Public/private partnerships and protected areas: selected Australian case studies

Transcription

1 Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 Public/private partnerships and protected areas: selected Australian case studies R. Thackway *, K. Olsson Environment Australia, GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia Received 23 February 1998; received in revised form 7 December 1998; accepted 29 January 1999 Abstract The conservation of biodiversity requires a signi cant commitment by governments, industry sectors and the wider community to encourage cultural change across community and industry sectors which ensures a long-term balance between sustainable land management and biodiversity conservation. At the regional level viable biodiversity conservation requires a range of management strategies that may include the establishment of statutory protected areas, a range of off-park conservation management measures and achievable guidelines for ecologically sustainable land management at the landscape scale. Monitoring the performance of protected areas in achieving biodiversity conservation requires a commitment by government to facilitate involvement and participation of the wider community. Four Australian case studies discuss how public±private conservation partnerships are integrating sustainable land management and biodiversity conservation at the regional level. # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Public±private conservation partnerships; Integrated regional planning; Protected areas 1. Introduction Decisions made by individual landholders in one part of the landscape matrix spread effects across the landscape. To provide a context for regional and local planning, and to anticipate these impacts, it is necessary to understand broader landscape patterns and processes and the economic and cultural aspirations of landholders in the vicinity and the region (Bridgewater et al., 1996). Land managers and society must develop a land ethic which is responsive to, and respectful of, the land's inherent ecological functions *Corresponding author. Tel.: ; fax: ; richard.thackway@ea.gov.au and services. Freudenberger and Freudenberger (1994) propose that our relationships with the land must be informed by sound ecological understanding, and that the concept of ecological sustainability must be incorporated into social justice concepts, otherwise justice is short-lived. Planning the conservation of biodiversity needs adequate understanding of environmental, social and economic factors at the regional level. To assess how a region is progressing toward sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation, baselines must be established and monitored. Where there is degradation of pattern, process or both, the changes must be understood and management action undertaken (Thackway and Cresswell, 1997). Given /99/$20.00 # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S (99)

2 88 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 Fig. 1. Interim Biogeographic Regions for Australia.

3 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 89 that no one landholder usually has planning and management control at the regional level this necessitates that key stakeholder groups in the government, community and industry form partnerships to agree on environmental goals and indicators. The protected area system in Australia is the result of 100 years of largely independent and uncoordinated actions (Walton et al., 1992) across the nine jurisdictions responsible for terrestrial protected areas. Historically, protected areas have been selected for their spectacular scenery, naturalness, value for recreation, or as sites for the protection of threatened species (Pressey and Tully, 1994). The resulting conservation estate covers about 7.8% of the land surface (Thackway, 1996a, b), but nevertheless has substantial gaps in representation of ecosystem diversity (Commonwealth of Australia, 1996). The interactions of these `core' conservation areas with their surrounding landscape context has also received relatively little attention. An increasingly signi cant contribution to biodiversity conservation is provided by non-statutory protected areas created by the private sector. These provide another effective means of conserving biodiversity which is a cost-effective complement to the traditional protected area system (Saunier and Meganck, 1995; Thackway and Brunckhorst, 1998). A commitment to the conservation of a representative sample of all major ecosystem-types in Australia (Keating, 1992; Thackway, 1996a, b) has led to the development of the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (Thackway and Cresswell, 1995), (see Fig. 1), and a broadening of the de nition of protected areas to include both statutory and nonstatutory mechanisms. This regionalisation, and its acceptance by public and private sector stakeholders, provides a consistent framework for identifying gaps in the representation of ecosystems in the protected areas and for setting priorities to ll these gaps at the regional and national scale. This paper discusses the importance of integrated regional planning and the value of effective public± private conservation partnerships for establishing a system of protected areas. Four case studies are used to demonstrate the development of such conservation partnerships in Australia. The case studies were selected to include a range of public and private interests and land tenures, involving a dialogue between resource development and cultural objectives and nature conservation values which have as their primary aim the conservation of representative ecosystems across a diversity of biogeographic regions. The case studies provide potential models for developing public±private partnerships in landscapes where there are dif culties in establishing statutory protected areas, and for addressing regional level environmental management issues which require the integrated management of protected areas within the broad landscape matrix. 