Negotiating Bushland Conservation

Future Directions The Profiles ince its inception, the Native Vegetation Council • Improved taxation arrangements and other Shas put over 80% of its funding into supporting incentives for landholders who commit to South Australian Heritage Agreement Scheme the ideals of the Heritage Agreement Scheme. long-term biodiversity conservation Peter Dunn, the current Chair of the Council, states: • Heritage Agreement owners will have Introduction 2–8 Mount Lofty Ranges 20–25 greater involvement in determining what is CONTENTS Andrew and Margaret Black, Muntiri, Milang The Native Vegetation Council is just as needed to better support their conservation G C Bishop DIRECTIONS A.H., L.C. & B.J. Lush, Mount Scrub, Waitpinga committed to the program now as it was back efforts. Coral fungus (Ramaria sp.) in Stringybark forest Eyre Peninsula 9–13 at Myponga Leigh and Jan Verrall, Glenara, Hermitage in the early 1980s. As can be seen from this celebration of twenty-one years of Heritage The Native Vegetation Council sees Heritage G.J. Broad, Wiltoo, Lake Wangary Richard and Gwen Willing, Minnawarra, Myponga Agreements, a great deal has been achieved Agreements as being critical in future decades C.S. & T.B. Puckridge, Marble Range, Lake Wangary and the pride that participants have in their for biodiversity conservation across our Brian and Grace Coombs, Pepperwood, Yeelanna Murray Mallee 26–30 BUSHLAND HERITAGE FUTURE The Heritage Agreement Experience bushland is clearly shown by their words. landscape. A.A. & L.H. Eatts, Curtinye, Kimba Doug and Kay Day, Meranwyney, Lameroo W.G., M.E. & W.R. Nosworthy, Lake Hamilton, Sheringa The South Australian Heritage Agreement Scheme 1980– John Eckert, Nappyalla, Langhorne Creek 2002 Some of the future directions that the Council Dedicated landholders, such as those profiled J.L. & M.J. Evans, Spearlands, Mantung supports are: in this booklet, are essential if a great scheme Kangaroo Island 14–16 L.E. & D.N. Stasinowsky, Mantung Prepared by Geoffrey Bishop and Jocelyn Thomas is to become even better. Design by Public Communications, NPWSA, DEH • Greater regional ownership of the scheme Andy and Kate Gilfillan, Creek Bay, Antechamber Bay 31–34 Published by National Parks and Wildlife SA, Department for through regional land management groups South East Environment and Heritage. Robert and Kay Hagerstrom, Kiroka, Flour Cask Bay The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department or the Government of South Australia. David and Mandy Willson, Timber Creek, McGillivray Michael and Joan Gaden, Graythwaite, Lowan Vale • Targeted agreements and incentives for high Verne and Jean McLaren, V. McLaren Reserve, Blackford © Department for Environment and Heritage, 2002: Material in this priority conservation areas publication may be reproduced without written permission provided the Tim and Tanya Milne, Swedes Flat, Mundulla Mid North – Yorke Peninsula 17–19 source is acknowledged. • Management plans for Heritage Agreements, Lachlan and Margo Treloar, Trefold, Minlaton Other landholders 35–44 FIS 16908 – August 2002 developed in co-operation with landholders Ben and Carissa Jeanneret, Jeanneret Wines, Sevenhill ISBN 0 7590 1045 5 Adelaide Hills Council, Lobethal Bushland Park District Council of Mallala, Dublin Parklands Photographs: • Improved information for landholders about Bushland Conservation Pty Ltd (cover) Pale Groundsel (Senecio hypoleucus) in a Heritage Agreement managing their bushland National Trust of South Australia at Forest Range. (opposite) Heritage Agreement adjoining Rudall Conservation Park (in Upper Sturt Primary School, Upper Sturt the foreground), Eyre Peninsula. • A range of Government and non-government Southcorp Wines Pty Ltd, Markaranka, Taylorville Acknowledgements: The assistance of the following persons in the preparation of this organisations providing support to publication is gratefully acknowledged: the Heritage Agreement landholders Future Directions 45 owners who are profiled; Colin Harris, Tim Dendy, Neil Collins (project management), Elspeth Young, Lyndall Goulding, Maria Johns, Chris Morony, Darryl Wickham, and Bush Management Advisers Bryan Haywood, Kylie Moritz, Keith Payne and Andrew West • Increased involvement of pastoral and (Department for Environment and Heritage); Lyn Dohle (PIRSA), indigenous landholders in the scheme Denys Slee (Denys Slee & Associates) and David Robertson (Icarus Design). Photographic sources are acknowledged in the text. Printed on Spicers Monza satin paper, 50% recycled, chlorine free. 45 John Hill MP Minister for Environment and Conservation he Heritage Agreement Scheme turns A cross-section of participating landholders Ttwenty-one this year. This innovative tells the story of how and why