Section 3: Perspectives from Australia

Urban bioregional planning for working landscapes — Biosphere Reserves revisited Kate Matysek Centre for Environmental Studies Private Bag 78, University of Tasmania, Hobart 7001, Tasmania, Australia [email protected]

ABSTRACT Australia became a signatory to the UNESCO/MAB Biosphere Reserve Program in 1977 and twelve Biosphere Reserve sites were nominated over the following five years. Very little development of the Program followed. Limited success can be attributed to a number of factors including preoccupation by relevant government authorities with protection through the National Park and World Heritage Area designations.

The objective of this paper is to compare existing (old) Australian Biosphere Reserves with the urban and peri-urban (new) Biosphere Reserves. An examination of the theoretical framework of which Biosphere Reserves are a part provides a context for further discussion. The old and new approaches to Biosphere Reserves in Australia are discussed and the principle factor in their success is highlighted. Application of the Biosphere Reserve concept in an urban and peri-urban bioregion is illustrated through a case study of the Mornington Peninsula – Western Port Urban Biosphere Reserve.

This paper argues that two very different approaches are adopted for Biosphere Reserves in Australia. Old designations have floundered in the absence of government support due to little understanding or concern for the concept, or perception of duplicate titles in the case of National Parks or World Heritage status. In contrast, the urban and peri-urban Biosphere Reserve is a community driven initiative, derived at a bioregional level for the long-term fulfilment of mutual directives regarding environmental and social community goals.

The Biosphere Reserve Program provides a framework for achievement of catchment management objectives and incremental conservation practices in working landscapes. The success of new Biosphere Reserves depends strongly upon community drivers and regional visions, Commonwealth dissemination of the Biosphere Reserve Program, and State and Local Government support and prioritisation for integrative local conservation.

INTRODUCTION Australia is one of the most urbanised countries The lack of a delimiter between and bioregion in the world, with more than 85% of the is indicative of the landscape scale as the main population residing in major or . scale of human interaction with the environment. Perhaps as a result of this urbanisation, the A landscape-regional context links multiple spatial connectivity and interdependencies between and temporal scales of biodiversity with human natural, rural and urban areas is gaining greater uses and socio-economic imperatives (Brunkhorst appreciation and attention. Concepts such as 2001). Human systems for environmental the ‘ecological footprint’ have highlighted the management however do not abide by these massive societal dependence on ecosystem spatial scales, tending to focus on the productive support. The ecological footprint of an Australian unit scale that is often politically determined, is around 6 ha per capita, well above the global for example, forestry coupes or local council average of 1.8 ha per capita (Barnett 2001). The Shires. However, sustainability is most usefully impacts of Australia’s urban environments have conceived of at a regional, working landscape extended well beyond city limits. level, as regions are often defi ned by either their

126 Greening the City. ISBN 0-959-77566-8 © Royal New Zealand Institute of Horticulture (Inc.) 2005 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia land use or biogeographical similarity, which in notion of a protected area — to cover whole many cases, renders them equivalent in scale to ecosystems. catchments — the level at which many natural resources are derived (Barnett 2001). A working The objective of this paper is to review old landscape may consist of cropland, pastureland Australian Biosphere Reserves and compare or rangeland, and much of Australia is comprised them to the new application of community- of ‘working landscapes’. These lands provide driven Biosphere Reserves in urban and peri- food, fi bre and many of the resources that are urban regions. This paper provides a theoretical relied upon for everyday use. Lands that support context to the Biosphere Reserve Program. An agriculture are a critical natural resource that outline of the origins of the Biosphere Reserve help sustain people, wildlife and local economies. concept and its central tenets are discussed In fact, much of the wildlife observed whilst along with an examination of the strengths enjoying recreational pursuits is dependent and weaknesses associated with management upon the wetlands, grasslands and bush found and planning frameworks of existing top-down in working landscapes. However, these lands designations. The recent revitalisation of the are not inexhaustible, and communities and Program in Australia is illustrated, in light of a wildlife throughout the nation depend on sound new emphasis on bioregional and catchment management of working lands. management, as well as offi cial recognition under the Commonwealth of Australia Ecosystem function and integrity at a Environmental Protection and Biodiversity bioregional scale are reliant upon a system of Conservation Act (1999). The differentiating protected areas, which should be designed and factor between old and new Biosphere managed to represent and protect biodiversity Reserves is examined, illustrated by a case including the suite of ecological processes, study of the recently declared Mornington communities, species and gene pools. Peninsula – Western Port Urban Biosphere However, the establishment of conservation Reserve (, Victoria). reserves has generally been opportunistic and ad hoc (Figgis 1999). There is a strong and THE THEORETICAL CONTEXT OF BIOSPHERE critical call for strategic bioregional frameworks RESERVES IN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE for planning and management that refl ect nature The failure of individual sectors to solve large- and society, including multi-stakeholder groups scale human-induced environmental problems that strive for the establishment of cooperative has recently led to an increasing interest in programs that address ecological, cultural and collaborative, multi-disciplinary approaches to economic issues at the scale of the regional planning and management. Such approaches landscape (Brunkhorst & Bridgewater 1995). enable a larger pool of resources (economic, social and scientifi c) from which policy makers, Therefore, the challenge for bioregional land managers and natural resources scientists planning, as suggested by Phillips (1997, p. 3) are being asked to create solutions to social is stated thus: and environmental dilemmas beyond the scope of any single discipline. A holistic approach ‘[h]ow can the elements of wild nature to environmental planning embraces both the — its species, genetic traits, populations, natural and built environments, inclusive of habitats, and ecosystems — be maintained people, plants and animals and cumulatively in landscapes that also need to produce these environments form part of the total material goods, environmental services and landscape (Ball 2002). the many cultural, aesthetic and spiritual benefi ts that people everywhere want?’ Integrative ecological development paradigms exist and are well known within their own The answer proffered by bioregional planning is forums (Naveh 2000). However, most of to extend the scale of conservation effort, from these paradigms remain largely unknown or the protected areas — even from the expanded misunderstood within the context of mainstream