2. A bioregional framework for protected area system planning Nature conservation is a land use which seeks to conserve and maintain biodiversity, that is, in situ ecological functions and services. The establishment of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected areas is arguably the most effective mechanism for the conservation and maintenance of ecological functions and services across entire landscapes. At the regional scale conservation management should be a component of all resource-utilising land uses, the aim of which should be to maintain and sustainably manage ecological functions and services (Bridgewater et al., 1996; Thackway and Cresswell, 1997). Conservation planning requires the development of exible responses in the face of changing levels of knowledge about the functioning of ecosystems and about processes which threaten the survival or viability of ecosystems and biological communities (Brunckhorst et al., 1998). A bioregional approach to planning re ects a cultural identity with the environment, and provides an integrative framework for cooperation on the preservation of biodiversity. The hierarchical information of IBRA presents planners and managers with a exible and integrating framework for making decisions, and for the implementation of several national strategies including the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992) and the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity (Commonwealth of Australia, 1996). These strategies recognise that partnerships at all levels between government, industry and com-

4 90 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 munity are vital in the quest for integrated sustainable development and conservation. 3. Conservation partnerships 3.1. Protected area case studies Protection of heathlands through community action The Anglesea Heathlands are part of the South East Coastal Plain Bioregion (see Fig. 1), and comprise an area of about 500 ha of native heath and heathy woodland with high species diversity. Coastal heathlands on clay soils in Victoria have been extensively cleared and degraded. The Anglesea Heathlands are the gateway to a regionally signi cant scenic drive dependent for its tourism value on a high level of naturalness. The area has been long valued by the local community for its landscape values. Land tenure is mainly freehold, comprising relatively small blocks managed by private individuals. Conservation became a major issue in 1981 when the local community successfully appealed against a decision by the Local Government Authority to grant a permit to clear the heathland. Most of that land, 36.3 ha, was compulsorily acquired in 1986 with funds provided by non-government conservation organisations and the State conservation agency. In 1988, a further application to subdivide about 50 ha raised the urgency of the need to ensure longterm protection for the signi cant natural and cultural values of the area. The Great Ocean Road Appeal Committee, a community group representing a range of conservation and community organisations, was formed with the aim of raising $1 million to prevent the subdivision by purchase. A public appeal was launched by Trust for Nature in conjunction with the Committee in Trust for Nature is a non-government organisation, the charter of which is to conserve all signi cant areas in private ownership in Victoria through direct purchase or by voluntary conservation covenants. A signi cant role of the Trust is to facilitate land purchase on behalf of State and Commonwealth agencies where the Trust can negotiate with the independence of a private buyer (Whelan, 1997). Through the Trust, the Committee was able to receive tax deductibility for donations and over the period from 1991 to 1994 raised $393,000. Approaches to the State Government to buy the land as part of a nearby statutory protected area were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the Victorian Government was sympathetic to the signi cance of the landscape and considered a number of options: negotiating exchange of land for subdivision approval; a combination of partial financial offset; and refusing development consent. In response to a request for funding, the Federal Government commissioned an independent biological survey of the area to assess its conservation values. Gullan (1993) found that the Anglesea Heathlands were ecologically distinct, and support a oristically rich Heathy Woodland vegetation poorly represented in the protected area system. While the area was now recognised as being of interest for inclusion in the National Reserve System, the value of the land, about $6 million, made purchase unaffordable. An approach developed by the State Planning Department enabled protection of the biodiversity values of the area with only a small government nancial input. A negotiated settlement resulted in the landowner gaining permission to develop 10 of the 225 ha property with controlled housing development to be con- ned to part of the perimeter of that block. In exchange, the Trust was to purchase the balance of that property, being 215 ha, for $500,000. The Federal Government and State Government each contributed $250,000 to the Trust to purchase the property for addition to the adjoining Angahook-Lorne State Park. Thus, 95% of the property was protected for 20% of the value of the land, a highly satisfactory outcome. Government assistance to acquire the 215 ha enabled the Trust to direct its attention to the purchase of other properties in the area with the funds raised from the Great Ocean Road Appeal. In November 1994, Trust for Nature successfully bid $385,000 for 69.5 ha adjacent to the previously purchased area and in subsequent negotiations purchased a further 17.7 ha. A further 14.2 ha on an adjacent property were donated as part of a negotiated planning

