributes of geospatial datasets usedThis table represents a truncated list of the metadata for the GIS layers used in this research.Terminology is in keeping with standards outlined in the ‘ANZLIC Metadata Guidelines: Coremetadata elements for geographic data in Australia and New Zealand, Version 2, February 2001’(ANZLIC Metadata Working Group 2001). Sources below the table provide complete metadata formany of these layers.
Dataset Name Custodian/Source
MappingScale
Coverage andCompleteness
Comments
NationalIBRA (InterimBiogeographicRegionalisation of Australia)Version 5.1 with associatedsubregions
EnvironmentAustralia(compiled inconjunctionwith theStates andTerritories)
1:250,000 Australia-wide Subregionalboundaries followthose identified inHardy (2001)
Global Map Data Australia1M –
AustralianSurveyingand LandInformationGroup(AUSLIG)
1:1,000,000 Australia-wideComplete June 2001
The Roads, Rail,Rivers andPopulation Centrecomponents of thislayer were used
New South WalesEastern Bushland Database NPWS 1:250,000 Covers majority of
eastern portion ofGrassy BoxWoodland StudyArea-Created 1992
Grassy Box WoodlandsConservation Management –point localities
JamesFitzsimons/NPWS/EcologicalInteractions
Scaledependent onaccuracy oforiginal GPSreading
Complete as atDecember 2001
Based ongeographiccoordinates ofproperties providedby NPWS
NPWS Estate Boundaries NPWS Boundariescaptured fromthe DigitalCadastralDatabase ordigitises fromplans/maps (atthe bestavailablescales of1:4,000,1:10,000,1:25,000,1:50,000 or1:100,000
Complete for Stateof NSW at August2001
2 versions used –pre and postSouthern RFAreserve additions
State Forest Estate State Forests Based on the Complete for
273
Dataset Name Custodian/Source
MappingScale
Coverage andCompleteness
Comments
Boundaries NSW LIC cadastre. SouthWest Slopes,South Brigalow,South EasternHighlands andNandewar IBRA V4Regions
South AustraliaBookmark BiosphereReserve Boundaries
NPWSA,SADEH
NPWSAboundaries asper below
Complete forRegisteredcomponents asAugust 2002
Various updatesreceived aspreviouslyunmappedproperties wereincluded
National Parks and WildlifeSA Park Boundaries
NPWSA,SADEH
Derived fromDigitalCadastralDataBase(DCDB).DCDB -1:2,500 inurban areas,1:10,000 or1:50,000 inrural areas
Complete for SADecember 2000
Heritage AgreementBoundaries
SADEH 1:40,000 Complete for SA atJanuary 2001
Native Vegetation(Floristic)- South OlaryPlains, Murray Mallee,Western Murray Flats
Planning SA 1:40,000(MurrayMallee,WesternMurray Flats),1:100,000(South OlaryPlains)
Complete for theseRegions howeverMurray RiverCorridor not mapped
River Murray RiparianVegetation
NPWSA,SADEH(developedby Margules& PartnersPty Ltd et al.1990)
1:100,000 River corridor fromNSW/VIC border toeast of Waikerie -Region 3(Riverland)
Roads NPWSA,SADEH
1:50,000 Complete forBookmark studyarea
River Murray Wetlands NPWSA,SADEH
1:10,000 Complete forBookmark studyarea
Murray River NPWSA,SADEH
1:10,000 Complete forBookmark studyarea
274
Dataset Name Custodian/Source
MappingScale
Coverage andCompleteness
Comments
VictoriaGippsland PlainsConservation ManagementNetwork Polygons
JamesFitzsimons/DSE/TFN
Cadastre based(majority),1:100,000(minority)
Complete as atDecember 2001
Public Land Management(PLM100PLY)
DSE 1:100,000 Complete for Stateand study area atAugust 2002 (see‘Comments’opposite)
A number of smallreserves that wereoriginally missedfrom this layer plusrecent landpurchases awaitingaddition to PLMMTwere also included
Ecological VegetationClasses at 1:100,000 -Composite Information(EVC_CMP100)
DSE 1:100,000 Complete forGippsland PlainsVictorian Bioregion- April 2002
Ecological VegetationClasses in 1750 at 1;100,000- Simplified(EVC1750_CMP)
DSE 1:100,000 Complete forGippsland PlainsVictorian Bioregion- April 2002
Victorian Bioregions (2002Version)
DSE 1:100,000 Complete forVictoria
Land for Wildlife Propertiespoint localities (LFW100)
DSE 1:100,000 Complete forVictoria at July 2001
Property and CadastralBoundaries from VicmapProperty Database(PROPERTY)
DSE Cadastre Complete forGippsland Plainsstudy area
Roads (ROAD100) DSE 1:100,000 Complete forGippsland Plainsstudy area
Hydrological features(polygons) (HYDROP100)
DSE 1:100,000 Complete forGippsland Plainsstudy area
1995 LANDSAT Imageryfor use at 1:100 000(TM10095)
DSE 1:100,000 Complete forVictoria at 1995
2000 SPOT Imagery DSE 1:25,000 Complete forVictoria at 2000
275
Appendix 8. Number and area or vegetation types represented in subregions, public protected areas and networksFocus subregions Public protected areas in
subregionsNetworksNetwork
No. of extant
vegetation units
Subregional area
(ha)
Area of extant
vegetation (ha)
% of subregion
maintaining
vegetation
No. of vegetation
units
Area of extant
vegetation units
(ha)
% of current extent
of vegetation
No. of vegetation
units
Area of mapped
vegetation (ha)
% of current extent
of vegetation
Structural36*
(23 &13)
4,189,579 2,391,294*
(2,310,644 &80,650)
57.0 28*
(15 & 13)
375,678*
(345,650 &30,028)
15.7*
(15 & 37)
23*
(10 & 13)
763,209*
(719,545&
43,664)
31.9*
(31 & 54)Bookmark
Floristic 75 N/A 2,310,644 N/A 22 345,650 15.0 14 717,646 31.1Gippsland Plains 132 1,248,550 268,608 21.5 69 95,830 35.7 19 10,740 4.0
Grassy BoxWoodlands
? 10,656,872 2,204,698+ 20.7 ? 140,135+ 6.4+ ? 1,250 0.1
Note 1) For Bookmark *= combination of Native Vegetation (Structural) and the Murray River Vegetation Mapping layers. Figures in parentheses representindividual values of Native Vegetation (Structural) and Murray River mapping, respectively. 2) Does not include severely disturbed, cleared land, urban areasor other exotic vegetation types such as plantations or orchards, 3) + sourced from NLWRA Landscape Health in Australia (Morgan 2001).
276
Appendix 9. Structural Vegetation classes within the Bookmark BR andsurrounds
DB Mack NT
Cooltong CP
Murray River NP
Murray River NP
Murtho FR
Pike River CPMundic FR
Margaret Dowling NT
PLSPLC
Moorook GRLoch Luna GR
PLS
PLC
Overland Corner NTCave Cliff NT
Cadell NT
PLC
Lyrup FR
Paringa Paddock LGRGoat Island LGR
Danggali CP
Chowilla RR
Calperum Station PL
Gluepot Station PL
Taylorville Station PL
Chowilla GR
Murray River NPBeldora Station PLC
N
Note: Not all components labelled.Dataset source: SA Department of Environment & Heritage, Margules &Partners Pty Ltd et al. (1990) Abbreviations: CP (Conservation Park), FR (Forest Reserve), GR (Game Reserve), LGR (Local Government Reserve), NP (National Park), NT (National Trust Reserve), PL (Pastoral Lease), PLC (Private Land - Conservation), PLS (Private Land - Sustainability), RR (Regional Reserve)
10 0 10 20 Kilometres
Bookmark BR components
Structural Vegetation CommunitiesLow open shrubland
Low shrubland
Low very open shrubland
Low woodland
Mallee
Open (tussock) grassland
Open low mallee
Open mallee
Open shrubland
Open tussock grassland
Tall very open shrubland
Very low open woodland
Very open mallee
Very open shrubland
Murray River Riparian VegetationBlack Box Mallee
Black Box Woodland
Chenopods
Cypress Pine
Dunes
Lignum
Mallee
Mallee Fringe Woodland
Open Plain Swamp
Redgum Forest
Redgum Woodland
Redgum/Box Forest & Woodland
Wetlands & Waterbodies
277
Appendix 10. Floristic vegetation communities within Bookmark BR andsurrounds
DB Mack NT
Cooltong CP
Murray River NP
Murray River NP
Murtho FR
Pike River CPMundic FR
Margaret Dowling NT
PLSPLC
Moorook GRLoch Luna GR
PLS
PLC
Overland Corner NTCave Cliff NT
Cadell NT
PLC
Lyrup FR
Paringa Paddock LGRGoat Island LGR
Danggali CP
Chowilla RR
Calperum Station PL
Gluepot Station PL
Taylorville Station PL
Chowilla GR
Murray River NPBeldora Station PLC
N
Bookmark BR components
Floristic Vegetation CommunitiesAcacia nyssophylla
Acacia spp., Dodonaea spp., Senna artemisiodes ssp., Eremophila spp.
