Remote Australia Online

Tools and Resources * Projects and Current Research * Discussion Networks * Reference Materials Benchmark 1 Commit to Change * Benefits of Biodiversity Conservation to Local Government * Australian Local Government Association Information on roles and responsibilities of Local Government in natural resource management * The Sustainability Network: email network for local government. Available to local council personnel in NSW. Members can receive and post messages. Subscribe by sending an email to sustainablenet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com (do not put any message in the subject box or message box). Benchmark 2 Establish Baseline Position * Diagnostic Tools o Natural Resource Information, Databases and Mapping o Survey Methods and Guidelines o Australian, State and Regional Plans, Strategies and Targets * Guide for Assessing & Monitoring the Health of Remnant Bushland * Mitcham Council Biodiversity Assessment (PDF) * DEH's web site Information sheets on Threatened Species * NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Threatened Species search * NSW National Park and Wildlife Service Wildlife Atlas * Weeds * VIC - Dept of Sustainability and Environment: Plants and Animals * Victorian Resources On Line * TAS Parks and Wildlife Note Sheets * SA Biodiversity information (Biodiversity website - Department of Environment and Heritage) * SA Threatened Species Fact Sheets * Department of Environment and Heritage SA * QLD Threatened Species * Department of Agriculture Weed Science WA * NT Parks - Nature of the Northern Territory Benchmark 3 Develop Strategic Approach * Planning Information o Zoning - Opportunities and Examples o Planning Schemes/ Provisions - Examples o Development Assessment Processes o Development Consent Conditions * Municipal Association of Victoria * Summary Document of Local Government Rate Incentive Schemes (PDF) * Bibliography for Rate Incentive Schemes 2003 (PDF) * Integrating Local Land Use Planning and Regional Catchment Planning * ECO-Buy - Local Government Green Purchasing * Victorian Stormwater Action Program - Capacity Building Project * WWF Fact Sheet Setting Biodiversity Targets (PDF) * NSW Biodiversity Planning Guide for NSW Local Government Benchmark 4 Implement and Monitor * Funding Opportunities * Incentives & Supporting Mechanisms o Rate Rebates o Grants o Local Award Schemes o Training, Technical Support and Materials o Tradeable/ transferrable development rights o Management Agreements o Revolving Funds o Environmental Levies o Developer Contributions * A Guidebook to Environmental Indicators - CSIRO * Greening Australia ‘Bush Benefits’ - techniques, tools & incentives for conserving Australia's unique plants & animals * EPA Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plan * Site Implementation Guidelines Practice Notes WA Government * Photographic monitoring of vegetation: Go to the Victorian Department of Primary Industries Information Notes Series In the search box, type LW0043 to go to the document. * Natural Resource Management Monitoring and Evaluation Benchmark 5 Review and Evaluate * The Sustainability Network: email network for local government. Available to local council personnel in NSW. Members can receive and post messages. Subscribe by sending an email to sustainablenet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com (do not put any message in the subject box or message box) * Environmental Portal -Your gateway to Australian environment resources on the Internet * Greening Australia 'Catchment Scorecard' - monitoring and evaluation program * Green corps * GA WA Publications * Planning WA - Bush Forever Program * The Department of the Environment and Heritage - Biodiversity Theme * EPA Victorian Environmental Auditors

