DOCSLIB.ORG

Determining the Effectiveness of Vegetation Management Programs Measures and Methodologies - Literature Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Determining the Effectiveness of Vegetation Management Programs Measures and Methodologies - Literature Review Determining the Effectiveness of Vegetation Management Programs Measures and Methodologies - Literature Review RIRDC/LWRRDC/FWPRDC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (supported by the Natural Heritage Trust and the Murray Darling Basin Commission) and Environment Australia RIRDC Publication No 99/130 RIRDC Project No MS967-43 © 2000 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 0 642 57936 9 ISSN 1440-6845 Determining the Effectiveness of Vegetation Management Programs – Measures and Methodologies Publication no 99/130 Project no. MS967-43 The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186. Researcher Contact Details Centre for International Economics CSIRO GPO Box 2203 Division of Wildlife and Ecology Canberra ACT 2601 Gungahlin Homestead Barton highway Phone: 02 6248 6699 CRACE ACT 2911 Fax: 02 6247 7484 GPO Box 284 Email: [email protected] CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6242 1600 Website: http://www.csiro.au/index.asp RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4539 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Environment Australia Contact Details Department of the Environment and Heritage John Gorton Building Parkes Place Parks ACT 2600 GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Phone: 02 6274 1111 Fax: 02 6274 1123 Website: http://www.environment.gov.au Published in January 2000 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Union Offset ii Foreword Vegetation management has been used as a tool in many land, water, conservation and agricultural improvement projects. This literature review was initiated to survey current knowledge of the biological, physical and socio-economic processes occurring in these projects so that useful indicators linking actions to final outcomes could be identified more easily. 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 report was initiated as part of a consultancy concerned with Measures and methodologies to determine the effectiveness of vegetation management programs. The consultant team consisted of the Centre for International Economics (CIE) and the CSIRO, and was funded by Environment Australia (EA), through Bushcare, a Natural Heritage Trust program, and the RIRDC/LWRRDC/FWPRDC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program. RIRDC's involvement in this project and in the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program, is part of the Corporation's Agroforestry and Farm Forestry R&D Program which aims to foster integration of sustainable and productive agroforestry within Australian farming systems. Most of our diverse range of over 400 research publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: · downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm · purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/cat/contents.html Peter Core Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation iii Contents Foreword iii Contents iv Executive Summary viii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 PURPOSE 1 1.1.1 THE FRAMEWORK 1 2 Biophysical processes — conservation outcomes 5 2.1 INTRODUCTION 5 2.1.1 KEY ISSUES 5 2.1.2 METHODOLOGY 5 2.2 SALINITY 7 2.2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM 7 2.2.2 REDUCING GROUNDWATER RECHARGE 8 2.2.3 INCREASING GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE 9 2.2.4 FACTORS CONTROLLING THE RATE OF WATER USE 10 2.2.5 EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VEGETATION 11 2.3 SOIL CONSERVATION 15 2.3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM 15 2.3.2 SURFACE COVER PROTECTION FROM WIND AND WATER 17 2.3.3 AERIAL COVER PROTECTION FROM WATER 19 2.3.4 AMELIORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF SOIL PROPERTIES 20 2.3.5 PREDICTIVE MODELLING 22 2.4 WATER QUALITY 22 iv 2.4.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM 22 2.4.2 RIPARIAN BUFFERS TO AMELIORATE STREAM FUNCTION 24 2.4.3 RIPARIAN VEGETATION TO STABILISE STREAM BANKS 26 2.5 BIODIVERSITY 27 2.5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM 27 2.5.2 BUFFER STRIPS 29 2.5.3 CORRIDORS 30 2.5.4 INCREASED HABITAT 33 2.5.5 LANDSCAPE STABILISATION 34 2.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT 34 2.6.1 SALINITY CONTROL 34 2.6.2 SOIL CONSERVATION 36 2.6.3 IMPROVING WATER QUALITY 36 2.6.4 CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY 37 3 Biophysical processes — sustainable production 39 3.1 DEFINING SUSTAINABILITY 39 3.2 BENEFITS FROM CONSERVATION OUTCOMES 42 3.2.1 DRYLAND SALINITY 42 3.2.2 SOIL DEGRADATION 43 3.2.3 SURFACE WATER (ON-SITE) 45 3.3 BENEFITS FROM VEGETATION INPUTS 46 3.3.1 SHADE AND SHELTER 46 3.3.2 PEST CONTROL 49 3.4 NEW PRODUCTS FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION 51 3.4.1 WOOD 51 3.4.2 OTHER PRODUCTS 53 v 3.5 OFF-SITE PRODUCTION EFFECTS 54 3.5.1 CARBON SEQUESTRATION 54 3.5.2 INFRASTRUCTURE 56 3.6 IMPLICATIONS FOR INDICATORS 57 3.6.1 CONSERVATION OUTCOMES AND PRODUCTION 57 3.6.2 SHADE AND SHELTER AND PRODUCTION 57 3.6.3 PEST CONTROL AND PRODUCTION 58 3.6.4 NEW PRODUCTS 58 3.6.5 CARBON SEQUESTRATION 60 3.6.6 OTHER USES 60 4 Investigating the socioeconomic impacts 61 4.1 PEOPLE AND INSTITUTIONAL OUTCOMES — DO THEY LEAD TO CHANGE? 