5 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 91 approval. In addition to the 316 ha acquired by the Trust, the remaining 130 ha strategically located between the purchased blocks were permanently protected by voluntary conservation covenants. Another block is being investigated by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment as a potential addition to the Park. On 12 February 1997, Trust for Nature formally handed the titles for the area to be included in the Angahook-Lorne State Park over to the Victorian Minister for Conservation and Land Management. Planning controls, the Anglesea Heathlands Special Control Area, have been developed to apply to the whole of the Anglesea heathlands and provide stringent planning controls to limit further development. The protection of the Anglesea heathlands was achieved by an innovative combination of approaches, involving a range of stakeholders and mechanisms. In exchange for the development rights for a very small proportion of the land, a signi cant part of these heathlands has been protected. The approaches taken provide a valuable model for what can be achieved elsewhere in Australia where Government funds for land acquisition are limited. Two features characterise the success of this project and provide a measure of how this approach could be transferred to other similar proposals. First, an effective public education program, undertaken by the community, canvassed wide cross sectoral support by: emphasising the importance of tourism and conservation values at the local, regional, State and national levels gaining a commitment from the local community to raise significant funds effectively lobbying to raise the issue before the State and Federal governments proposing a range of mechanisms for protection which was acceptable to the Federal and State governments, non-government conservation organisations, the community and the landowners. Second, a settlement was negotiated which had public and private bene ts: protection of a plant community through a range of management mechanisms involving both the public protected areas system and voluntary formal conservation measures on private land sustainable resource development giving the property developer the right to develop a limited number of housing sites the achievement of more for biodiversity conservation using unorthodox approaches and compromise than was possible using land purchase alone Integrating public±private protected areas in a pastoral community The Mulga Lands bioregion occurs in the semi-arid rangelands of south-west Queensland and extends into north-western New South Wales (see Fig. 1). The region is dominated by Mulga Acacia aneura vegetation. Grazing of sheep and cattle is the primary land use. Commercial kangaroo harvesting is also a signi cant industry in the region (Sattler, 1993). Land tenure is mainly crown leasehold, with some freehold. Most of the mulga lands' soils are relatively infertile from an agricultural perspective and the combination of small holdings and prolonged overstocking combined with the semi-arid climate has led to extensive pasture degradation (see Wilson, 1997). This has in turn led to severe shrub regrowth and loss of pro tability in many areas. Sattler (1991) observed that there had been a deterioration in the diversity, ecological complexity and functioning of ecosystems of the mulga woodlands. Tothill and Gillies (1992) con- rmed this nding, showing that the pasture-types within the mulga lands are some of the most degraded ecosystems of Queensland. In the early 1990s the Queensland government established a series of public protected areas based on a systematic assessment of gaps in the representation of ecosystems (Purdie, 1985). An analysis by Sattler et al. (1997) showed that 71% of the ecosystems were represented in the protected area system which covered 2.4% of the region. The ecosystemtypes represented well are those which are generally less productive for pastoral activities. Consequently, numerous ecosystem-types continue to be poorly represented or not represented within the region's system of protected areas. These ecosystems generally are the more resource-rich areas such as alluvial plains, river channels and oodplains. Wilson (1997) in an assessment of the compatibilities and