Benefits of Biodiversity Conservation to Local Government Australians, and more specifically local government, are just beginning to see the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services to our everyday lives. Some of the primary benefits of biodiversity conservation to councils across the nation includes: # Boosted local productivity by maintaining the foundations of a healthy and sustainable environment; healthy soils, clean air, clean water, and biodiversity - especially important in the rural regions of Australia. This relates to agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fisheries. # Mitigation of potentially devastating and costly environmental problems, including salinity and erosion. Economic benefits to local government including increased land value resulting from improved landscape amenity, as well as contributing to the total landscape setting enjoyed by residents, and providing a valuable tourism and recreation resource for visitors. * Eco tourism, Recreation * Overall improved environmental health, influencing the health of your local community. * Conservation of heritage values, particularly relevant to indigenous communities and their close cultural association with the land. Our natural environment maintains many essential functions that form the foundation of a healthy and sustainable environment. These are often called ecosystem services and include: * Air and water purification. * Flood and drought mitigation. * Waste detoxification and decomposition. * Generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility. * Crop and natural vegetation pollination. * Agricultural pest control. * Dispersal of seeds and nutrients. * Protection from ultraviolet rays. * Regulation of climate. * Moderation of temperature extremes and the forces of wind and waves. While this natural capital is not currently valued in economic terms, the CSIRO estimates that the total annual value of ecosystem services within Australia is $1327 billion. This alone indicates the reasons for the urgency associated with the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources in general. Local councils are in a prime position to take a leading role in maintaining these vital ecosystem services. Opportunities for Local Government to Conserve Biodiversity Of all tiers of government within Australia, councils have the greatest opportunity to interact directly with the community. This gives local government the opportunity to show leadership within the community, and to offer vital support and encouragement to local land and property owners to conserve native flora and fauna. Key documents including the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biodiversity and the National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy recognise that local government has an important part to play in biodiversity conservation. Legislation such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 and various State Acts also prescribe the roles and responsibilities of councils to conserve biodiversity in their local area, including the: * Project proponent; * Manager of Public land; * Regulator and facilitator of development; and/or * Land-use and environmental planner. Proactive longer-term environmental planning and land-use management will have a beneficial flow-on effect to other aspects of the EPBC Act, such as assisting proponents making project referrals and compliance issues. * Further information on the EPBC Act Local government can and should use their position to: * Regulate land use; * Utilise available powers to influence community behaviour through implementing biodiversity friendly regulations and planning provisions. * Promote and demonstrate environmentally, ecologically and socially responsible behaviour; * Offer community education programs and staff training; * Provide incentives for sustainable natural resource management on private land. A proactive and committed council can influence great positive local change - examples of this are celebrated in the Case Studies section of the Toolbox. We hope that the Toolbox will provide the motivation and necessary resources to help your Council start that process of change.

Overview Patches of remnant vegetation, habitat or plant and animal communities rarely fall neatly within the designated boundaries of any local government area. In addition, land-use practices in one area can have major impacts on the vegetation and wildlife of neighbouring or even distant areas. For this reason, successful conservation of biodiversity is dependent on a regional approach, which requires the development of strong cooperative partnerships between government bodies, the community, private industry and educational institutions. This shift to a regional approach is demonstrated in the nation-wide implementation of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP), and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). Fifty-seven natural resource management (NRM) regions have been identified by the Australian, State and Territory governments to facilitate natural resource management across Australia. Regional NRM Bodies (such as Catchment Management Authorities) prepare an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan for each region, identifying the priorities for on-ground action. Investments under NAP and the NHT are guided by accredited regional plans. Councils should contact their Regional NRM Body to ensure effective local government participation in regional planning processes. To find out more about NRM and Regions, go to the NRM web site www.nrm.gov.au. The establishment of strategic alliances between neighbouring councils will also help identify regional priorities for natural resource management and prevent wastage of local government resources in duplication and "reinventing the wheel". Biodiversity conservation is a common council objective, whether in outback Western Australia or metropolitan Sydney. Ideas and support could be shared to ensure we all achieve a satisfactory outcome.

Examines Australia's resource and environmental management institutions. Managing Australia's Environment is a report card of unprecedented scope, examining Australia's resource and environmental management institutions and policies against the requirements of ecologically sustainable development. Contents PART I. INTRODUCTION. 1. Processes and institutions for resource and environmental management: why and how to analyse / Stephen Dovers PART II. SECTORAL STUDIES. Rangeland institutions over time and space/ Mark Stafford Smith and Nick Abel 3. The ocean and marine realm/ Marcus Haward - 4. Water resources management/ Dingle Smith 5. National Forest Policy and Regional Forest Agreements / Catherine Mobbs PART III. PROCESSES AND INSTITUTIONS 6.The Resource Assessment Commission: lessons in the venality of modern politics/ Clive Hamilton 7. Discrete, consultative policy processes: lessons from the National Conservation Strategy for Australia and National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development / Stephen Dovers 8. Sustainable regional development: lessons from Australian efforts / John Dore, Jim Woodhill, Kate Andrews and Colma Keating 9.Informing ESD: state of environment reporting / Ronnie Harding and Denise Traynor PART IV. MANAGING, REGULATING AND MOTIVATING 10. Straddling boundaries: inter-governmental arrangements for managing natural resources / Peter Crabb 11.Legal perspectives / Gerry Bates 12. EPAs - orphan agencies of environmental protection / Peter Christoff 13. Parliamentary and intergovernmental processes/ Brett Odgers 14. Local government / Su Wild River 15. Marketisation in Australian freshwater and fisheries management regimes/ Jennifer McKay PART V. PEOPLE, POLICY AND PROGRAMS 16.Catchment management arrangements / Sarah Ewing 17. Institutions and processes for resource and environmental management in the Indigenous domain/ Kim Orchard, Helen Ross and Elspeth Young 18. The Landcare experience/ Allan Curtis - PART VI. PERSPECTIVES AND SYNTHESIS 19. The disappointment of the law / Tim Bonyhady 20.Science, research and policy/ Ian Lowe 20. Politics and policy / Robyn Eckersley 21. Economic policy and sustainable use of natural resources / Warren Musgrave and Onko Kingma 22.Reflecting on three decades: a synthesis / Stephen Dovers.