62 4.1.1 IS PECUNIARY RETURN THE MAIN INCENTIVE FOR ADOPTION? 64 4.1.2 SURVEY EVIDENCE ON CHANGES IN BEHAVIOUR 64 4.1.3 MEASURING MULTIPLIER EFFECTS 66 4.1.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR INDICATORS 69 4.2 FINAL OUTCOMES: HOW ARE THEY VALUED? 69 4.2.1 BROAD BASED ESTIMATES 70 4.2.2 ON-SITE USE VALUES 72 4.2.3 OFF-SITE USE VALUES: CARBON SEQUESTRATION 76 4.2.4 OFF-SITE USE VALUES: INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE COSTS 78 4.2.5 OTHER OFF-SITE USE VALUES 79 4.2.6 NON-USE VALUES 81 4.2.7 IMPLICATIONS FOR VALUING THE OUTCOMES OF THE PROGRAMS 83 5 Towards indicators – existing indicator programs 85 5.1 SOE REPORTING 85 5.1.1 SCALE OF DATA COLLECTION 85 vi 5.1.2 REPORTING LEVEL 85 5.2 NATIONAL LAND AND WATER RESOURCES AUDIT 86 5.2.1 SCALE OF DATA COLLECTION 86 5.2.2 REPORTING LEVEL 87 5.3 MONTREAL PROCESS 87 5.3.1 SCALE OF DATA COLLECTION 87 5.3.2 REPORTING LEVEL 88 5.4 INDICATORS DEVELOPED BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 88 5.4.1 SCALE OF DATA COLLECTION 89 5.4.2 REPORTING LEVEL 90 5.5 OTHER INDICATOR PROGRAMS 90 5.6 SUMMARY 90 6 Conclusions 91 References 92 vii Executive Summary Many research and management projects involving vegetation management have been carried out in Australia. The RIRDC/LWWRDC/FWPRDC Joint Venture Agroforestry Program has been supporting R&D into agroforestry and farm forestry since 1993. The guiding objective of the program is to integrate sustainable and productive agroforestry within Australian farming systems. More recently, activity in the area of integrating vegetation into Australian farming systems has increased under the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) initiative, particularly through the Bushcare and Farm Forestry Programs. This literature review aims to describe the results of research work on vegetation and its impacts on the biological and physical environment, as well as production and socio-economic outcomes. In keeping with the key outcome areas of the Natural Heritage Trust, the impacts of these projects are reported here against four areas: environment, sustainable production, people, integration and institutions. In each area, a framework linking the processes to outcomes, with relevant indicators for monitoring is presented. Biophysical processes-conservation outcomes Firstly, the review investigates biophysical processes for attaining conservation outcomes, to examine evidence as to whether on ground actions, such as establishing vegetation and/or protecting remnant vegetation, produce desired outcomes, such as reducing watertables and salinity, improving soil conservation and water quality, and protecting biodiversity. There is considerable uncertainty about the links between on-ground actions and conservation outcomes. Further investigation of the biophysical processes for dryland salinity control, in particular, is required. Tree planting in recharge locations can contribute to the control of dryland salinity. Trees use more water, from deeper in the soil profile, throughout the year compared to annual crops and pastures, reducing the amount of water reaching the watertable. Whether this effect is significant enough to halt, or reverse, the process of salinisation depends on the extent of the area that is planted to trees, and the location in which they are planted. Tree planting in discharge areas is not a solution to dryland salinity, but rather a ‘band-aid’ approach to the problem. Modelling may allow predictions about how long it will take for revegetation to exert control over rising watertables. However, it is probable that the rate of the response is dependent on the area that is planted, the location planted, the hydro-geology of the catchment and the species planted. Vegetation can be effective in reducing wind and water erosion of soils. Benefits are maximised through a combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover plants, as well as litter, to protect the soil surface from raindrop splash and to obstruct overland flow.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Gorton Building and Former Communications Centre