6 92 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 con icts between conservation and resource management activities, found that some habitats and species are more `at risk' of declining biodiversity values through unsustainable pastoral activities, including grazing and vegetation clearing. Two major threatening processes, unsustainable total grazing pressure and tree clearing (regarded by some as shrub regrowth) associated with pasture development, continue to in uence biodiversity decline in the region. Land prices within the region have tended to remain relatively high compared with ecosystem capability and commodity prices. Across the region higher prices are received for those properties with more productive ecosystems. Under these circumstances the cost of securing protection by land acquisition for the remaining 24% of ecosystems is a signi cant constraint. In order to moderate the continuing non-viability of pastoral properties and land degradation the Federal and Queensland Governments initiated a regional strategy to assist Queensland to develop a rural reconstruction package (Williams, 1995). The aims of this initiative were to increase the pro tability of the pastoral industry and improve resource management on the pastoral leases across the region. The package provides social security services, opportunities for amalgamation of small uneconomic pastoral leases into larger viable farming units, and provision of enterprise incentives to bring about lasting land use changes among the stakeholder groups (Rural Partnership Program and Rural Assistance Scheme (DPIE, 1997)). As well as these structural adjustment measures a regional strategy for nature conservation, extending beyond the public protected area system, has been initiated by the Department of Environment with support from Environment Australia (Sattler, 1993; Wilson, 1997). This strategy involves increasing community awareness of the vulnerability of ecosystems and priorities for ecosystem conservation management, and the provision of a range of incentive measures which encourage the voluntary establishment of off-park protected areas on leasehold lands which will complement the existing protected area system (Wilson and Egan, 1996). In order to foster the off-park component a joint Queensland- and Federal- funded pilot scheme was started in 1995 in the mulga lands to establish a series of nature refuges on leasehold land aimed at complementing the biodiversity values already protected in public protected areas. The focus was on the need to protect key ecosystems such as riparian lands, potentially vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of rare and threatened species (Sattler et al., 1997). The process for establishing nature refuges involves negotiating a voluntary conservation agreement with the landholder which sets out agreed conditions for protecting speci c conservation values, while enabling the remainder of the land to be managed for a variety of compatible purposes (Wells et al., 1995). As part of the pilot scheme a range of off-park activities is being implemented including the provision of limited incentive funding. A nature refuge agreement has to be entered into before a landholder can apply to receive incentive funding to address management issues such as fencing for rare and vulnerable species, relocation or control of watering points, and re management. Day-to-day management of the pilot project is being carried out by the Queensland Department of Environment. To date no landholder has expressed an interest in establishing a nature refuge nor in taking up the incentives on offer. Landholders have expressed a number of concerns should they agree to a nature refuge: a loss of capacity to derive a viable income from their land without compensation; a fear that their land in the future may be taken over by the government and declared a public protected area; a fear that indigenous people may make a claim over their land and the land could be handed to indigenous people. Nevertheless, landholders have indicated a willingness to continue to protect selected nature conservation values provided they do not lose control over how they manage the whole property. Further developmental work is continuing. This includes preparation of a package of promotional information, consultation with landholders over key issues such as loss of control and lack of compensation for foregone income, improved inter-governmental consultation and liaison, the need for whole farm planning, and the need for greater involvement of industry bodies to develop and promote mutual solutions for sustainable resource development and nature conservation.

7 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 93 Unless the real social and economic issues facing the pastoralists in the region are directly addressed as part of an integrated South West Strategy for ecologically sustainable resource management, the success of the off-park initiative will not be realised. Once these issues are satisfactorily resolved it is likely that some pastoralists will be more willing to enter into voluntary formal nature conservation agreements, thus establishing a partnership of public and private protected areas across the region. Future similar projects in bioregions comprising marginal pastoral land should consider the need to address the following issues, found to be in uential in the mulga lands: compensation of landholders for foregone income where a landholder agrees to establish a formal voluntary conservation agreement on part of their property a concern on behalf of the landholders that their land might be taken over by the government and declared a statutory protected area if they were to agree to a formal voluntary conservation agreement issues of indigenous peoples making claims for title of the pastoral Crown lease land (see Thackway and Brunckhorst, 1998) the need to encourage landholders to take an interest in the conservation of habitat