Strategic Environmental Assessment in Australasia provides an authoritative, up-to-date report on the state of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in Australia and New Zealand, at a time of gathering momentum for recognition of SEA as a necessary and legitimate part of natural resources management. SEA is the application of environmental assessment to policies, plans and programs. It seeks to address, as early as possible, and on a par with social and economic impacts, what environmental impacts may occur, and what measures should be taken to avoid or ameliorate these impacts. In Australia and New Zealand, SEA remains the poor relation to project related environmental impact assessment (EIA) with the result that project related EIA still commonly takes place in a vacuum of strategic and cumulative environmental assessment. This book examines: What SEA is, and how it relates to other tools; the need for SEA, and how it can influence decision-making; how SEA works, and the principles on which it is based, the different approaches that must be taken, and the methods that may be deployed; and procedural requirements within countries, and internationally. Contents: Part I. SEA and Sustainability: 1. Strategic environmental assessment: an international overview / Simon Marsden; 2. Too deep a SEA? Strategic environmental assessment in the era of sustainability / Stephen Dovers Part II. Legal Frameworks: 3. Strategic environmental assessment and fisheries management in Australia: how effective is the Commonwealth legal framework? / Simon Marsden; 4. Strategic environmental assessment: legislative developments in Western Australia / Jim Malcolm -- Part III. SEA of Policies and Plans: 5. Applying SEA to policy-making: the policy cycle model and the Queensland Policy Handbook / Lex Brown and Tracey Nitz; 6. Requirements of European tiered planning systems: SEA approaches and tools of general application / Thomas Fischer -- Part IV. Links with Other Environmental Management Instruments: 7. Linkages between project-based EIA and the use of 'ad hoc' SEA for Australian coastal development / Nick Harvey; 8. The Oceanport integrated assessment experience: what role for SEA in Tasmania? / John Hayes -- Part V. Applications and Perspectives: 9. The Australian Regional Forest Agreement process: a case study in strategic natural resource assessment / John Ashe; 10. Strategic environmental assessment: a business perspective / Steven Münchenberg; 11. All at SEA? Strateguc environmental assessment in New Zealand / Jennifer Dixon; 12. Conclusions: prospects for SEA / Simon Marsden and Stephen Dovers.

There is increasing recognition that the Australian rural sector needs to develop and implement sustainable agricultural practices. However, there are debates over what these practices might be, and how best to develop them and maximise their adoption. These research, development and extension/commercialisation (R,D&E) issues are not new. Over one hundred years ago it was recognised that farmers continued to be engaged in practices which were inconsistent with the scientific facts. At the same time, researchers often failed to recognise that the practices that farmers did use were appropriate, albeit for reasons that were not well understood at the time. Over the past two decades, a progression of models of research and development and extension has been advanced to guide researchers in R,D&E, yet the concerns continued to be voiced that agricultural R,D&E does not properly serve its constituency (Jiggins 1993; Scones and Thompson 1994; Vanclay and Lawrence 1995). We believe that past attempts to improve technology transfer have been at least partially successful, that is, within the societal and knowledge context that they were being developed and implemented. However, the knowledge base and societal expectations have changed, leading to demands for higher levels of performance by agricultural R&D scientists to develop sustainable farming practices that are adopted.