    Register of Significant Architecture RSTCA No: R085 Name of Place: John Gorton Building and former Communications Centre Other/Former Names: Administrative Building, Parkes Address/Location: Parkes Place, corner of King Edward Terrace, Parkes, ACT Block 1 Section 35 of Parkes Listing Status: Registered Other Heritage Listings: CHL, RNE, Part of Parliamentary Vista. Date of Listing: 15 December 1994 Level of Significance: Regional Citation Revision No: 2 Category: Government Citation Revision Date: 1 March 2017 Style: Stripped Classical Dates of Design: 1924, 1946, 1974 Designers: G Sydney Jones/Robertson & Marks, Dept of Interior, Dept of Works & Housing Construction Period: 1947-1956, 1977 Client/Owner/Lessee: Commonwealth of Australia Date of Addition: 1977 Builder: 1947 Concrete Constructions of Sydney STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The John Gorton Building resulted from the winning Academic Classical style design in a 1924 Federal Capital Advisory Committee architectural competition for an administrative building. Only the siting and general layout of that design were followed when the building was redesigned in 1946 in the Inter-War Stripped Classical style and completed in 1956. It is a rare large-scale example of a public office building in that style. Key indicators of the style displayed in the building include: symmetrical facades; divisions into vertical bays indicating classical origins; vestigial classical columns; simple surfaces and spandrels between storeys subdued to emphasize verticality. Good use of light wells allows internal office areas to be well lit by daylight. Design elements which retain a high level of integrity are the exterior, foyer, lift lobbies and central corridors. The former underground Communications Centre, added in 1977, is a unique windowless secure environment for Government activities, with design elements, particularly in the foyer, evocative of the period – a mural, luminous ceilings, bright chrome pillars, curved walls, wall hangings by artist/weavers and plant containers.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Management Plan Final Report
    Australian War Memorial Heritage Management Plan Final Report Prepared by Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants for the Australian War Memorial January 2011 Report Register The following report register documents the development and issue of the report entitled Australian War Memorial—Heritage Management Plan, undertaken by Godden Mackay Logan Pty Ltd in accordance with its quality management system. Godden Mackay Logan operates under a quality management system which has been certified as complying with the Australian/New Zealand Standard for quality management systems AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008. Job No. Issue No. Notes/Description Issue Date 06-0420 1 Draft Report July 2008 06-0420 2 Second Draft Report August 2008 06-0420 3 Third Draft Report September 2008 06-0420 4 Fourth Draft Report April 2009 06-0420 5 Final Draft Report (for public comment) September 2009 06-0420 6 Final Report January 2011 Contents Page Glossary of Terms Abbreviations Conservation Terms Sources Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................i How To Use This Report .............................................................................................................................v 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage Management Plan 2015–2020 A
    Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015–2020 A OLD PARLIAMENT HOUSE AND CURTILAGE HERITAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2015–2020 I Acknowledgements This Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020 is based heavily on the previous version; please see a copy of Version 1.0 (2008-2013) for a full list of original contributors. This Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020 (Version 2.0) is the result of a review, including public consultation, and update by Old Parliament House staff. For further information or enquiries regarding this plan please contact: Deputy Director, Business Operations & Heritage Old Parliament House King George Terrace, Parkes ACT 2600 www.moadoph.gov.au Old Parliament House is an agency of the Australian Government © Commonwealth of Australia 2015 ISBN 0 642 75366 0 Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan Version 1.0: Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2008-2013; published 2008 Version 2.0: Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015-2020; published 2015 Maps by Hannah Gason Design and layout by giraffe.com.au Printed by New Millennium Print Old Parliament House and Curtilage Heritage Management Plan 2015–2020 A Director’s foreword We are shaping a fresh role for the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House as a new kind of town square for Canberra and the nation. During Canberra’s early years, Old Parliament House was the social, geographic and political heart of the new Australian capital. In its heyday, the building was like a town within the city of Canberra: it had its own library, post office, barber, carpentry workshop, bars and dining room.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring Newsletter 2016