Atriplex vesicaria, Maireana astrotricha
Casuarina pauper
Dodonaea viscosa ssp. angustisima
Eucalyptus calycogona, E. dumosa
Eucalyptus camaldulensis
Eucalyptus cyanophylla, +/- E. socialis
Eucalyptus dumosa, +/- E. leptophylla
Eucalyptus dumosa, Eucalyptus socialis
Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa
Eucalyptus gracilis, Eucalyptus oleosa, +/- Eucalyptus socialis
Eucalyptus incrassata
Eucalyptus largiflorens
Eucalyptus leptophylla, E. socialis
Eucalyptus socialis, +/- Eucalyptus oleosa
Graminaea spp., Herb spp.
Halosarcia sp.
Lycium spp., Sclerostegia spp., Disphyma spp., Nitraria spp.
Maireana pyramidata
Maireana sedifolia
Maireana sedifolia or M. pyramidata
Myoporum platycarpum
Stipa sp.
Note: Riparian corridor not mapped. Not all components labelled.Dataset source: SA Department of Environment & HeritageAbbreviations: CP (Conservation Park), FR (Forest Reserve), GR (Game Reserve), LGR (Local Government Reserve), NP (National Park), NT (National Trust Reserve), PL (Pastoral Lease), PLC (Private Land - Conservation), PLS (Private Land - Sustainability), RR (Regional Reserve)
10 0 10 20 Kilometres
278
Appendix 11. Ecological Vegetation Classes within the Gippsland Plains CMN and surrounds
#
Sale
#
Bairnsdale
Gippsland Lakes (NFR)
Moormurng (NCR)
Providence Ponds (NCR)
Avon River (OPL)
Forge Creek (OPL)
Sale Common
NCRP
erry River (O
PL)
Frair TFNR
Private
Swallow Lagoon NCR
Covenant
Heyfield-Bairnsdale Railway (OPL)Briagolong SPZ
Stratford (NFR)
Saplings Morass (NCR)
Meerlieu I16 (NFR)
Fernbank NCRBairnsdale
(NCR)
Bush Family TFNR
Toms
Creek
(OPL)
Covenant
Covenant
Covenant
Covenant
Covenant
Heyfield-Bairnsdale Railway (OPL)
Gippsland Lakes (NFR)
#
#
Covenant
Meerlieu I15 (NFR)
Priv.
Covenant
West Billabong
TFNRPrivate
Yeerung (NFR)
Lake Wellington
LakeVicto
riaN
Note: EVC extent for Gippsland Plain Victorian bioregion only. Not all components labelled.Dataset source: Department of Sustainability & Environment, Trust for Nature, James Fitzsimons.Abbreviations: NCR (Nature Conservation Reserves), NFR (Natural Features Reserves), OPL (Other Public Land), SPZ (State Forest Special Protection Zone), TFNR (Trust for Nature Reserves). Component abbreviations in brackets are those that fall within the standardised public land categorisations of the LCC (1988) even though their official name is different.
3 0 3 6 Kilometres
Gippsland Plains CMN components
Ecological Vegetation Classes(15) Limestone Box Forest
(169) Dry Valley Forest
(136) Sedge Wetland
(3) Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland
(58) Cleared Severely Disturbed
(56) Floodplain Riparian Woodland
(32) Warm Temperate Rainforest
(82) Riverine Escarpment Scrub
(19) Riparian Shrubland
(53) Swamp Scrub
(191) Riparian Scrub
(74) Wetland Formation
(10) Estuarine Wetland
(141) Sandy Flood Scrub
(695) Dry Valley Forest/Swamp Scrub/Warm Temperate Rainforest Mosaic
(701) Swamp Scrub/Warm Temperate Rainforest/Billabong Wetland Mosaic
(132) Plains Grassland
(48) Heathy Woodland
(135) Gallery Rainforest
(55) Plains Grassy Woodland
(151) Plains Grassy Forest
(134) Sand Forest
(9) Coastal Saltmarsh
(1) Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic
(6) Sand Heathland
(21) Shrubby Dry Forest
(689) Gippsland Plains Grassy Woodland/Gilgai Wetland Mosaic
(2) Coast Banksia Woodland
(16) Lowland Forest
(877) Lowland Herb-rich Forest
(133) Limestone Pomaderris Shrubland
(47) Valley Grassy Forest
(998) Water Body - Natural or man made
(987) Plantation (undefined)
Victorian bioregional boundaries
279
Appendix 12. Vegetation types within components of the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN
ÊÚÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
ÊÚ
(L
(L(L
(L
(L
%
%
"G
$T
&V
'K
'K
'K
'K
'K
$T
$T
$T
$T
%I'K
Victoria
New South WalesPrivate (-, g)
Private (WB, g)
Winton Cemetery (WB, C, g)
Currabubula Cemetery (WB, g)
Wallabadah Cemetery (WB, g)
Leumeah Park, Willow Tree (-,-)
Dunedoo District TSR site 1 (WB, g, s)
Wallabadah Common (WB, g)
Private (WB, g)
Stuart Town Cemetery (g)
Wellington Caves (WB, K, g)Burrendong Arboretum (WB, g)
Geurie Cemetery (GB, C, WB, g)Bald Hill Reserve (WB, GB, C, -)
Baldry Cemetery (FB, g)Private (WB, g)
White Bend (WB, g, s) Toogong Cemetery (WB, C, g)
Canowindra Cemetery (WB, g)
Woodstock Cemetery (WB, K, g)
Young TSR (WB, g)
Gerogery Common (YB, WB, RS, HW, -)
Tarcutta Hills Reserve (WB, GB, BRG, HW, MI, LLB, RB, SG, g)
North Berry Jerry Cemetery (YB, g)
Marrar Cemetery (WB, g)Muttama Cemetery (YB, g)
Stockingbingal Cemetery (GB, g, s) Wallendbeen Cemetery (YB, BRG, g)
Private ('Box Ironbark')Koorawatha Cemetery (GB, WB, YB, BRG, g)
Narallen Rd, Murringo (WB, g)Private (-, g)
Monteagle Cemetery (WB, YB, BRG, g)
Bob Speer Reserve (WB, g)Koorowatha-Young line (WB, g)
Mt. Parnassus Reserve (-, g)South Gundagai Cemetery (WB, g)
#
#
Sydney
Canberra
Dunedoo District TSR site 2 (YB, WB, BRG, RBA, g)
N
40 0 40 80 120 Kilometres
RoadsPrimary RoadsSecondary Roads
Grassy Box Woodlands CMN componentsÊÚ Cemetery% Common$T Local Government Reserve&V Private Protected Area'K Private"G Rail Reserve%I Road Reserve(L Travelling Stock Route
Note: Not all components labelled individually due to issues of privacyDataset source: Grassy Box Woodlands CMN
Overstorey SpeciesWB - White BoxYB - Yellow BoxBRG - Blakely's Red GumGB - Grey BoxC - Cypress-pineHW - Hickory WattleK - KurrajongRBA - Rough-barked AppleFB - Fuzzy BoxLLB - Long-leaved BoxRS - Red StringybarkRB - Red BoxSG - Snappy GumMI - Mugga Ironbark
Understorey structureg - grassys - shrubby
- - no data
280
Appendix 13. Reservation levels of all Structural and Floristic VegetationTypes represented subregions (South Olary Plains, Murray Mallee, MurrayScroll Belt) surrounding Bookmark BR
Structural
Vegetation
Extant area in
focus subregions
(ha)
Area in Public
Protected Areas
(ha)
% of C
urrent in
Public Protected
Areas
Area in
Bookmark (ha)
% of extant
subregional
vegetation in
Bookmark BR
Closed shrubland 52 8 15 0 0Hummock grassland 213 0 0 0 0Low open shrubland 505,082 8,812 2 11,111 2Low open woodland 38,292 2,591 7 0 0Low shrubland 708 0 0 52 7Low very open shrubland 4,039 0 0 108 3Low woodland 101,055 26,798 27 27,498 27Mallee 4,252 11 0 0 0Open (tussock) grassland(with emergent shrubs)
14,957 3,101 21 6,693 45
Open low mallee 12,212 243 2 0 0Open mallee 1,141,990 290,108 25 658,762 58Open sedgeland 1,616 0 0 0 0Open shrubland 12,179 3,830 31 8,001 66Open tussock grassland 52,062 0 0 14 0Open woodland 320 23 7 0 0Sedgeland 171 0 0 0 0Shrubland 21,115 1,357 6 0 0Tall open shrubland 8,815 566 6 0 0Tall very open shrubland 2,847 0 0 0 0Very low open woodland 285,879 7,587 3 7,097 2Very open mallee 91,816 574 1 209 0Very open shrubland 10,113 0 0 0 0Woodland 861 42 5 0 0Black Box Mallee* 9,567 4,836 51 6,305 66Black Box Woodland* 8,284 3,216 39 5,273 64Chenopods* 9,205 4,183 45 6,645 72Cypress Pine* 17 17 100 17 100Dunes* 751 225 30 455 61Lignum* 6,035 2,976 49 3,983 66Mallee* 5,605 796 14 1,577 28Mallee Fringe Woodland* 2,868 99 3 353 12Open Plain Swamp* 14,609 6,331 43 8,586 59Redgum Forest* 2,416 974 40 1,178 49Redgum Woodland* 7,265 2,745 38 3,994 55Redgum/Box Forest &Woodland*
468 280 60 341 73
Wetlands & Waterbodies* 13,562 3,348 25 4,956 37Total 2,391,294 375,678 16 763,209 32*River Murray Riparian Vegetation Mapping vegetation units (Margules and Partners Pty Ltd etal. 1990)
281
Floristic
Vegetation
Types
(Scientific
Nam
e)
Floristic
Vegetation
(Com
mon
Nam
es)
Extant area in
focus
subregions (ha)
Area in Public
Protected
Areas (ha)
% of C
urrent
in Public
Protected
Area in
Bookmark (ha)
% of
subregional
vegetation in
Bookmark BR
+/- Banksia ornata, +/- Allocasuarina pusilla +/- Desert Banksia, +/- Allocasuarina pusilla 547 0 0 0 0Acacia brachybotrya, Beyeria lechenaultii Grey Mulga, Turpentine Bush 428 0 0 0 0Acacia nyssophylla Prickly-leafed Wattle 2,427 0 0 0 0Acacia nyssophylla, +/- Myoporum montanum, Prickly-leafed Wattle, +/- Native Myrtle, 3,313 0 0 0 0Acacia spp., Dodonaea spp., Senna artemisiodes ssp.,Eremophila spp.