Part I. Introduction to social assessment in natural resource institutions: [1]. Social assessment in natural resource management: promise, potentiality and practice Part II. Institutionalising social assessment in the global context: [2]. The international institutionalisation of social impact assessment; [3]. Institutionalising social assessment at the World Bank; [4]. The institutionalisation of social assessment in South Africa: the post-apartheid window of opportunity; [5]. Assessing environmental justice: social assessment lessons from the California Energy Commission's sitting process Part III. Institutionalising social assessment at the national level: [6]. Social assessment in New Zealand resource management; [7]. Limitation and opportunity: the institutional basis for social assessment in natural resource management in Australia; [8]. Social assessment and resource management at the Australian federal level: trapped in an epistemiological corner?; [9]. Reframing the nature and scope of social impact assessment: psychological and social (psychosocial) impacts Part IV. Institutionalising social assessment at the provincial level: [10]. Institutionalising social assessment in Queensland: the Social Impact Assessment Unit 1993-1996; [11]. The Western Australian Social Impact Unit 1989-1993: nicety or necessity?; [12]. Social assessment in New South Wales and the 2000 Olympics: a great leap forward? Part V. Institutionalising social assessment at the local level: [13]. Social impact assessment in the Australian Capital Territory; [14]. Institutionalising social impact assessment in Australian local government: a practitioner's perspective from Brisbane City Countil, Queensland; [15]. Social impact assessment at the local government level in New South Wales, Australia: the Lismore City Council experience Part VI. Institutionalising social assessment at the sector level: [16]. The Australian urban water industry; [17]. Social assessment in the tourism sector in New Zealand; [18]. Hastening the evolution of Australian rural industry policy: social impact assessment in a broader context; [19]. Social impact assessment in New Zealand natural resource management research institutions; [20]. Social assessment in the Australian forest sector; [21]. Social assessment and indigenous peoples: Aboriginal versus bureaucratic agency Part VII. Conclusions: the way forward: [22]. Conclusions. Social assessment, natural resource institutions and the future.

Across Australia, people working the land are taking the next steps toward sustainable land management. This is in response to widespread acknowledgement that poor native vegetation management is affecting the economic well being of whole communities through decline in farm productivity, and is causing biodiversity loss, ecosystem decay and loss of habitat. Local government is in a powerful position to establish incentive schemes that encourage private landholders to become partners in conserving biodiversity, particularly remnant vegetation, as part of sustainable land management and farm production. Incentives are part of an integrated approach that includes planning, regulation, education, and encouragement of community participation in a partnership between private landholders and governments. Broadly speaking, the offer and take-up of financial assistance is an acknowledgement that the community, through local government, is willing to help with the cost of conserving biodiversity on private lands

In 1994 a national program of research and development was established by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, now part of the Biodiversity Group of Environment Australia (EA), and the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC) to devise improved methods of managing bushland. Native vegetation provides many benefits and services to agriculture, helps maintain the health of land and water, and provides a home for Australia’s unique biodiversity. Given the integral role of native vegetation in sustainable land management, it is important to understand the ecological, social and economic factors that have an impact on the conservation and management of this increasingly scarce resource. With this in mind, the EA/ LWRRDC National Remnant Vegetation R&D Program (hereinafter called ‘the Program’) has focused on tree-dominated ecosystems on the highly cleared regions of southern Australia, where private land ownership and management occurs across much of the landscape. When the Program started, pressing needs for R&D were identified in these regions. The major goal of the Program is to assist government agencies, community groups and landholders to better manage and protect remnant native vegetation through the application of improved knowledge and understanding gained from research, with a strong emphasis on practical outcomes. To help achieve this goal, the Program focused on three major aspects — ecological research, socioeconomic research and six, State-based regional pilot planning projects. Several important insights into the conservation and management of remnant native vegetation have arisen from research undertaken in the Program — and the range of communication activities at the project level has been varied and extensive. This publication focuses on the Program level, synthesising the key findings and messages across the broad range of projects, and setting them in the wider context of other research undertaken on these topics.