for flora and fauna and vulnerable ecosystems which occur on their property assistance to landholders to develop integrated property management plans with the aim of achieving sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation industry bodies to become more involved in partnerships at a regional level to develop and promote mutual solutions for achieving sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation Incorporating indigenous ecological knowledge in biological survey The Western Desert Aboriginal people of central Australia occupy a large area crossing the South Australian, Northern Territory and Western Australian borders. The State and Territory administrative boundaries imposed by European settlement divide traditional Aboriginal groupings, but traditional cultural management of the landscape is ongoing and is undertaken irrespective of the overlaid Government jurisdictions. In 1991 a project was initiated jointly by the South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Anangu Pitjantjatjara people to survey and document the ora and fauna of a portion of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands within north-western South Australia from both a western scienti c and an Anangu perspective. The Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands, which are held under inalienable freehold title, encompass around 8,175,900 ha, approximately 8.3% of the State, and include parts of the Central Ranges, Great Victoria Desert, Finke and Stoney Plains bioregions (see Fig. 1). The area is characterised by an arid climate and features active red sand dune ridges and sandplains interspersed by ancient weathered low mountain ranges (see Thackway and Cresswell, 1995). The long-term aim of the project is to establish a cooperative conservation management agreement for the area in partnership with the traditional owners, and one option under consideration is the establishment of an Indigenous Protected Area (Thackway et al., 1997). The project involves biologists working with Anangu Pitjantjatjara coordinators to negotiate selection of survey sites and ensure cultural considerations are taken into account, as well as to record Anangu ecological knowledge and to liaise between traditional owners and the scienti c survey team. The project aims to share Anangu Pitjantjatjara knowledge about the major land units, and the species that inhabit them, as well as to document the ecology and signi cance to Anangu culture of particular species. It also endeavours to document past and current management practices, as a signi cant base layer of information on which to build sustainable land management. While the biological survey work is an important component of the project, just as important is the considerable amount of extension work, which is identifying Anangu land management concepts and bridging some substantial gaps in understanding from both perspectives. Discussions have been held to extend this type of survey into the adjoining States, but success in adjoining jurisdictions has been limited by competing priorities and complex legal and political relationships. While no other State has formally adopted the

8 94 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 approach taken in this project the value of this survey program has been acknowledged and has been considered in potential new surveys in the adjoining jurisdictions. The traditional owners of the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands, while constrained by differences between State laws and government agencies and of cers, take a `regional' view of maintaining their natural and cultural resources. One of the challenges for the future is to foster a new way of working which will encourage all State governments that manage Anangu Pitjantjatjara lands to recognise the need for a truly regional perspective on land management. The project provides an excellent model for other State and Territory governments to design and undertake biological surveys in other bioregions in cooperation with indigenous peoples, where: the land tenure/ownership is not in dispute the government respects indigenous peoples' custodial knowledge and approaches to land management researchers are prepared to invest considerable effort to develop a high level of respect and trust over several years with the indigenous people the government is prepared to fund the salary of bilingual mediators who are mutually acceptable to all parties the research is based on activities and aspirations which are of vital interest to the parties involved recognising they stand to gain improved knowledge and understanding a mutually acceptable settlement is reached regarding the collection and publication of indigenous knowledge prior to the commencement of the survey, and options for the future management and use of the area surveyed involve the local indigenous peoples in all stages of planning and negotiation, leading to benefits accruing to the indigenous communities Bushfire management within and surrounding protected areas Grassy woodlands and savannas cover a broad area of northern Australia. In this environment re is widely used by land managers as the primary management tool for modifying the structure and productivity of the vegetation. The range of land tenures involved includes: nature conservation reserves, indigenous lands, defence lands and pastoral properties. Fire management and its impacts on biodiversity within and surrounding protected areas is poorly understood and documented across the sparsely