    Newsletter 2016 Spring Don’t forget! National Recycling Week 7–13 November Come and visit us at Garema place on 11 November. Materials Recovery Facility Tour Wednesday 9 November – 11:30am and 1pm Come along and discover what happens to the recycling from your workplace. RSVP to [email protected] Actsmart Accredited Cleaners Workshop Business Sustainability Expo Is your cleaner Actsmart accredited? Visit the website for more information. After a huge day of seminars, education and networking, the actsmart.act.gov.au Business Sustainability Expo is done and dusted for another year. Dorte’s message Held at a new venue, the Expo featured 45 stallholders and a Welcome to the 2016 spring 30% increase in attendees – our most successful event to date! edition of the Actsmart Industry professionals from around Australia flocked to Business newsletter. Canberra to show off new products and technologies. The This edition highlights Actsmart’s Lighting Efficiency webtool was also launched. This free events and ongoing achievements. tool provides advice about improving the lighting efficiency The annual Business Sustainability of your business. Check out the Actsmart website for more Expo was held in early September at the National Convention Centre information. with 45 great exhibitors. Information and solutions to Lish Fejer from 666 ABC Canberra hosted the main stage improve waste management and assist with energy and and interviewed stallholders throughout the day. She also sat water savings were on display for all. down for a chat with our special guest, Barry Du Bois from Complementing the Expo, the Actsmart for Change Ten Network’s The Living Room.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    1 Introduction The Parliamentary Zone “The Parliamentary Zone will be given meaning as the Place of the People, accessible to all Australians so that they can more fully understand and appreciate the collective experience and rich diversity of this country.” – National Capital Plan. 1.1 Walter Burley Griffin’s plan for Canberra was designed to reflect the values of an emerging nation1 and includes that which has come to be known as the National Triangle. The southern apex of the triangle, known as the Parliamentary Zone, is described in the National Capital Plan as “the physical manifestation of Australian democratic government and home of the nation's most important cultural and judicial institutions and symbols”.2 The institutions within the Zone represent the Australian people, their values and achievements.3 In general terms, the Parliamentary Zone includes the Parliament House site within Capital Circle and extends to the land lying east of Commonwealth Avenue and west of Kings Avenue to Lake Burley Griffin, and the land south of Lake Burley Griffin lying between the two avenues. 1 National Capital Authority, Consolidated National Capital Plan, February 2002, p 285. 2 National Capital Authority, Consolidated National Capital Plan, February 2002, p 29. 3 John Lauder, Submissions, p 132. 2 1.2 The Parliamentary Zone covers a total area of 1,081,048 square metres, approximately 14 per cent of which is taken up by surface parking and 5.6 per cent of which is taken up by buildings. These buildings include the national institutions which consist of Reconciliation Place, Commonwealth Place, the National Gallery of Australia, the High Court of Australia, the National Science and Technology Centre, Old Parliament House and the National Portrait Gallery, the National Library of Australia and the National Archives of Australia4.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Environmental Report
    Darwin 10 MTPA LNG Facility Public Environmental Report March 2002 Darwin 10 MTPA LNG Facility Public Environmental Report March 2002 Prepared for Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd Level 1, HPPL House 28-42 Ventnor Avenue West Perth WA 6005 Australia by URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 3, Hyatt Centre 20 Terrace Road East Perth WA 6004 Australia 12 March 2002 Reference: 00533-244-562 / R841 / PER Darwin LNG Plant Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd ABN 86 092 288 376 Public Environmental Report PUBLIC COMMENT INVITED Phillips Petroleum Company Australia Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company, proposes the construction and operation of an expanded two-train Liquefied Natural Gas facility with a maximum design capacity of 10 million tonnes per annum (MTPA). The facility will be located at Wickham Point on the Middle Arm Peninsula adjacent to Darwin Harbour near Darwin, NT. The proposed project will include gas liquefication, storage and marine loading facilities and a dedicated fleet of ships to transport LNG product. A subsea pipeline supplying natural gas from the Bayu-Undan field to Wickham Point and a similar, but smaller 3 MTPA LNG plant were the subject of a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment process and received approval from Commonwealth and Northern Territory Environment Ministers during 1998. The environmental assessment of the expanded LNG facility is being conducted at the Public Environmental Report (PER) level of the Northern Territory Environmental Assessment Act and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The draft PER describes the expanded LNG facility with particular emphasis on its differences from the previously approved LNG facility and addresses the potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Periodic Report