This wide ranging review includes research on salinity, soil conservation, water quality, biodiversity, wood production, crop yields, infrastructure damage and carbon sequestration. It also encompasses the success or otherwise of programs directed at changing people's behaviour in relation to conservation programs and suggests areas in need of further research.

The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) established the Community Nature Conservation (CNC) Extension Network in 1998 to assist landholders, community groups and local governments with nature conservation planning and management on private and leasehold land in Queensland. The network now includes 17 regional extension officers, six Bushcare facilitators, seven Land for Wildlife coordinators and seven NatureSearch coordinators. CNC staff work across 12 bioregions with diverse ecosystems and varying levels of landholder commitment and capacity to manage and protect areas of habitat. Nature conservation on private and leasehold land in Queensland (more than 90% of the state) has become critical for the survival of many plant and animal species, and their associated ecosystems. The conservation status of Queensland’s bioregional ecosystems currently shows that 32% of the total number of regional ecosystems are either ‘endangered’ or ‘of concern’. The new Vegetation Management Act 1999 protects ‘endangered’ ecosystems and those vulnerable to land degradation, and seeks to voluntarily protect ‘of concern’ ecosystems through a regional vegetation planning process. Only by working with landholders to encourage and enable them to retain or sell high conservation value areas, and manage other areas sustainably can Queensland prevent further loss of its natural heritage. In 1997 the ANZECC Working Group on Nature Conservation on Private Land identified best-practice initiatives and principles for achieving ownership and involvement of landholders in nature conservation on private land. These include building relationships with landholders; incorporating best practice nature conservation into existing extension and planning programs, and focusing on outcomes, monitoring and evaluation. The QPWS Community Nature Conservation extension program has developed an integrated framework for extension delivery based on these principles and meeting a range of client needs. In working with landholders and the community it is important to recognise the social, historical and financial context in which they live, and factors influencing their willingness and capacity to embrace conservation. Market research was conducted in 1999 using focus groups and a phone survey of 716 landholders across 12 industries to give a statewide, regional and industry perspective on issues affecting landholders in relation to nature conservation on their properties, their information needs and communication preferences. Findings revealed that landholders require access to practical, locally relevant information using best practice examples as well as financial assistance to carry out integrated nature conservation practices. Threats to production such as weeds, feral animals, tree regrowth and water quality were considered more important than habitat decline or endangered species, although there was considerable interest in wildlife issues. The challenges ahead for Community Nature Conservation in Queensland are to demonstrate the links between biodiversity conservation, threatening processes and farm viability; increase the availability of incentives; and build on existing landholder stewardship and experience.

This report presents ideas for achieving better community consultation, as a strategic arm of the reform of the plan making system in NSW. Note: much of the material in this two-part report is drawn from previous work by Carson & Martin (1999) and Carson (1999). Part 1: Principles This section identifies a range of challenges facing plan makers as they try to integrate public input into the plan making process, and help communities identify with and participate in complex procedures of government. This section has three main ideas: i) Engaging principles for effective community consultation ii) Collaboration iii) Basing consultation methods on a four-step model This section also deals with 'selection of participants' and the specific challenges at State, Regional and local levels. Part 2: Procedures This section describes a range of consultative methods which complement the Principles from part 1. Both the Principles and Procedures offer flexible options for enhancing community consultation in the planning process.