inhabited savanna landscapes. Studies into the ecological impacts of management imposed res have been undertaken over the past decade in the Pine-Creek Arnhem, Daly Basin and Top End Coastal bioregions (see Fig. 1), which include the Kakadu, Nitmiluk and Litch eld National Parks. Russell-Smith et al. (1997) have found that contemporary re regimes are having a catastrophic impact on re-sensitive communities and habitats occupying sandstone terrain such as rainforest patches, stands of Cypress Pine (Callitris intratropica), and heath. A component of this regional project is the development of a coordinated, consistent approach to assessing, monitoring and managing re regimes in these three protected areas. In order to develop management guidelines and strategies for the long-term maintenance of biodiversity across the savannas of northern Australia, a primary concern is to address issues relating to the documentation and better understanding of the role of re regimes. In that region re management operates at vast spatial scales and observes neither sectoral, property nor political boundaries. Hence, and given also the limited human resources resident in the region, re management issues need to be addressed within a cooperative framework and involve landusers from all sectoral backgrounds. The success of the project in the three protected areas in the Northern Territory has led to a keen interest from two adjacent States; Western Australia and Queensland. Land managers from a range of land tenures from these two States have agreed to expand the project from the Northern Territory to encompass the savannas of northern Australia across the three jurisdictions. Recent satellite monitoring studies in Western Australia and the Northern Territory indicate that vast expanses of the northern Kimberley and Top End regions are burnt annually, typically by intense wild- res late in the dry season. By contrast, on Cape York in Queensland (and as for the more pastorally pro-

9 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 95 ductive savanna landscapes generally) there is growing appreciation that the absence of re is leading to considerable woody species encroachment into open grasslands and woodlands, with resultant effects on associated fauna, especially ground-nesting birds such as the endangered Golden-shouldered Parrot. The re program has the cooperation of a large number of agencies and organisations representative of all major land-use sectors and the rural re management agencies, across all three northern Australian political jurisdictions. In the Top End of the Northern Territory it has led to a greater understanding of the spatial and temporal distributions of wild res, and recognition that landholder groups including pastoralists, defence, local government and indigenous groups are willing to contribute in a process which documents the past (especially traditional Aboriginal approaches) and current re management patterns and practices. Through this approach land managers across the Top End have gained an improved understanding of the roles and impacts of re regimes for the maintenance of biodiversity in different ecosystemtypes. Land managers on adjacent properties are cooperating to develop consistent re management strategies for ecologically sustainable management and the conservation of biodiversity on a range of tenures including nature conservation reserves, indigenous lands, defence training areas, and pastoral properties. This project is assisting land managers to better understand the need to use re appropriately and to understand that a lack of understanding of the need for wild re management may have a deleterious affect not only on their own sustainable resource management, but on biodiversity conservation beyond the border of their property. The following elements make this project a useful model for other bush re management programs: satellite data in the relevant fire seasons over a 10- year period, combined with aerial and ground survey data, were used to detect undesirable trends and threats to key vegetation communities park managers, rangers and researchers worked jointly to develop a practical regional management wildfire plan which included consideration of ecological, social and economic factors good community and neighbour relations were recognised as essential. Neighbours were contacted, informed of the issues and invited to become involved field staff were given responsibility for selecting and setting field monitoring sites, collecting the data and reporting on and modifying management practices researchers worked with park staff in the field to provide local and regional level reporting and to provide feedback and information on other relevant activities in the region, and the approach provided a `win±win' result for sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation at the regional level. It is an indication of the success of this model that the method has been extended to include tropical savanna ecosystems in Western Australia, other areas in the Northern Territory and to the Cape York Peninsula in Queensland. 4. Discussion Increasingly, Australian community groups, government agencies and industry sectors are developing regional initiatives which involve elements of biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource development. An objective of these public±private partnerships is the conservation and maintenance of ecological functions and service at regional scales. For biodiversity conservation to be increasingly recognised as a valid land use within a broader resource development agenda, governments, industry and the wider community need to accept a broader de nition of protected areas which encompasses the traditional strictly protected areas, and a spectrum of `other effective' conservation management strategies including voluntary conservation agreements and multiple-use managed areas (Saunier and Meganck, 1995; Bridgewater et al., 1996; Thackway and Cresswell, 1997). Before these changes can become accepted at local, regional and national scales institutional and cultural shifts are required. With regard to biodiversity conservation, historically governments in Australia have relied on one conservation management strategy to conserve biodiversity, that is, the establishment of