Acacia spp., Hopbush spp., Punty Bush ssp., Eremophila spp. 12,179 3,830 31 8,001 66
Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoak 30 0 0 0 0Allocasuarina verticillata, +/- Callitris preissii, Drooping Sheoak, +/- Mallee Cypress Pine, 48 0 0 0 0Allocasuarina verticillata, +/- Xanthorrhoea semiplana ssp. Drooping Sheoak, +/- Yacca ssp. 21 0 0 0 0Atriplex rhagodioides Silver Saltbush 58 0 0 0 0Atriplex stipitata, +/- Maireana tricoptera, Bitter Saltbush, +/- Mallee Bluebush, 4,747 156 3 0 0Atriplex vesicaria, Maireana astrotricha Bladder Saltbush, Southern Bluebush 44,942 0 0 0 0Callitris canescens, Eucalyptus dumosa, E. porosa Scrubby Cypress Pine, White Mallee, South Australian Mallee
Box419 0 0 0 0
Callitris preissii Mallee Cypress Pine 1,330 0 0 0 0Callitris verrucosa Scrub Cypress Pine 260 0 0 0 0Casuarina pauper Black Oak (Belah) 381,172 34,384 9 33,951 9Casuarina pauper, +/- Maireana sedifolia Black Oak (Belah), +/- Pearl Bluebush 2,137 0 0 0 0Dodonaea viscosa ssp. angustissima Narrow-leaf Hopbush 486 0 0 52 11Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa Ruby Saltbush 261 0 0 0 0Enchylaena tomentosa var.,Maireana brevifolia Ruby Saltbush, Yanga Bush 1 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus "anceps", +/- E. leptophylla Kangaroo Island Mallee, +/- Narrow-leaved Red Mallee 2,490 11 0 0 0Eucalyptus brachycalyx Gilja 2,162 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus brachycalyx, E. rugosa Gilja, Kingscote Mallee 68 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus calycogona var. calycogona, Square-fruited Mallee 95 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus calycogona, E. dumosa Square-fruited Mallee, White Mallee 953 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. River Red Gum 2,209 0 0 0 0
282
Floristic
Vegetation
Types
(Scientific
Nam
e)
Floristic
Vegetation
(Com
mon
Nam
es)
Extant area in
focus
subregions (ha)
Area in Public
Protected
Areas (ha)
% of C
urrent
in Public
Protected
Area in
Bookmark (ha)
% of
subregional
vegetation in
Bookmark BR
Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis River Red Gum 861 42 5 0 0Eucalyptus cyanophylla, +/- E. socialis Blue-leaved Mallee, +/- Summer Red Mallee 6,456 2 0 924 14Eucalyptus diversifolia Soap Mallee 570 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus dumosa, +/- E. gracilis White Mallee, +/- Yorrell 1,413 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus dumosa, +/- E. leptophylla White Mallee, +/- Narrow-leaved Red Mallee 1,123 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus dumosa, Eucalyptus socialis White Mallee, Summer Red Mallee 37,912 11,201 30 30,286 80Eucalyptus fasciculosa, +/- Lomandra effusa Pink Gum, +/- Scented Mat-rush 2 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus gracilis, +/- E. oleosa Yorrell, +/- Red Mallee 67,077 3,879 6 0 0Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa Yorrell, Red Mallee 90,863 574 1 209 0Eucalyptus gracilis, E. oleosa over Maireana sedifolia Yorrell, Red Mallee over Pearl Bluebush 15,501 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus gracilis, Eucalyptus oleosa, +/- Eucalyptus socialis Yorrell, Red Mallee, +/- Summer Red Mallee 616,770 117,276 19 372,695 60Eucalyptus incrassata Ridge-fruited Mallee 16,154 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus largiflorens Black Box 18 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus largiflorens, +/- Muehlenbeckia florulenta Black Box, +/- Lignum 294 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus leptophylla, E. socialis Narrow-leaved Red Mallee, Summer Red Mallee 15,124 0 0 66 0Eucalyptus leptophylla, Melaleuca lanceolata Narrow-leaved Red Mallee, Dryland Tea-tree 290 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus leucoxylon ssp., +/- Lomandra effusa Yellow Gum ssp., +/- Scented Mat-rush 24 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus odorata Peppermint Box 136 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus odorata, +/- E. porosa Peppermint Box, +/- South Australian Mallee Box 211 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus porosa South Australian Mallee Box 2,028 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus porosa, +/- Lomandra effusa South Australian Mallee Box, +/- Scented Mat-rush 1,433 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus rugosa Kingscote Mallee 25 0 0 0 0Eucalyptus socialis, +/- Eucalyptus oleosa Summer Red Mallee, +/- Red Mallee 374,892 157,639 42 254,792 68Eucalyptus socialis, Eucalyptus gracilis Summer Red Mallee, Yorrell 330 0 0 0 0Geijera linearifolia, Myoporum platycarpum ssp. Sheep Bush, Sugarwood 33,092 2,591 8 0 0Graminaea spp., Herb spp. Graminaea spp., Herb spp. 14,957 3,101 21 6,707 45Halosarcia sp. Samphire sp. 4,039 0 0 0 0
283
Floristic
Vegetation
Types
(Scientific
Nam
e)
Floristic
Vegetation
(Com
mon
Nam
es)
Extant area in
focus
subregions (ha)
Area in Public
Protected
Areas (ha)
% of C
urrent
in Public
Protected
Area in
Bookmark (ha)
% of
subregional
vegetation in
Bookmark BR
Halosarcia sp., Sclerostegia sp. Samphire sp., Glasswort sp. 134 0 0 0 0Lomandra effusa Scented Mat-rush 1,616 0 0 0 0Lomandra effusa, +/- Helichrysum leucopsideum Scented Mat-rush, +/- Satin Everlasting 217 0 0 0 0Lycium spp., Sclerostegia spp., Disphyma spp., Nitraria spp. Box-Thorn spp., Glasswort spp., Pigface spp., Nitrebush spp. 51,441 337 1 836 2Maireana aphylla Cottonbush 220 0 0 0 0Maireana pyramidata Blackbush 100,330 1,446 1 3,832 4Maireana sedifolia Pearl Bluebush 301,803 6,872 2 6,551 2Maireana sedifolia or M. pyramidata Pearl Bluebush or Blackbush 10,113 0 0 0 0Maireana sedifolia, +/- Lycium australe Pearl Bluebush, +/- Australian Box-Thorn 15,794 1,349 9 0 0Melaleuca acuminata, M. lanceolata , Mallee Honey-Myrtle, Dryland Teatree, 7,860 566 7 0 0Melaleuca halmaturorum ssp. halmaturorum Swamp Paperbark 53 0 0 0 0Melaleuca lanceolata ssp. lanceolata +/- M. acuminata Dryland Tea-tree ssp. Lanceolata, Mallee Honey-Myrtle 157 4 3 0 0Melaleuca lanceolata ssp. lanceolata, +/- Callitris preissii Dryland Tea-tree ssp. lanceolata, Mallee Cypress Pine 1,124 0 0 0 0Melaleuca uncinata Broombush 52 8 15 0 0Muehlenbeckia florulenta Lignum 226 4 2 0 0Myoporum platycarpum Sugarwood 1,362 1 0 643 47Nitraria billardierei Nitrebush 1,394 0 0 0 0Phragmites australis, +/- Juncus sp., +/- Typha sp. Phragmites australis, +/- Rush sp., +/- Typha sp. 81 0 0 0 0Senna artemisioides ssp., +/- Acacia calamifolia, Desert Cassia ssp., +/- Wallowa, 110 0 0 0 0Sida petrophila, Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus Rock sida, Silver-tails 30 0 0 0 0Stipa sp. Stipa sp. 51,845 0 0 0 0Triodia irritans Spinifex 213 0 0 0 0Typha domingensis, Schoenoplectus validus Bullrush, River Club-rush 90 0 0 0 0
Total 2,310,644 345,272 15 719,545 31
284
Appendix 14. Reservation levels of all Ecological Vegetation Classes inthe Gippsland Plain subregion (Victorian bioregion)
Ecological
Vegetation
Class
Pre1750 area
(ha)*
Extant area (ha)
EVCs in protected
areas (ha)
Total in CMN in
GP Bioregion (ha)
% of extant area
in protected areas
% of pre1750 in
protected areas
% of extant
subregional area
in CMN
Aquatic Herbland 0 83 0 0 - - -Aquatic Herbland/Plains Sedgy WetlandMosaic
1,153 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Aquatic Herbland/Swamp Scrub Mosaic 43 38 33 0 88.0 76.4 -Banksia Woodland 18 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Basalt Escarpment Shrubland 40 16 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Berm Grassy Shrubland 140 25 8 0 32.7 5.8 -Bird Colony Succulent Herbland 133 120 113 0 94.4 85.4 -Bird Colony SucculentHerbland/Headland Coastal TussockGrassland Mosaic
35 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Blocked Coastal Stream Swamp 29 32 32 0 100.0 109.8 -Box Ironbark Forest 243 64 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Brackish Grassland 716 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Brackish Grassland/Swamp ScrubMosaic
47 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Brackish Lake 98 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Brackish Wetland 304 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Calcarenite Dune Woodland 11,313 5,950 4,377 0 73.6 38.7 -Calcareous Swale Grassland 558 309 309 0 100.0 55.4 -Clay Heathland 646 648 319 0 49.2 49.4 -Clay Heathland/Wet Heathland/RiparianScrub Mosaic