This paper describes the social attributes of the landcare movement, how community landcare works and the implications for the continued growth of community landcare. Landcare has become a pervasive term among farming communities interested in dealing with land degradation. Despite this it is not coherently defined and consequently it is interpreted in a range of manners by a range of stakeholders. Accordingly we consciously differentiate between three elements of landcare; namely: the National Landcare Program, community landcare and the landcare movement. The National Landcare Program (NLP) represents governmental or bureaucratically defined landcare. Since the mid 1980s the NLP has evolved from four small community pilot projects, based on voluntary groups, to a national program funded under the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). Community landcare represents the second element of landcare. We use the term to refer to the network of voluntary community groups that have been established across the landscape. Community landcare represents the most publicly visible manifestation of landcare. The third element of landcare is the broader landcare movement. The landcare movement encompasses community landcare and parts of the NLP. It is a less cohesive collection of individuals, groups and organisations generally concerned about land degradation. A defining feature of the landcare movement is the subscription of its members to a broad landcare ethic. Importantly the landcare movement will include individuals and organisations outside of community landcare as well as those that receive funding through other government funding programs such as Coastcare. There is significant evidence to suggest that community landcare has contributed to changing social norms about land conservation in rural areas. There are now over 4,000 community landcare groups across Australia. These provide a well of information that those in the broader landcare movement can draw upon, while not themselves a part of community landcare. Approximately 37% of broadacre and dairy farmers had a property representative who was a member of a community landcare group in 1998-99 with the highest level of membership reported in the wheat-sheep and pastoral zones. However, non-members attended training activities and accessed relevant land management information, highlighting the importance and influence of community landcare on the broader landcare movement. In the three years to June 1996, 59% of broadacre and dairy farmers participated in at least one community landcare training activity. While community landcare and the wider landcare movement have raised awareness of resource management issues among the rural community, adoption of more sustainable farming practices has been slow. Motivation, financial incentives, financial and skill capacity and appropriate technology are necessary before behavioural change can be expected. The operation of community landcare recognises the effectiveness of groups in promoting self-reliance, developing social capital and social norms that encourage the adoption of sustainable farming practices addressing on-site degradation. This participatory approach has become the dominant policy paradigm in Australia. Community landcare has contributed to this community development and social capital building by increasing awareness, extending skills and knowledge and developing networks that are conducive to the acceptance of sustainable farming practices. However, the direct causal relationship between the transformation of this social capital into the adoption of sustainable farming practices is less clear. In particular the links between pro-environmental values and attitudes, as furthered through community landcare and the landcare movement, and pro-environmental behaviour is tenuous. The continuing growth of community landcare will be dependent on the strength of community support for community landcare and for the landcare movement. This will depend on government support, general community support (including non-rural support) and the maintenance of rural enthusiasm for the landcare movement. The latter is likely to require the availability of realistic technical options and financial incentives. The critical element of continuing government support, and therefore the growth of community landcare, will be the ability to maintain wider community support in non-rural areas. Community landcare has been successful in achieving change, although this change has been incremental. It has been constrained by two major factors: managing common property issues on an individual property rights basis, and structural limitations including limited capital and human resources in rural areas, and a lack of feasible technical solutions to degradation issues which can be easily and profitably implemented on farms.

This paper examines results from an Australia-wide survey of multicultural policies at the level of local government. Multicultural policies have the potential to advance a local 'politics of difference', recasting governance, such that citizenship is expanded. Multicultural policies are described in terms of access and equity programmes, community relations policies and symbolic representations of cultural diversity and inclusive citizenship. The questionnaire survey of managers within local government revealed a broad array of good practices. However, there remained significant service gaps for residents of non-English-speaking backgrounds as well as a general reluctance to tackle instances of serious intercommunal tension. There was also some hesitancy to embrace the notion of a diverse local citizenry.

This paper is concerned with the democratic governance of public environmental resources. The paper examines the use of bioregional assessment in Australia as a means of resolving long-term, multilateral, and acrimonious conflict over native forest use and management. Reflecting on recent theorizing in environmental management that has pivoted on concepts of democracy, including representations of the public interest and mechanisms to promote public deliberation, the paper identifies the anti-democratic implications of decentralized environmental governance. In particular, the paper demonstrates how uncritical engagement of civic actors can lead to development of privatized, corporatist style agreements that fail to reflect diverse values and interests. It concludes by arguing that calls for decentralization and devolution of many areas of state responsibility fail to acknowledge the potential for powerful actors in a diverse civil society to subvert, rather than promote, democratic processes and outcomes.

An antinomy is a contradiction between a principle and its opposite, where there is a compelling case for accepting both. This thesis adopts the antinomy of local-state government in Australia as its central conceptual theme, describing it with the following defensible, but contradictory principles that: • Australian local governments are statutory agencies of Australia’s state governments, with no power or authority beyond that which is ascribed to them by the states (the outside-in principle); and • Local governments in Australia are independent agencies whose authority and interests transcend their regulatory powers by nature of their attachment to their local area (the inside-out principle). The central conceptual theme of the antinomy of local-state government shapes the overall thesis, as well as providing the focus for its introduction and conclusion. The thesis induces elements of the antinomy and structures much of its discussion around these key issues. It does not try to prove or resolve the antinomy. Instead the thesis uses the concept to explore and develop its second complex theme - the practical and applied experience of Australian local governments (LGs) as they attempt to deliver beneficial environmental outcomes.