10 96 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 strict protected areas, for example, National Parks and Nature Reserves. In some biomes, however, such statutory complex challenges of integrated protected areas have failed to re ect local and regional industry and community needs and attitudes, or are poorly designed to meet regional biodiversity conservation objectives (e.g. many of Australia's temperate grasslands, see Specht, 1994). Changing government, industry and community perspectives are leading to a growing willingness to embrace the dual goals of sustainable resource management and biodiversity conservation. Some of these value shifts are re ected in the above case studies, as discussed in the cooperative management of regional issues (e.g. wild res in Northern Australia), participatory planning and management processes (e.g. heathlands in south-eastern Australia), willingness of governments to facilitate the establishment of Indigenous Protected Areas (e.g. north-western South Australia), and growing awareness the value of formal voluntary protected areas on private and leasehold lands to complement statutory reserves (e.g. the mulga lands in south western Queensland). Integrated regional planning issues where resource planning and biodiversity conservation are traditionally seen as mutually exclusive and competing are not amenable to simple solutions. The development of public±private conservation partnerships, including those for biodiversity conservation, requires a structured process (Possiel et al., 1995). These authors de ne a process which includes the gathering and analysis of scienti c information, involves stakeholders in genuine resource development alternatives, and establishes clear and measurable objectives. These elements are common to the four case studies reported above. 5. Conclusion In the past the need to integrate ecological, economic and cultural values in regional planning and management was largely ignored, because it was seen as too dif cult to canvass and gain consensus among the different sectoral interests. Bene ts of public± private conservation partnerships are: coordination and involvement of relevant stakeholders at the landscape level to ensure social, economic and ecological values are supported by the wider community, industry and the government; and integration of community aspirations for biodiversity conservation with sustainable use of our natural resources in the regional context to ensure the longterm maintenance of ecological functions and services. Regional planning and management projects can bring together disparate stakeholders who were previously regarded as protagonists to form new partnerships. Public±private partnerships are likely to be successful where the interests and aspirations of the stakeholders are considered and acknowledged, and where the outcomes involve spin-offs which are mutually bene cial to the regional community. The lessons from these case studies re ect the need to empower the wide array of stakeholders to share in the responsibility of biodiversity conservation and management, the maintenance of ecological processes, and the development and practice of sustainable resource management. It is hoped that land managers, and indeed society as a whole, will develop a land ethic which is responsive to, and respectful of, the land's inherent ecological functions and services. Acknowledgements The above case studies were undertaken with nancial assistance from the National Reserve System Program of the Natural Heritage Trust. The authors wish to thank numerous colleagues for their critical comments on earlier drafts of the case studies. Peter Bridgewater, Jennie Ludlow and Peter Coyne provided critical comments on an early draft of the manuscript. References Brunckhorst, D.J., Thackway, R., Coyne, P., Cresswell, I.D., Australian protected areas ± Toward a representative system. Nat. Areas J. 18(3), 255±261. Bridgewater, P., Cresswell, I.D., Thackway, R., A bioregional framework for planning a national system of protected areas. In: Breckwoldt, R. (Ed.), Approaches To Bioregional Planning, Part 1, Proc. Conf., 30 October±1 November 1995, Melbourne, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, Australia, pp. 67±72.