1,764 363 189 0 52.1 10.7 -
Coast Banksia Woodland 5,759 1,752 568 0 32.4 9.9 -Coast Banksia Woodland/Coastal DuneScrub Mosaic
1,240 29 0 0.0 0.0 -
Coast Banksia Woodland/East GippslandCoastal Warm Temperate RainforestMosaic
13 13 13 0 93.8 93.8 -
Coast Banksia Woodland/Swamp ScrubMosaic
325 42 0 0 0.0 0.0 -
Coastal Alkaline Scrub/Bird ColonySucculent Herbland Mosaic
107 36 32 0 88.4 30.1 -
Coastal Dune Grassland 37 11 2 0 23.2 6.6 -Coastal Dune Scrub 229 63 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Coastal Dune Scrub/Bird ColonySucculent Herbland Mosaic
140 158 154 0 97.2 109.7 -
Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic 10,514 8,756 5,193 9 59.3 49.4 0.1Coastal Headland Scrub 1,798 1,037 670 0 64.6 37.3 -Coastal Headland Scrub/Coast BanksiaWoodland Mosaic
353 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Coastal Headland Scrub/HeadlandCoastal Tussock Grassland Mosaic
608 51 16 0 30.6 2.5 -
Coastal Headland Scrub/Swamp ScrubMosaic
0 6 0 0 0.0 - -
285
Ecological
Vegetation
Class
Pre1750 area
(ha)*
Extant area (ha)
EVCs in protected
areas (ha)
Total in CMN in
GP Bioregion (ha)
% of extant area
in protected areas
% of pre1750 in
protected areas
% of extant
subregional area
in CMN
Coastal Lagoon Wetland 4 3 0 0 0.0 0.0 -
Coastal Saltmarsh 11,111 9,732 6,299 64 64.7 56.7 0.7Coastal Saltmarsh/Coastal DuneGrassland / Coastal DuneScrub/Headland Scrub Mosaic
101 44 26 0 59.7 25.9 -
Coastal Saltmarsh/Estuarine FlatsGrassland Mosaic
0 1 0 0 0.0 - -
Coastal Tussock Grassland 1,461 1,309 884 0 67.5 60.5 -Creekline Grassy Woodland 730 3 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Creekline Herb-rich Woodland 1,257 38 4 0 9.8 0.3 -Damp Forest 5,681 1,579 252 0 16.0 4.4 -Damp Heathland 47 144 63 0 43.7 134.8 -Damp Heathy Woodland 3,631 554 265 0 47.9 7.3 -Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland 53,699 16,122 8,744 1911 54.2 16.3 11.9Damp Sands Herb-richWoodland/Heathy Woodland Mosaic
2,087 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Damp Sands Herb-richWoodland/Swamp Scrub Complex
5,103 157 149 0 94.9 2.9 -
Damp Sands Herb-richWoodland/Swamp Scrub Mosaic
2,258 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Deep Freshwater Marsh 8,173 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Dry Rainforest 19 3 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Dry Valley Forest 315 67 0 1 0.0 0.0 0.8Dry Valley Forest/Swamp Scrub/WarmTemperate Rainforest Mosaic
4,458 17 0 0 0.0 0.0 -
Estuarine Flats Grassland 550 230 51 0 22.0 9.2 -Estuarine Wetland 7,851 15,375 8,075 2840 52.5 102.9 18.5Estuarine Wetland/Estuarine SwampScrub Mosaic
532 276 143 0 51.9 27.0 -
Floodplain Reedbed 1,617 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Floodplain Riparian Woodland 20,563 1,686 1 0 0.1 0.0 -Floodplain Riparian Woodland/BillabongWetland Mosaic
3,056 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Floodplain Wetland Complex 49 37 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Foothill Box Ironbark Forest 0 4,349 346 0 8.0 - -Gallery Rainforest 226 9 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Gippsland Plains GrassyWoodland/Gilgai Wetland Mosaic
31,007 73 0 0 0.0 0.0 -
Grassy Dry Forest 438 12 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Grassy Forest 2,440 64 8 0 11.8 0.3 -Grassy Woodland 59,190 3,175 199 0 6.3 0.3 -Grassy Woodland/Damp Sands Herb-richWoodland Mosaic
2,678 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Grassy Woodland/Swamp Scrub Mosaic 4,222 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Gully Woodland 6345 222 85 0 38.2 13.4 -Heathy Woodland 60,492 36,106 15,759 2241 43.6 26.1 6.2Heathy Woodland/Sand Heath Mosaic 1,318 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Herb-rich Foothill Forest 9,582 2,126 259 0 12.2 2.7 -
286
Ecological
Vegetation
Class
Pre1750 area
(ha)*
Extant area (ha)
EVCs in protected
areas (ha)
Total in CMN in
GP Bioregion (ha)
% of extant area
in protected areas
% of pre1750 in
protected areas
% of extant
subregional area
in CMN
Lagoon Wetland 797 5 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Limestone Box Forest 1,166 585 89 34 15.2 7.6 5.8Limestone Pomaderris Shrubland 112 17 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Lowland Forest 169,194 36,998 5,187 60 14.0 3.1 0.2Lowland Forest/Damp Sands Herb-richWoodland Mosaic
24,907 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Lowland Forest/Heathy WoodlandMosaic
9,638 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Lowland Herb-rich Forest 1,208 75 3 <1 4.2 0.3 0.1Mangrove Shrubland 3,682 3,791 3,293 0 86.9 89.5 -Mangrove Shrubland/Estuarine FlatsGrassland Mosaic
76 86 59 0 68.5 78.1 -
Plains Grassland 37,326 357 300 0 84.0 0.8 -Plains Grassy Forest 83,335 18,159 1,629 0 9.0 2.0 -Plains Grassy Wetland 5,316 56 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Plains Grassy Woodland 151,008 4,850 897 1515 18.5 0.6 31.2Plains Grassy Woodland/SwampScrub/Plains Grassy Wetland Mosaic
1,411 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Plains Grassy Woodland/Swamp ScrubMosaic
0 43 42 0 98.3 -
Plains Swampy Woodland 21 4 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Plains Woodland 157 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Reed Swamp 67 6 4 0 64.8 6.1 -Riparian Forest 2,645 742 62 0 8.3 2.3 -Riparian Forest/Warm TemperateRainforest Mosaic
89 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Riparian Scrub 11,662 1,827 465 11 25.4 4.0 0.6Riparian Scrub Complex 2,812 187 1 0 0.5 0.0 -Riparian Shrubland 2,541 90 6 0 6.2 0.2 -Riparian Thicket 3 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Riparian Woodland 89 3 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Riverina Plains Grassy Woodland/PlainsGrassland Mosaic
20,338 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Riverine Escarpment Scrub 163 32 11 0 34.3 6.8 -Rocky Outcrop Shrubland/HerblandMosaic
3 3 3 0 100.0 100.0 -
Sand Forest 0 2,257 393 559 17.4 - 24.8Sand Heathland 14,597 12,349 10,826 22 87.7 74.2 0.2Sand Heathland/Wet Heathland Mosaic 1,009 368 358 0 97.2 35.5 -Sandy Beach 954 1,090 1,046 0 96.0 109.6 -Sandy Flood Scrub 2,447 397 138 280 34.8 5.6 70.4Sandy Stream Woodland 0 1 0 0 0 -Seasonally-inundated Shrubby Woodland 131 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Sedge Wetland 2,218 1,050 383 203 36.5 17.3 19.4Sedgy Swamp Woodland 192 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Shrubby Damp Forest 243 14 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Shrubby Dry Forest 8 51 0 7 0.0 0.0 13.4
287
Ecological
Vegetation
Class
Pre1750 area
(ha)*
Extant area (ha)
EVCs in protected
areas (ha)
Total in CMN in
GP Bioregion (ha)
% of extant area
in protected areas
% of pre1750 in
protected areas
% of extant
subregional area
in CMN
Shrubby Foothill Forest 2,390 60 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Shrubby Foothill Forest/Damp ForestComplex
9 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 -
Shrubby Gully Forest 0 1 0 0 0.0 - -Spray-zone Coastal Shrubland 0 1 1 0 100.0 - -Swamp Scrub 163,391 7,983 1,652 3 20.7 1.0 0.0Swamp Scrub/Damp Sands Herb-richWoodland/ Wet Heathland Mosaic
4 0 0 - 0.0 -
Swamp Scrub/Plains Grassland Mosaic 22,217 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Swamp Scrub/Plains Grassy ForestMosaic
4,154 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Swamp Scrub/Plains Sedgy WetlandMosaic
26 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Swamp Scrub/Warm TemperateRainforest/Billabong Wetland Mosaic
1,814 5 0 0 0.0 0.0 -
Swamp Scrub/Wet Heathland Mosaic 1,402 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Swampy Riparian Complex 20,236 1,029 44 0 4.3 0.2 -Swampy Riparian Woodland 27,290 1,564 219 0 14.0 0.8 -Swampy Riparian Woodland/SwampScrub Mosaic
4,081 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Swampy Woodland 5,993 979 6 0 0.6 0.1 -Valley Grassy Forest 4,552 111 0 0 0.1 0.0 -Valley Grassy Forest/Swamp ScrubMosaic
222 0 0 0 - 0.0 -