    australian heritage council Periodic Report march 2004 – february 2007 australian heritage council Periodic Report march 2004 – february 2007 Published by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources ISBN: 9780642553513 © Commonwealth of Australia 2007 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General’s Department, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca Cover images: (left to right): Royal National Park, Ned Kelly’s armour, Old Parliament House, Port Arthur, Nourlangie rock art. © Department of the Environment and Water Resources (and associated photographers). Printed by Union Offset Printers Designed and typeset by Fusebox Design 2 australian heritage council – periodic report The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Minister Australian Heritage Council: Periodic Report On 19 February, 2004 the Minister for the Environment and Heritage appointed the Australian Heritage Council (the Council) to act as his principal adviser on heritage matters with roles and responsibilities laid out in the Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (the AHC Act). Under Section 24A of the AHC Act, Council may prepare a report on any matter related to its functions and provide the report to the Minister for laying before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the day on which the Minister receives the report.
    [Show full text]
  • The North-West Marine Bioregional Plan
    The North-west Marine Bioregional Plan North-west The The North-west Marine Bioregional Plan Bioregional Profile Bioregional Profile A Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the North-west Marine Region Photo credits: Front cover – Whale shark: Glen Cowans. Front insert – Lesser frigatebird: Tom and Marie Tarrant. Humpback whale: Mark Farrell. Olive seasnake: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Back cover – Blowfish: Glen Cowans. Back insert – Trochus: Neil Gemmell, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Flatback turtle hatchling: Scott Laidlaw, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Manta ray: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Inside cover – Grey reef shark: Paradise Ink. Copyright: © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth, available from the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: The Director Marine Bioregional Planning – North-west Marine and Biodiversity Division Edgar Waite Building Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 203 Channel Highway Kingston TAS 7050 Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication. Sourcing: This publication can be viewed or downloaded in full or in sections from: <www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/north-west>.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee ANSWERS to QUESTIONS on NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES 2014-15 Finan
    Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES 2014-15 Finance Portfolio Department/Agency: Department of Finance Outcome/Program: 2/2.2 Topic: Scoping study into buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle Senator: Wong Question reference number: F90 Type of question: Written Date set by the committee for the return of answer: Friday, 10 April 2015 Number of pages: 3 Question: 1. I refer to the announcement on 13 February 2015 that the Government is undertaking a scoping study into the divestment options of buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle. 2. How many staff members are involved with this? Has the Department hired additional staff or contractors to conduct this work (aside from the Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Ashurst adviser staff)? If so can the Department provide details of them please – APS level or SES classifications, part-time/full-time, etc. 3. Who are the current tenants of the John Gorton and Treasury buildings, East and West Block, and Anzac Park East and West? 4. Can the Department describe the current arrangements for these buildings – the Commonwealth owns all these buildings, and tenants pay lease costs? Do the lease costs go back to Finance? 5. Can the Department provide the lease costs for all the tenants of these six buildings? When do these leases expire? 6. Given there are the ongoing works in relation to the John Gorton Building – can the Department provide details of the ongoing maintenance and refurbishment requirements and costs for the other five buildings? 7. Is the Department aware of any restrictions on the use of these buildings based on any heritage requirements? 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Jane Lennon AM