11 R. Thackway, K. Olsson / Landscape and Urban Planning 44 (1999) 87±97 97 Commonwealth of Australia, National Strategy For Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia, The National Strategy For The Conservation Of Australia's Biological Diversity, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra. Department of Primary Industry and Energy (DPIE), Rural Adjustment ± Managing Change: Mid-term Review of the Rural Adjustment Scheme, Pirie Printers, Canberra, Australia. Freudenberger, D.O., Freudenberger, C.D., Good relationships: Ethical and ecological perspectives on rangeland management. Rangel. J. 16(2), 321±332. Gullan, P., Anglesea Heathlands Conservation Assessment, Viridans, Victoria, Australia. Keating, P., Australia's Environment - A Natural Asset: Statement On The Environment, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Possiel, W., Saunier, R.E., Meganck, R.A., In situ conservation of biodiversity. In: Saunier, R.E., Meganck, R.A. (Eds.), Conservation of Biodiversity and the New Regional Planning, Organisation of American States and the IUCN, The World Conservation Union, USA. Purdie, R.W., Nature Conservation Strategy - Mulga Lands. Assessment of the Bolton and Specht Method for Selecting Nature Conservation Reserves, Report to Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane, Australia. Pressey, R.L., Tully, S.L., The cost of ad hoc reservation: A case study in western New South Wales. Aust. J. Ecol. 19, 375± 384. Russell-Smith, J., Ryan, P.G., DuRieu, R., A LANDSAT MSS-derived fire history of Kakadu National Park, monsoonal northern Australia, 1980±94: Seasonal extent, frequency, patchiness. J. Appl. Ecol. 34, 748±766. Sattler, P.S., Nature Conservation in Western Queensland, Occasional Paper No. 1. Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Brisbane, Australia. Sattler, P.S., Towards a nationwide biodiversity strategy. In: Moritz, C., Kikkawa, J. (Eds.), Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania, Surrey Beatty, Sydney, Australia, pp. 313±325. Sattler, P., Morgan G., Wilson, B., Integration of bioregional conservation planning with sustainable management: Examples from coastal lowlands and rangelands of Queensland. In: Hale, P., Lamb, D. (Eds.), Conservation Outside of Nature Reserves, Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland, Australia, pp. 49±61. Saunier, R.E., Meganck, R.A. (Eds.), Conservation of biodiversity and the regional planning, Organisation of American States and the IUCN, The World Conservation Union, USA. Specht, R.L., Biodiversity and conservation. In: Groves, R.H. (Ed),. Australian Vegetation, Chapter 18, pp. 525±555. Thackway, R., 1996a. Approaches for identifying and selecting terrestrial protected areas in Australia as part of the national reserve system. In: Thackway, R. (Ed.), Criteria for the Identification and Selection of a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, Proc. technical meeting held at the South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre on 22±23 April 1996, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Thackway, R., 1996b. The national reserve system - towards a representative system of ecologically based reserves. In: The 1996 Commission for National Parks and Protected Areas Regional Conference: Australia and Pacific Regions, Australian Nature Conservation Agency and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney. Thackway, R., Brunckhorst, D.J., Alternative futures for indigenous cultural and natural areas in Australia's rangelands. Aust. J. Environ. Manage. 5, 53±65. Thackway, R., Cresswell, I.D. (Eds.), An Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia: A Framework for Establishing the National System of Reserves, Version 4.0, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Thackway, R., Cresswell, I.D., A bioregional framework for planning the national system of protected areas in Australia. Nat. Areas J. 17(3), 241±247. Thackway, R., Szabo, S., Smyth, D., Indigenous protected areas: new opportunities for the conservation of biodiversity. In: Hale, P., Lamb, D. (Eds.), Conservation Outside of Nature Reserves, Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland, Australia, pp 62±73. Tothill, J.C., Gillies, C., The Pasture Lands of Northern Australia. Their Condition, Productivity and Sustainability, Tropical Grassland Society of Australia, Occasional Publication 5. Walton, D.W., Forbes, M.A., Busby, J.R., Just, J., Biological diversity and the essentiality for a national nature conservation reserve system for Australia. In: Biodiversity, Broadening The Debate: A Trilogy Of Discussion Papers. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra, pp. 17±23. Wells, G.G., Williams, R.D., Taylor, P.M., Queensland's `offpark' nature conservation scheme. In: Bennet, A., Backhouse, G., Clark, T. (Eds.), People and Nature Conservation, Transactions of the Royal Zoological Society New South Wales, Surrey Beatty, Sydney, Australia. Whelan, B.R., The advantages of a trust in conservation for private lands. In: Hale, P., Lamb, D. (Eds.), Conservation Outside of Nature Reserves, Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland, Australia, pp. 190±195. Williams, R., The south west strategy: an integrated regional adjustment and recovery program for south west Queensland and the Western Division of New South Wales. In: Page, M., Beutel, T. (Eds.), Ecological Research and Management in the Mulga Lands, University of Queensland, Gatton, Australia, pp. 13±18. Wilson, B.A, Compatibilities and conflicts between production and conservation in Queensland Mulga Lands biogeographic region. In: Hale, P., Lamb, D. (Eds.), Conservation Outside of Nature Reserves, Centre for Conservation Biology, The University of Queensland, Australia, pp. 109±114. Wilson, B.A., Egan, S.A., Model for Bioregional Management: Mulgalands South West Queensland - Phase 1. Unpublished final report to the Australian Nature Conservation Agency for National Reserves System Cooperative Program Project N302, Department of Environment, Toowoomba, Australia.