Valley Heathy Forest 20,940 474 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Warm Temperate Rainforest 544 135 4 0 2.9 0.7 -Water Body – Natural or man made 27,441 47,157 10,750 434 22.8 39.2 0.9Wet Forest 89 27 0 0 0.0 0.0 -Wet Heathland 11,090 3,526 2,077 0 58.9 18.7 -Wet Heathland/Damp Heathland Mosaic 7,085 0 0 0 - 0.0 -Wet Swale Herbland 100 121 121 0 100.0 121.1 -Wetland Formation 1,289 6,821 2,120 546 31.1 164.5 8.0Total 1,222,904 268,608 95,830 10,740 35.7 7.8 4.0Source of Pre-1750 EVC extent: DSE (2004).
288
Appendix 15. New South Wales national parks and reserves containingspecified Grassy Box Woodland communities
National Parks and Reservescontaining Grassy White BoxWoodlands in NSW (Anon. 2002)
National Parks and Reserves with WhiteBox-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red GumWoodland community in NSW(NSW Scientific Committee 2002)
Arakoola Nature Reserve Border Ranges National ParkBarton Nature Reserve Copeton State Conservation AreaBasin Nature Reserve Goobang National ParkBoginderra Hill Nature Reserve Goulburn River National ParkCoolah Tops National Park Lake Glenbawn State Conservation AreaDananbilla Nature Reserve Lake Keepit State Recreation AreaEugrowra Nature Reserve Manobalai Nature ReserveFlagstaff Nature Reserve Mount Kaputar National ParkGoobang National Park Oxley Wild Rivers National ParkGoulburn River National Park Queanbeyan Nature ReserveIndwarra Nature Reserve Towarri National ParkIronbark Nature Reserve Warrumbungle National ParkKings Plan National Park Wingen Maid Nature ReserveKwiambal National Park Wollemi National ParkLake Glenbawn State Conservation AreaLinton Nature ReserveMelville Range Nature ReserveMinjary National ParkNangar National ParkThe Rock Nature ReserveTowarri National ParkWeddin Mountains National ParkWingen Maid Nature ReserveWollemi National ParkWongarbon Nature Reserve(Italicised reserves are listed by both sources).
289
Appendix 16. Questionnaire for landowners and land managers of sites withinMulti-tenure Reserve Networks
Questionnaire for Managers and/or Owners of Sites in Multi-tenureConservation Networks.
1. How would describe the tenure of the property you manage/own (please tick one box):
Public land reserved primary for the purpose of nature conservation
Public land not primarily reserved for nature conservation but under some formalagreement to protect natural features of the site.If so, please list type of agreement ……………………………………….
Public land not primarily reserved for nature conservation and not under formalagreement to protect natural features but managed sympathetically for thatpurpose anyway.
Private land owned by company, group, or authority and managed primarily fornature conservation but with legally binding protective measures in place.If so, please list type of agreement………………………………………….
Private land owned by company, association, or authority and sympatheticallymanaged for conservation but with no legally binding measures in place.
Private land owned by individual, couple or family and managed primarily fornature conservation but with legally binding protective measures in place.If so, please list type of agreement……………………………………….
Private land owned by individual, couple or family and sympathetically managedfor conservation but with no legally binding measures in place.
Other (please state)…………………………………………………………….
290
2. How would you describe your main management objective/s for the property youown/manage?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. Do you consider the property you own/manage to be a ‘protected area’ based on thefollowing definition?
“an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance ofbiological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managedthrough legal or other effective means”
YES NO UNSURE
4. In general, do you consider your involvement within the network has been a (pleasetick one box):
very positive experience
positive experience
neutral/unsure
negative experience
very negative experience
5. Please describe you primary reason for initially becoming involved in the network.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
291
6. In your opinion what are the specific aims and objectives of the network?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Do you feel you contribute to biodiversity conservation at a national, state or regionalscale (please tick one box)?
National State Regional Do not contribute
8. Why?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Would you like to be recognised as being part of a ‘National Reserve System’ of landmanaged for conservation?
YES NO
10. On average, approximately how many hours would be spent on managing your site’sconservation values per month?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
292
11. On average, what is the approximate cost ($) of managing your site’s conservationvalues per year? (Do not include your own personal time but do include any money spenton contractors etc.)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Have management practices changed at all since being involved in the network?
YES NO
13. If yes, how?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. Have the values or management regimes on other sites within the network influencedmanagement on your site?
YES NO
15. If yes, how?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16. Do you feel that the conservation values of your site have improved since becomingpart of the network?
YES NO
293
17. Why?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18. What do you feel are the major limitations of the network?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
19.How could the network improve any of these limitations (if any)?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20. Are you aware of any other sites within your network?
YES NO
21. Do you converse regularly with any of the other managers of sites within thenetwork? (If no, go to question 24).
YES NO
294
22. If yes, how many different owners/managers?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
23. Are they managers/owners of (tick more than one if applicable):
Public land Private land
24. Has your site received any extra funding, or other types of assistance, as a directresult of being in the network (ie. assistance which may not have been gained otherwise)?
YES NO
25. If yes, please list types of funding.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.All your answers are completely confidential.Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed reply-paid envelope.
295
Appendix 17. Questionnaire cover letter
5 November 2001
Dear xxx
My name is James Fitzsimons and I am a PhD student in Environmental Management at DeakinUniversity under the supervision of Associate Professor Geoff Wescott. I am writing to invite youto participate in research in the form of a questionnaire.
My PhD project is entitled “Multi-tenure reserve networks: contribution to national and regionalconservation objectives”. Specifically it is focussing on four networks of both public and privatelands managed for biodiversity conservation in a cooperative manner: the Bookmark BiosphereReserve (SA), the Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Network (NSW), the PerryRiver Network (VIC) and the proposed Wychitella Conservation Management Network (VIC).The aim is to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of such networks in protecting andaccounting for biodiversity protection across the landscape.
An integral part of the research is to identify the views of both landholders and land managersinvolved in each of these networks, as well as the coordinating bodies of the networks. Recenttheory suggests that multi-tenure reserve networks have the potential to improve management andprotection of ecosystems across a variety of tenures through improved management advice, aswell as accounting for and quantifying management actions. Through the questionnaires I hopeto compare the theory and on-ground reality behind such networks and ultimately improve thefunctionality of existing and future networks.
The questionnaire should take about 20 minutes to complete. Enclosed is a pre-paid envelope forreturn of the questionnaire and signed consent form. If you were able to complete and return thequestionnaire within two weeks it would be greatly appreciated.