    Submission No. 15 The Secretary Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Re: Inquiry into the administration of the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, the building of memorials of national significance in Canberra. I would like to comment on the issues raised in the terms of reference for your Inquiry. As a preamble however, I’m appalled at the failure of process that has let the current war memorials proposal for Rond Terrace on the north shore of Lake Burley Griffin get to this stage of absurdity when most Australians believe that the Australian War Memorial, one of the early entries on the National Heritage List, is the centre of our national commemoration for all Australian who have served in wars and this is attested to by its continuing high visitation. Australian citizens have since 1974 expected that the Australian Heritage Commission and its successor, the Australian Heritage Council, through their legislative powers would advise government on the protection of the heritage values of places, often the people’s public places. But in this case this has not occurred from my reading of the press reports, and indeed it highlights how the NCA had become a law unto itself seeking to ‘activate’ the foreshores of Lake Burley Griffin by inappropriate developments aimed at increasing tourism. However, the listing of the Parliamentary Vista is only on the Commonwealth Heritage List [see Appendix 1 for its statement of heritage values and cultural significance] rather than the Minister having to exercise the heritage processes of the relevant sections of the EPBC Act as with NHL places.
    [Show full text]
  • Place Details
    Australian Heritage Database Page 1 of 14 Place Details Send Feedback Parliament House Vista, Anzac Pde, Parkes, ACT, Australia Photographs List Commonwealth Heritage List Class Historic Legal Status Listed place (22/06/2004) Place ID 105466 Place File No 8/01/000/0075 Summary Statement of Significance https://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;search=st... 23/08/2016 Australian Heritage Database Page 2 of 14 Design Importance The Parliament House Vista is the central designed landscape of Canberra, that expresses the core of the Walter Burley Griffin design vision for Canberra. It is highly significant for its symbolic representation of the democratic interchange between the people and their elected representatives and its use of the natural landforms to generate a strong planning geometry. It expresses a masterly synthesis and ordering of topographical features and administrative functions to meet the needs of a national capital. The vista landscape embraces the central land axis and part of the water axis and most of the Parliamentary Triangle including the area known as the Parliamentary Zone. The significance incorporates Walter Burley Griffin's vision for the area, as the focus of Commonwealth parliamentary and governmental activity as well as national cultural life. This vision has been partly realised and the place is the setting for major, government, judicial and cultural institutions. The northern extent of the vista of Anzac Parade and the Australian War Memorial, despite differing from the original
    [Show full text]
  • Submission on the Assessment of a Place for the Commonwealth Heritage List - Lake Burley Griffin and Adjacent Lands
    Submission on the Assessment of a Place for the Commonwealth Heritage List - Lake Burley Griffin and Adjacent Lands 1. The place has significant heritage value because of the place’s importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia’s natural or cultural history. Lake Burley Griffin and Adjacent Lands (LBG) has significant heritage value because it is central in the design and history of Australia’s capital city. In 1901 the Congress of Engineers, Architects, Surveyors and Others Interested in the Building of the Federal Capital of Australia, advocated that the Federal capital should have an abundant supply of water to allow the creation of lakes, gardens and fountains. The government surveyor Charles Scrivener, who played a major role in the selection of the Canberra site, gave as one of the reasons for selecting the current site was the opportunity for ‘storing water for ornamental purposes at reasonable cost’. The international design competition launched in 1911 for planning the national capital city required entries to include ornamental water, parks and gardens. Walter Burley Griffin and his wife Marion Mahoney submitted the winning entry with the lake and the adjacent land as the centre piece of their design. The development of Canberra languished until the mid-50s when Prime Minister Robert Menzies decided it needed to expand. An important part of the transformation of Canberra from a small country town into a capital city that Australians could be proud of, was the construction of LBG. Construction commenced in 1960 and was completed in September 1963. Prime Minister Menzies officially inaugurated the lake in April 1964.
    [Show full text]