This paper examines developments and dilemmas in relations between local governments and indigenous Australians over the last quarter century. It establishes a framework for analysis based on differences in local government systems, circumstances and populations. It then examines two sets of developments in relations which have occurred in contrasting circumstances. The first is ongoing poor relations in incorporated local government areas, focusing on a complex of issues surrounding landownership, rates and services. The second is discrete predominantly Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander communities in sparsely settled areas themselves becoming local governments. Both of these sets of developments are seen as being accompanied by significant dilemmas. In relation to the first, the major dilemma identified is how superordinate levels of government should best proceed in attempts to improve relations. In relation to the second, major dilemmas are identified relating to indigenous 'ownership' of the resulting local government structures and the weakness of the financial position of these newly emerging local governments. The paper suggests there have been some very significant and quite complex developments in relations between local governments and indigenous Australians over the last quarter century. However, these developments have only tentatively moved relations in a more positive direction, if indeed at all. Poor relations still predominate between local governments and indigenous Australians.

This report investigates the skill and training needs of regional groups responsible for developing Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) plans under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and the extension of the Natural Heritage Trust. It also considers broader issues related to capacity building for INRM. Report findings are based on a literature review, key informant interviews and responses from members and staff of regional groups to a training needs questionnaire that included a skills template (a listing of skill and knowledge areas relevant to INRM planning). The report identifies two major approaches to learning: hard and soft systems approaches. The former tends to focus on the need for scientific and technical expertise (specialised knowledge), and often seeks universally generalisable laws and solutions. The second focuses on involving a range of players and different knowledge systems, and tends to emphasise that solutions are context-specific and may need to be re-negotiated over time. A soft systems approach is advocated, focusing on INRM planning and capacity building as human activities taking place in particular social, geographical and institutional contexts.

This paper describes some of the insights gained by the authors in the development of an approach for systemic sustainability analysis to arrive at sustainability indicators (SIs) for development. The paper describes the problems of perspective and mindset which such research involves, and the necessity to rethink both the purpose and content of SIs as well as taking into account the perspective of the researcher. The result represents a new perspective on the classification of SIs that serves to highlight one of the central difficulties encountered so far with these tools, namely their limited use in management and the setting of policy. We argue that this is due in large part to the nature of the SI frameworks created to date, even if carried out in a 'participative' mode. The framework itself is representative of a mindset or paradigm of understanding which, when applied as the sole device, we find less than adequate in achieving useful SIs. SIs arising from this mindset tend to be quantitative and explicit (clearly stated and with a defined methodology), while in practice most people's and institutions' use of SIs tends to be more qualitative and implicit ('understood' to apply in vaguer terms, with no defined methodology). These two paradigms or mindsets are represented here as the reductionist and the conversational : the first is characterised by quantitative and explicit indicators (or QNE* indicators); and the second is characterised by qualitative and implicit indicators (QLI* indicators). We suggest that what is required is far more research on the evolution and use of QLI* SIs (and the mindset which is necessary to develop them), in order to best appreciate how they can be hybridised with the QNE* group. The result may be termed 'multiple perspective' SIs.

This article reports on a study that explores what factors influence the decisions of New England local governmental officials (LGOs) to participate (or not) in regional collaborative environmental policymaking on watershed management planning. Q methodology was used to find coherent narratives that captured basic perspectives LGOs took toward the opportunity to participate in a watershed management planning process. Five perspectives emerged from the factor analysis. One centers on strategic calculations of influencing outcomes. A second weighs interest and available time. A third looks at how the community would benefit. A fourth is rooted in one's personal environmental ethics. And a fifth attempts to match skills and experiences with the needs of the policy endeavor. In conclusion, we found that LGOs make their decision to participate or not based on three general considerations: They feel they can help make a positive difference; they see working on the problem as consistent with their environmental ethic; and it is in their community's interest that they participate in the process.