The information supplied by participants will be treated as confidential and kept in the faculty atDeakin University in secure storage for at least six years from the completion of the project afterwhich time it will be destroyed. Consent forms will be stored separately to encodedquestionnaires, so that your individual information will be kept confidential. Access to thequestionnaires is restricted to my supervisor and myself. Completion of the questionnaire isvoluntary. If you decide that you no longer want to be involved in this study you are free towithdraw at any time without adverse consequences. If you would like to obtain a summary of theresults of this research, I am happy to send you copies of future publications.
Please feel free to contact me on (03) 9244 7367 or [email protected] in regards to anyqueries you may have, or my supervisor, Geoff Wescott on (03) 9244 7436 [email protected]. Postal mail for myself or Geoff Wescott can be sent to: School ofEcology & Environment, Deakin University, 662 Blackburn Road, Clayton, VIC 3168.
Yours sincerely
James Fitzsimons
Should you have any concerns about the conduct of this research project, please contact the Secretary,Ethics Committee, Research Services, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, BURWOOD VIC 3125.Tel (03) 9251 7123 (International +61 3 9251 7123).
296
Appendix 18. Questionnaire consent form for landowners and managers
DEAKIN UNIVERSITY ETHICS COMMITTEECONSENT FORM: SURVEYS, QUESTIONNAIRES
I, of
Hereby consent to be a subject of a human research study to be undertaken
By James Fitzsimons
and I understand that the purpose of the research is
to document the biophysical attributes of properties within the multi-tenure conservation networksof Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, the Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Networkand the Perry River Network and assess the effectiveness of the networks in achieving biodiversityconservation. The purpose of this questionnaire is to determine the views of managers relating tovarious aspects of their involvement within the networks. The information will then be used tohighlight particular strengths and weaknesses of the networks, and ultimately lead torecommendations for improvement to existing and future networks.
I acknowledge that
1. Upon receipt, my questionnaire will be coded and my name and address kept separatelyfrom it.2. Any information that I provide will not be made public in any form that could reveal my
identity to an outside party ie. that I will remain fully anonymous.3. Aggregated results will be used for research purposes and may be reported in scientific and
academic journals.4. Individual results will not be released to any person except at my request and on myauthorisation.5. That I am free to withdraw my consent at any time during the study in which event my
participation in the research study will immediately cease and any information obtainedfrom me will not be used.
Signature: Date:
NOTE:In the event of a minor's consent, or person under legal liability, please complete the EthicsCommittee's "Form of Consent on Behalf of a Minor or Dependent Person".
297
Appendix 19. Attitudes and Perceptions of Land Managers and Owners in theGrassy Box Woodlands CMN: Report for the NSW National Parks & WildlifeService
Attitudes and Perceptions of Land Managers andOwners in the Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation
Management Network
A Draft CONFIDENTIAL Report for the New South WalesNational Parks & Wildlife Service
March 2002
James A. FitzsimonsSchool of Ecology & Environment
Deakin University
298
AcknowledgmentsAll participants in this research for their time and thoughtful responses, and for theircontribution to the protection of important components of Australia’s biodiversity.
A special thanks to Erica Higginson of the NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service forassistance with the initial questionnaire mailouts and follow-up reminders and foranswering my (many) queries.
To Drs Kevin Thiele and Suzanne Prober for ideas, comments and supply of information,and for significantly furthering the protection of Grassy Box Woodlands and importantlythe concept and discussion of multi-tenure management of ecosystems in Australia.
Thanks to my supervisor at Deakin University, Associate Professor Geoff Wescott forhelpful comments on this paper.
DisclaimerAs the findings of this research are a major component of my research towards the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy at Deakin University and these results have not yet beenpublished, use of this data in any publications must first be approved by the author andreferenced accordingly:
Fitzsimons, J.A. (2002) Attitudes and Perceptions of Land Managers and Owners in the Grassy BoxWoodlands Conservation Management Network. A Draft Report for the New South Wales National Parks& Wildlife Service. School of Ecology & Environment, Deakin University, Melbourne.
Contact DetailsJames FitzsimonsSchool of Ecology & EnvironmentDeakin University221 Burwood HighwayBURWOOD VIC 3125
Ph: (03) 9244 7367Fax: (03) 9251 7626Email: [email protected]
299
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Methods 1
3 Results & Discussion 1
3.1 Perceived role and value of sites in CMN 2 3.1.1 Tenure and Protection Mechanisms 2 3.1.2 Primary Management Objectives of Property 2 3.1.3 ‘Protected Area’ Classification 2 3.1.4 Level of Contribution to Biodiversity Conservation. 3 3.1.5 Inclusion in a ‘National Reserve System’ of Land Managed for Conservation 4
3.2 Perceptions of the CMN itself 5 3.2.1 Involvement in the network 5 3.2.2 Primary Reason for Involvement in the Network 5 3.2.3 Managers perceptions of the network’s aims and objectives 6
3.3 Influence of other sites within CMN 6 3.3.1 Awareness of other sites in the network 6 3.3.2 Correspondence with other managers of sites within the CMN 7
3.4 Management actions undertaken 7 3.4.1 Alteration of Management practices 7 3.4.2 Influence of values or management regimes on other sites 8 3.4.3 Improvement in conservation values of sites 9
3.5 Time, cost and funding for site management 9 3.5.1 Average time spent managing conservation values 9 3.5.2 Average cost ($) of managing conservation values 10 3.5.3 External funding or assistance for management 11
3.6 Limitations and suggested improvements to CMN 12 3.6.1. Major Limitations of the CMN 12 3.6.2 Suggested improvements to CMN 12
4 Summary 12
5 References 13
6 Appendices 14
Appendix 1. Cover Letter for Questionnaire for Managers and/or Owners ofSites in Multi-tenure Conservation Networks.
14
Appendix 2. Questionnaire for Managers and/or Owners of Sites in Multi-tenure Conservation Networks.
15
300
1. Introduction
This survey of land managers in the Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation ManagementNetwork (CMN) was conducted as part of a larger survey, which included the BookmarkBiosphere Reserve in South Australia and Perry River (Gippsland Plains) ConservationManagement Network in Victoria. The aim was to gain information from land managersinvolved in these multi-tenure conservation networks, specifically addressing managementissues and involvement in the ‘network’. This report provides a summary of the findingsfrom the Grassy Box Woodlands CMN component.
2. Methods
Questionnaires were sent to 25 land owners and managers currently involved in the GrassyBox Woodlands CMN during mid-November 2001 (see Appendices 1 and 2 for coverletter and questionnaire structure respectively). Due to privacy legislation in New SouthWales, the National Parks & Wildlife Service was unable to provide the names and contactdetails of participants in the network to individuals or organisations outside the NPWS.Consequently, the questionnaires (with the accompanying cover letters, consent forms, andreplay paid envelopes) were sent to NPWS for distribution to participants in the network.Follow-up reminder letters were sent to those that had not responded before this time inearly December and phone calls made in mid December 2001 and mid January 2002.
A total of 25 questions were asked in the questionnaire in what, on average, would take 15minutes to complete.
No attempt has been made to conduct rigorous statistical analysis on this data due to bothtime restrictions and the relatively small number surveyed. Instead, this report aims topresent the broad findings of the survey while ensuring that no individual respondents areidentified.
3. Results & Discussion
As of 26 January 2002, 18 of the 25 questionnaires (72%) had been returned and anyquestionnaires after this date were not considered in this analysis.
Some of the questions requested managers to ‘describe’ a particular aspect of theirinvolvement in the network. In some cases managers listed a number of separate themes orissues to a single question. In such cases each separate theme is recorded and thus somequestions may have greater than 18 registered responses. Descriptive answers weregrouped where appropriate using key words, in order to highlight common themes.
301
3.1 Perceived role and value of sites in network
3.1.1. Tenure and Protection MechanismsManagers were asked to identify the tenure and protection mechanisms currently in placeon their property (or properties) under one of eight broad options. Two respondentsoriginally answered ‘other’ but on reading their comments were placed in one of the first 7categories.
Tenure and Protection Mechanisms Number ofrespondents
Public land reserved primary for the purpose of nature conservation. 0
Public land not primarily reserved for nature conservation but under someformal agreement to protect natural features of the site.
5
Public land not primarily reserved for nature conservation and not underformal agreement to protect natural features but managed sympatheticallyfor that purpose anyway.
6
Private land owned by company, group, or authority and managedprimarily for nature conservation but with legally binding protectivemeasures in place.
1
Private land owned by company, association, or authority andsympathetically managed for conservation but with no legally bindingmeasures in place.
0
Private land owned by individual, couple or family and managed primarilyfor nature conservation but with legally binding protective measures inplace.
1
Private land owned by individual, couple or family and sympatheticallymanaged for conservation but with no legally binding measures in place.
5
3.1.2 Primary Management Objectives of PropertyOf the 16 managers that responded to this question “active management for conservationand biodiversity enhancement” was listed as the primary (or one of the primary) aims on 8sites within the network. “Maintaining” or “continuing” management of the site as is waslisted by 4 respondents, the ‘provision of an educational/research resource’ was listed bythree respondents, while a ‘combination of agriculture and conservation’ was listed by tworespondents. Provision of ‘safe use of public land and conduct operation according toEcologically Sustainable Development principle’s was also listed.