they became program pioneered formal ‘off-park’ involved and what their bushland means to FOREWORD conservation in Australia. Not only has it been them and their families. well-supported by South Australian landholders The focus of the scheme has changed over – there are now 1266 individual areas of In addition to individual landholders, the the years. Initially the aim was to protect bushland conserved under the scheme – but scheme has a variety of other participants, as much bushland as possible. This is still aspects of the program have been adopted in including conservation and community important but more resources are now assisting other states and overseas. organisations, businesses, schools and local landholders to manage their bushland. The government, and they too tell their story. provision of fencing and practical advice is now This booklet celebrates twenty-one years of the complemented by management grants and, in scheme and is very much a ‘people’s story’. some parts of the State, volunteer support for landholders. Heritage Agreement areas are important as habitat areas, as links between remnant blocks P J Green/DEH of native vegetation and in conserving the character of our landscape. We need to work together to develop innovative management options for agreement areas. This may well be the focus when other Heritage Agreement owners tell their story in another twenty-one years. 1 BUSHLAND HERITAGE: The Heritage Agreement Experience The South Australian Heritage Agreement Scheme 1980–2002 be cleared leading to an impoverished landscape the protected bushland. It also recommended and continued loss of native species. It revealed the establishment of an Advisory Committee on that parts of the State had less than 10% native Vegetation Clearance. vegetation cover remaining, namely South East G C Bishop (5.1%), Murray Mallee (8.2%), Mount Lofty Ranges This was a significant recommendation and in some Bob and Betty Lewis, Mount George, owners (4%) and Yorke Peninsula (6.4%). ways it was a difficult issue for sectors of the rural of one of the earliest Heritage Agreements INTRODUCTION community. Land clearance was still occurring One recommendation in the report was that in some regions and land development was still incentives should be made available ‘to encourage viewed by many as a means of increasing the State’s his year marks twenty-one years of landowner landholders to retain appropriate areas of native prosperity. Many farmers had spent a good part Tinvolvement in South Australia’s Heritage vegetation in an uncleared state’. In return for of their lives clearing scrub and some had carved Agreement Scheme. The scheme, which conserves the incentives and other assistance offered under productive farms out of the bush and the clearance bushland on privately-owned land, was a first for the scheme, the landowner would enter into a of native vegetation remained a requirement of Australia. There are now about 1000 landholders legal agreement called a Heritage Agreement over many leases. Issues such as biodiversity loss, soil participating in the scheme, with 1266 agreements salinisation and the declining quality of groundwater protecting 561 802 hectares of bushland. supplies were not yet widely talked about. It remains an innovative nature conservation program and has achieved much in its first two By the mid 1970s, South Australia had conserved decades. three million hectares of bushland in 180 National G C Bishop Park and Wildlife Service reserves (approximately Beginnings 4% of the State), but large areas of native vegetation were held in private ownership with little By the mid 1970s, over 75% of the native or no long-term management or protection. There vegetation that occurred in the agricultural was also a growing movement across Australia that region of South Australia at the time of European nature conservation should (and could) not remain settlement had been cleared, as great an extent as purely the domain of national parks. any other Australian State. The report was applauded by some sectors of the A review into the status of native vegetation community and strongly criticised by others who in South Australia was conducted by an interpreted it as a ban on land clearance. The Interdepartmental Committee on Vegetation Adelaide Advertiser on 6 June 1977 in its lead Clearance during 1974–76 and reported to the editorial expressed the hope that the measures Minister for the Environment in October 1976. would ‘be acted on before it is too late’. A series The report, Vegetation Clearance in South Australia, of eighteen public meetings was held in country which was released publicly the following June, suggested that urgent action was needed to restrain the rate of land clearance. Without such Pale

Load more