Examines the multi-disciplinary task of managing protected areas. This second edition of this authoritative text has been updated, expanded, and includes new Australian and international case studies. Contents Ch.1. Australia's natural heritage Ch.2. Social context Ch.3. Concept and purpose of protected areas Ch.4. Process of management Ch.5. Establishing protected areas Ch.6. Obtaining and managing information Ch.7. Management planning Ch.8. Finance and economics Ch.9. Administration-making it work Ch.10. Sustainability management Ch.11. Operations management Ch.12. Natural heritage management Ch.13. Cultural heritage management Ch.14. Threats to protected areas Ch.15. Incident management Ch.16. Tourism and recreation Ch.17. Working with the community Ch.18. Indigenous people and protected areas Ch.19. Linking the landscape Ch.20. Marine protected areas Ch.21. Evaluating management effectiveness Ch.22. Futures and visions

Agriculture and Resource Policy: Principles and Practice

Since 1857 new Australians have constructed many thousands of weirs (3600 in the Murray–Darling Basin alone) and floodplain levee banks, 446 large dams (>10 m crest height) and over 50 intra- and inter-basin water transfer schemes to secure water supplies for human use. Flow regulation has changed the hydrology of major rivers on three temporal sales–the flood pulse (days to weeks), flow history (weeks to years) and the long-term statistical pattern of flows, or flow regime (decades or longer). The regulation of river flows is widely acknowledged as a major cause of deteriorating conditions in many Australian river and floodplain ecosystems. In response to mounting environmental concerns, all states, territories and the Commonwealth Government have committed the nation to the principles of ecologically sustainable development and a process of national water reform. Rivers and wetlands are now recognized as legitimate ‘users’ of water, and jurisdictions must provide water allocations to sustain and where necessary restore ecological processes and the biodiversity of water-dependent ecosystems. Progress in the protection and restoration of river and wetland water regimes has been significant, with over half of mainland aquatic systems designated to receive water allocations of some sort. However, exactly how much water they will receive or retain is unclear from the data available. Moreover, the ecological outcomes and benefits of water allocations are not yet apparent in most aquatic ecosystems, with the exception of certain waterbird breeding events, the disruption of algal blooms in weirs and improved fish passage. After reviewing these issues, this paper addresses two vital questions: How much water does a river need? and How can this water be clawed back from other users? Studies conducted to date in Queensland rivers suggest that around 80–92% of natural mean annual flow (and other ecologically relevant hydrological indicators) may be needed to maintain a low risk of environmental degradation. In the Top End of the Northern Territory, some rivers are maintained at 80% of their natural flow, whereas two-thirds of various flow indicators has been proposed as the restoration target for the River Murray, and 28% of natural mean annual flow has been negotiated for the Snowy River in Victoria. To validate these estimates, ecologists are seeking opportunities to turn river restoration projects into long-term hypothesis-driven experiments in ecological restoration, and the funding, time and institutional support to do so. The paper ends with some suggestions to advance the water reforms and achieve higher levels of water allocation for the environment.

Sustainability in agricultural landscapes means that the use and management of ecological potential does not reduce its capacity to meet society’s future environmental, social and economic needs. Using this description of sustainability, Australian agricultural systems are far from sustainable at present. Removal of vast areas of native vegetation and the introduction of inappropriate agricultural systems have resulted in extensive loss of native biota, loss of productive agricultural land and decline in rural society. These degrading trends will continue to worsen unless Australian society intervenes on a broad scale. For example, to stop water tables from rising with attendant salination of soil, it has been estimated that over 30 billion perennial trees and shrubs will need to be planted. How does a society generate the will and ability to tackle environmental problems at this scale when its community and institutional boundaries do not reflect ecological reality? This paper discusses these issues and concludes with a 10-point plan to guide development of an approach to sustainable landscapes.

Economic and social considerations in natural resource management include the need for community participation and a greater appreciation of social and economic processes in understanding environmental problems. It is anticipated that new frameworks will guide these inclusions and redirect planning and management activities to achieve environmental sustainability. This paper examines issues of participation and the nature of ‘community’ through an analysis of relevant natural resource management policy documents and a case study of a public drinking water supply catchment in Western Australia. The findings indicate that if NRM strategies are to be successful, then a much wider and more inclusive view of community is needed, one that fully captures the different stakeholder groups beyond farmers, such as town residents, indigenous people, and those involved in other land uses. We need strategies that can accommodate differences within and between communities.