302
3.1.3 ‘Protected Area’ ClassificationManagers were asked whether they considered the site/s they managed to be a ‘protectedarea’ according to the current IUCN classification (the definition was provided but noreference to the IUCN was made). Eleven respondents replied Yes, six No and one did notprovide a response.
3.1.4 Level of Contribution to Biodiversity Conservation.Managers were asked whether they considered they contributed to biodiversityconservation at a National, State or Regional level (or not at all). Of the 18 respondents,seven considered they contributed at a national level, three at a State level, six at a regionallevel, one at all three levels and one not at all.
Interestingly, manager’s perceptions of their site’s significance did not necessarily matchthose listed in the CMN database. It is recognised that the categories used in this surveydiffered slightly from those in the database (ie. National, State and Regional for the formerand National, Regional and Local for the latter). Nonetheless, of those that considered theirproperties to be of National significance, four were actually listed as of Regional
61%
33%
6%
Yes
No
No Reply
38%
17%
33%
6%6%
National
State
Regional
National/State/Regional
Not at All
303
significance in the database. Conversely, four managers considered their site/s to be of alower level of significance than that listed in the database. This latter result is important, asthe significance of the site is either not being conveyed to the manager or is not beingrecognised as such.
Four managers did not provide a reason for why they considered their site to be of aparticular level of significance. Of those that listed their site to be Nationally significant,three noted that the vegetation communities were endangered while two simply stated thatthey considered their sites to be ‘nationally significant’. Four managers that consideredtheir sites to be of regional significance highlighted specific biological attributes on theirproperties such as ‘endangered flora and fauna’ and ‘nesting opportunities for smallwoodland birds enhanced by shrub regeneration’. Other responses given included ‘beingpart of a whole ecosystem’ and the ‘use of seed for regeneration projects elsewhere’.
3.1.5 Inclusion in a ‘National Reserve System’ of Land Managed for ConservationMangers were asked whether they would like to be recognised as part of a ‘national reservesystem’ of land managed for conservation.
Of the 18 respondents, 14 noted that they would like to be recognised while 4 indicatedthey would not.
Prober et al. (2001) noted it was ‘interesting’ that there had been no opposition to the word‘conservation’ in the CMN’s title. Equally of interest is the apparent willingness ofrespondents in this survey to be involved in a ‘national reserve system’ of land managedfor conservation. The question was deliberately structured so as to imply a hypotheticalnational reserve system as opposed to the ‘the’ National Reserve System currently inexistence, as it was considered that this is likely to have a low profile amongst managers ofprivate land and other public land. Furthermore, under the current system, many siteswithin the network would be unlikely to qualify for entry based on their existing protectionmechanisms.
78%
22%
Yes
No
304
Fitzsimons & Wescott (2001) highlighted the weaknesses of the current National ReserveSystem in not adequately accounting for private land protected under legally bindingagreements. Whilst not all land currently managed in the CMN should be considered forentry into a national reserve system, the network does allow for accurate reporting of landmanaged for conservation under a variety of agreements on a variety of tenures. It is thuspromising that close to 80% of respondents considered the possibility of including theirsite/s in such a system to be worthwhile.
3.2 Perceptions of the network itself
3.2.1 Involvement in the networkManagers were asked whether they considered their involvement in the CMN to be a verypositive, positive, neutral/unsure, negative, or very negative experience.
Of the 17 managers that responded to the question, the majority of managers (12) indicatedthat it had been a positive experience, while 3 considered it to be a very positiveexperience, and 2 where unsure/neutral.
3.2.2 Primary Reason for Involvement in the Network
Managers were asked to describe the primary reason for becoming involved in thenetwork.
A wide variety of reasons were cited and a number of managers cited more than onereason. These included:
• The presence of rare flora and fauna.• Protecting representative areas of one of the Grassy Box Woodland communities• At the request from NPWS
17%
66%
11%6%
Very Positive
Positive
Unsure/Neutral
No answ er
305
• Support for activities and professional advice• Sharing of knowledge and contact with other areas• To assist in the development of obtaining feasible management strategies for the
vegetation community and its associated species• Possible access to financial assistance• The opportunity to give further credibility to the site
One respondent was not clear on ‘what the network actually was’.
3.2.3 Managers perceptions of the network’s aims and objectivesManagers were asked to describe what they considered to be the network’s specific aimsand objectives.
Similarly to 3.2.2, a range of responses were given and a number of aims/objectives wereoften given by single managers. These are listed below (with the amount of managersspecifying that particular aim/objective in brackets):
• Linking of managers to facilitate information exchange and support (9)• Protection and re-establishment of native vegetation/existing remnants (7)• Identifying and protecting new remnants (2)• Raising profile and awareness of Grassy Box Woodlands (1)• Allowing existing uses to continue (1)• Increasing the professionalism of managers (1)• Increasing the populations of rare and threatened species (1)
3.3 Influence of other sites within network
3.3.1 Awareness of other sites in the networkManagers were asked whether they were aware of any other sites in the CMN.
All managers responded, with 14 indicating they were aware of other sites within theCMN, 3 were not, while 1 was not clear on the definition of the ‘network’.
306
3.3.2 Correspondence with other managers of sites within the CMNManagers were asked whether they regularly corresponded with managers of other siteswithin the CMN.
Of the 17 managers that responded 12 indicated that they did not regularly converse withother sites in the network while 5 indicated that they did. One manager which listed ‘No’to this question noted that correspondence was not regular but on an ‘as needs’ basis.
Of the 5 respondents that indicated that did converse regularly with other managers and 1who indicated they did so on an as needs basis, 2 had contact with one other manager, 2had contact with 2 other managers and 2 had contact with more than 2 other managers.
77%
17%
6%
Yes
No
Unsure
28%
66%
6%
Yes
No
No answ er
307
In 4 cases, this correspondence was made with managers of other public sites, in one casewith managers of a private site and in one case with managers of both public and privatesites.
3.4 Management actions undertaken
3.4.1 Alteration of management practicesManagers were asked whether management practices had changed since being involved inthe network.
Of the 17 managers that responded, 8 indicated management practices had not changed, 7indicated practices had changed, while 2 were unsure.
Of those that indicated that management had changed, 3 specified an alteration of pestplant and animal control, 2 specified an alteration in mowing regimes, 2 specified analteration in grazing regimes, while one manager specified a change in burning regime andanother highlighted the development of a management plan to ‘ensure coordinated sitemanagement’.
3.4.2 Influence of values or management regimes on other sitesManagers were asked whether the values or management regimes on other sites influencedmanagement practices on their site/s.
Of the 17 managers that responded to the question 10 indicated that other sites had notinfluenced their management, 5 indicated that they had, while 2 were unsure.
39%
44%
11%6%
Yes
No
Unsure
No Answ er
308
3.4.3 Improvement in conservation values of sitesManagers were asked whether they considered the conservation value of their sites hadimproved since being involved in the network.
Of the 17 managers that responded to the question, nine indicated that they considered theconservation values to have improved, seven considered that they had not improved, whileone considered the question was not applicable.
Those that considered conservation values had improved cited the following reasons:• Better identification of flora and fauna (both native and introduced) (2)• Site has greater value/credibility in community’s mind (2)• Increased awareness leading to changed management (1)• Satisfaction and enthusiasm from knowledge that other sites were working towards
similar objectives (1)• Removal of grazing allowing native vegetation to revegetate (1)
49%
39%
6%6%
Yes
No
Not Applicable
No Answ er
39%
38%
15%
8%
Yes
No
Unsure
No answ er
309
• Any new knowledge improves conservation value (1)
Those that considered conservation values had not improved cited the following reasons:• Too early to tell (2)• Lack of cash (1)• Site too small to be of much value (1)
3.5 Time, cost and funding for site management
3.5.1 Average time spent managing conservation valuesManagers were asked to estimate the average time spent on managing their site’sconservation values per month.
As it is unlikely that accurate records of time spent on management are kept, with anumber of respondents often using estimates such as ‘5-10hours’. This range was also usedwhen managers noted management time varied according to seasonal conditions (eg.seasonal growth of weeds may require more management than at other times of the year).
Of the 17 managers that answered the question, six managers stated they spent five hoursor less managing their site per month, 5 managers stated they spent between 5-10 hours,and two managers between 10-20 hours. One manager was ‘unsure’ while another statedsimply ‘many hours’. One respondent misunderstood the question.
Time spent managing a site is likely to be influenced by a number of factors to relating toboth the manager (eg time, knowledge and resources available) and the site itself (eg sizeand condition of the site).
3.5.2 Average cost ($) of managing conservation valuesManagers were asked to estimate the average costs of managing the conservation values oftheir site per year (not including their own personal time).
6%
32%
27%
11%
6%
6%
6%6%
None
0.01-5
5.1-10
10-20.
Unsure
"Many hours"
No Answ er
Misunderstood
310
As with the previous question, answers were sometimes given within a range (eg $500-$1,000) and hence large ranges were used to present these results.
Of the 17 managers that responded, 5 indicated they spent no money on management, 5suggested between $1-1,000 per year, 3 between $1,000 and $2,000, and 2 over $2,000.One manager cited lost income from the potential to use the land for more intensiveagricultural purposes – an estimated loss of $28,000 per year.
3.5.3 External funding or assistance for managementManagers were asked if they had received any extra funding or other assistance as a directresult of being involved in the network.
Of the 16 managers that responded to the question, 12 indicated that they had not, while 4indicated that they had.
27%
27%
17%
11%
6%
6%6%
$0
$1-1,000
$1,001-2000
$2,000+
Lost income
Misunderstood
No answ er
311
Of the 4 managers that had received extra funding for their sites, 2 specified it was forfencing and 2 for weed control. Natural Heritage Trust and Community Solutions grantswere also reported to have been given as a result of the network.
3.6 Limitations and suggested improvements to network
3.6.1. Major Limitations of the CMNManagers were asked to specify what they considered were the major limitations of theCMN.
A variety of answers were given (with number of managers specifying the limitation inbrackets):• Lack of funding for onground works (5)• Time and distance between sites and managers (3)• Unsure, none or ‘too early to tell’ (3)• Hours available to support staff (1)• Cynicism in the general public (1)• Reservation of particular forms of public land with a specific purposes (eg cemeteries)
was seen as an inherent conflict with conservation (1)• Small areas of sites, limiting potential for restoration of ecosystem (1)• Lack of publicity to appeal to the mainstream (1)• Lack of communication between researchers and on-site managers (1)• Voluntary nature of management (1)
3.6.2 Suggested improvements to CMNManagers were asked to specify how the CMN could improve these limitations.
22%
67%
11%
Yes
No
No answ er
312
Again, of the 9 managers that answered this question, a variety of answers were given:• Increased funds for management (6)• Better publicity (1)• Increased support through emails and publications (1)• Use benefits of network to pressure public land authorities to take greater responsibility
(1)• Use of technology (1)• Out of the networks control- requires restoration of degraded sites (1)
4. Summary
That the majority (over 80%) of participants in this survey considered their involvement inthe Grassy Box Woodlands Conservation Management Network to be a positiveexperience should be seen as a generally encouraging endorsement of the CMN’s operationto date. It should be noted that this is based on responses of the 18 managers thatresponded to the survey (from a total of 25) and that it is possible that these managers weremore involved and enthusiastic about the CMN.
A high number of managers are aware of other sites within the network while there iscurrently a medium-low level of communication between managers of sites. The influencethat values and/or management practices on other sites in the network have on a particularsite is also medium-low. While almost 40% of managers cited an adjustment of theirmanagement regimes as a result of being involved in the network, it is likely that a numberof sites would not require an alteration in management practices. It is therefore likely thatover half of the managers have improved (or maintained) the conservation values of theirsites as a result of the network. The response of the woodlands to these varied managementregimes ultimately leads to a better understanding of the ecosystem as a whole.
Not surprisingly, a lack of financial assistance for management was seen as one of thegreatest limitations for management and one of the greatest areas suggested forimprovement. This is reflects an earlier study by Elix & Lambert (1997) who reported‘financial constraints’ as one of the greatest barriers to conservation of Grassy White BoxWoodlands.
While the CMN may not have the capacity to directly address the issue of increasedfunding for on-ground management, its potential role as a recognised body attractingfunding for distribution to site managers may need to be developed. Other suggestions forimprovement made by respondents should be taken into account.
An interesting follow-up to this research may be to survey or document the informalreasons of those landholders that were approached but did not wish to be involved. Ananalysis of whether such responses were similar to those reasons given for landholderunwillingness to be involved in other voluntary private land protection schemes such asVoluntary Conservation Agreements may highlight areas where the network could improveits attractiveness to land managers.
313
5. References
Elix, J. & Lambert, J. (1997) More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives andbarriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as amodel. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Managementand Conservation of Remnant Vegetation, Research Report 1/98.
Fitzsimons, J.A. & Wescott, G.C. (2001) The role and contribution of private land inVictoria to biodiversity conservation and the protected area system. Australian Journalof Environmental Management. 8 (2), 142-157.
Prober, S.M., Thiele, K.R. & Higginson, E. (2001) Grassy Box Woodlands ConservationManagement Network: Picking up the pieces in fragmented woodlands. EcologicalManagement & Restoration. 2 (3), 179-188.
314
Appendix 20. Questionnaire for coordinating bodies of Multi-tenure ReserveNetworks
Questionnaire for Coordinating Bodies of Multi-tenure ConservationNetworks
Role of the coordinating body
1. Please rank each of the following statements from 1-5 in terms of importance to your network(where 1 is the most important and 5 the least important) (please circle):
• To better account for the presence of biodiversity values which are being managed across alltenures.
1 2 3 4 5
• To improve information exchange on the results of various management regimes on siteswithin the network.
1 2 3 4 5
• To provide physical connections of sites managed for conservation.
1 2 3 4 5
• To more effectively integrate conservation of natural areas in an agricultural productionlandscape.
1 2 3 4 5
• To achieve a more equitable flow of resources and complementary management of ecosystemsacross tenures.
1 2 3 4 5
2. In your opinion, what is the official role of the network’s coordinating body?___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
315
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Minimum requirements for property inclusion in the network
3. Are there any criteria or conditions for acceptance of sites into the network (eg minimum sizerequirements, minimum protection measures, particular vegetation types)?
YES NO
4. If yes, what are they?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. In general, are there any management requirements of sites accepted into the network?
YES NO
6. If yes what are they?___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
316
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Are there any cooperative management arrangements between different sites/tenures within thenetwork? For example, national park service staff, undertaking particular management actions onprivate sites in the network.
YES NO
8. If yes, what are they?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9. Are there any mechanisms for expelling components of a network?
YES NO
10. Under what circumstances would you envisage such actions would be warranted?___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
317
Goals and measures of success of the network
11. Are there any goals or measures of success by which the network can be evaluated?
YES NO
12. If yes, what are they?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
13. If not, why not?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. Have any goals for the network been set in the past?
YES NO
15. If so what were they?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
318
16. Were these goals achieved?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
17. In your opinion, is the setting such goals considered useful to the coordinating body?
YES NO
18. Are there geographical limits placed on the extent of the network?
YES NO
19. If yes, what are they?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
20. Do you consider there to be a maximum number of sites (or total area) that the network canadequately support?
YES NO
21. If yes, what is it?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
319
22. Are there any vegetation types which are targeted for protection above others?
YES NO
23. For what reason?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
24. Are there any vegetation types which are not targeted or are excluded from the network?
YES NO
25. If yes, why?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Funding
26. From where does the coordinating body derive its funds?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
320
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27. For how long are these funds secure?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
28. In general, are these funds sufficient for successful implementation (of the aims) of thenetwork?
YES NO
29. Please discuss._______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your time in completing this questionnaire.All your answers are completely confidential.Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed reply-paid envelope.
321
Appendix 21. Questionnaire consent form for coordinating bodies
DEAKIN UNIVERSITY ETHICS COMMITTEE
CONSENT FORM – For Institutions/Organisations
I, ............................................................................. of .............................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................
Hereby give permission for .....................................................................................................................
to be involved in a research study being undertaken by
James Fitzsimons
and I understand that the purpose of the research is
to document the biophysical attributes of properties within the multi-tenure conservation networks of BookmarkBiosphere Reserve, the Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Network and the Perry River Network andassess the effectiveness of the networks in achieving biodiversity conservation. The purpose of this questionnaire is todetermine the views of managers relating to various aspects of their involvement within the networks. The informationwill then be used to highlight particular strengths and weaknesses of the networks, and ultimately lead torecommendations for improvement to existing and future networks.
and that involvement for the institution means the following:-
allowing the manager of the property owned/managed by the institution/organisation to answer questions in the attachedquestionnaire relating to their involvement in one of the above three networks.
I acknowledge
1. That the aims, methods, and anticipated benefits, and possible risks/hazards of the research study, have beenexplained to me.
2. That I voluntarily and freely give my consent for the institution/organisation to participate in the above researchstudy.
5. That I am free to withdraw my consent at any time during the study, in which event participation in the researchstudy will immediately cease and any information obtained through this institution/organisation will not beused if I so request.
3. I understand that aggregated results will be used for research purposes and may be reported in scientific andacademic journals.
I agree that
4. The institution/organisation MAY / MAY NOT be named in research publications or other publicity withoutprior agreement.
5. I / We DO / DO NOT require an opportunity to check the factual accuracy of the research findings related tothe institution/organisation.
6. I / We EXPECT / DO NOT EXPECT to receive a copy of the research findings or publications.
Signature: Date:
322
Appendix 22. Mornington Peninsula and Western Port Biosphere Reserve Zoning (Source: Anon 2002a)
323
Appendix 23. Potential Barkindji Biosphere Reserve Zoning (Source: Barkindji Biosphere 2004)