127 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia local council, state and federal management natural environments, allowing for habitation, and planning bureaucracies. An example is resource extraction, community and economic the Biosphere Reserve Program. Biosphere development whilst simultaneously allowing for Reserves provide a fl exible paradigm for linking protection of core biodiversity values through many of the world’s outstanding conservation the designation of a buffering zone between areas, centres for basic and applied ecosystem the two. Brunkhorst (2000) argues that there research, and sites for demonstrating sustainable is too little understanding of the relationship economic uses. Biosphere Reserves are defi ned between society and ecosystems at the scale as areas, or trans-boundary regions of terrestrial of biocultural landscapes, which are otherwise and/or marine environments, internationally known as bioregions. For the purposes of this designated by the United Nations Educational, paper, the term ‘bioregion’ follows Brunkhorst’s Scientifi c and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) defi nition, referring to a regional landscape scale to promote solutions for the reconciliation of of matching social and ecological functions as a biodiversity conservation and its sustainable unit of governance for future sustainability that use. Biosphere Reserves are designed to can be fl exible and congruent still with various confront and address the myriad of issues raised forms of government found internationally. A in this process. Three areas of biodiversity nested hierarchy of ecological units such as — conservation, regional development, and ecoregions, bioregions and landscapes can be scientifi c research and monitoring infl uence a powerful tool for planning integrated terrestrial a holistic philosophy toward landscape scale and coastal-marine management. Human human-environment interactions. Davis & interaction with the environment occurs mainly Drake (1983) suggest that because Biosphere at landscape scales, but across relatively short Reserves acknowledge the importance of time periods. The regional scale is the critical resource use along with conservation, they are level at which to reconcile ecological functioning more acceptable in resolving confl icts between with social institutions if novel solutions are to protection and use when strict control over large be developed for natural resource and human areas is not feasible. sustainability. Biosphere Reserves are presently one of the only planning and management The concept of ‘Biosphere Reserve’ emerged frameworks in Australia for human-environment from the Program on Man and the Biosphere integration at this scale. (MAB) of which it constitutes an essential part. MAB was initiated through a resolution passed A concentric structure typifi es the ideal by the Biosphere Conference convened in Paris Biosphere Reserve (Fig. 1). A core area forms by UNESCO in 1968 as an intergovernmental the centre and is an area (or multiple areas) program of research aiming to develop an devoted to long-term protection, according to interdisciplinary scientifi c basis for the rational the conservation objectives of the Biosphere use and conservation of the resources of the Reserve. One or more surrounding buffer Biosphere (Batisse 1982). The Biosphere zones surround the core(s) in which activities Conference represented the fi rst assertion, in an compatible with the conservation objectives intergovernmental context, that the conservation of the reserve may be carried out. The outer of environmental resources could be achieved transition area is devoted to the promotion and alongside their utilisation for human benefi t. practice of . The concept of the Biosphere Reserve World Network was designed to include existing THE AUSTRALIAN BIOSPHERE RESERVE reserves, but with the important difference of PROGRAM extending, in a systematic manner, protection Within Australia, twelve Biosphere Reserves for many plant and animal genetic resources were added to the UNESCO World Network that were not covered. between 1977 and 1982 in all states except Queensland (Fig. 2). In total, the area of Biosphere Reserves fi ll the conceptual Biosphere Reserves represents 1.35% of void between human developments and Australia’s landmass, or 5 692 505 ha.

128 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia

The Biosphere Reserve Program has received State or Territory governments. Declaration limited attention in 25 years of establishment in under the UNESCO/MAB Program was thought Australia, and Cochrane & Muldoon (2000) state to impart an additional recognition to those that the concept, scope and potential of the sites, further emphasising their importance as Program are not widely appreciated. The initial existing national parks or conservation reserves. interest that occurred during the establishment Biodiversity conservation were prime concerns phase did not continue, either in developing of the Program, and was intended to further individual reserves under their new designation, understanding of the biodiverse areas contained or in fostering a coherent, successful national within declarations. Program. Local participation and stewardship was lacking, as was national management. Ten of Australia’s twelve Biosphere Reserves are almost entirely protected areas, managed Old Biosphere Reserves (existing sites) by government conservation agencies (nine The initial phases of the Biosphere Reserve by state authorities and one by the federal Program focused on the more passive and government). Inconsistent management science-based goals for development of a and legislative protection between individual network for global environmental monitoring agencies of existing Australian MAB reserves — preservation of key examples of the world’s posed a signifi cant hindrance until 1999, when distinctive ecosystems, and conservation the Environment Protection and Biodiversity of genetic diversity contained within those Conservation Act (EPBC) was passed, and systems. It was under this set of criteria that provisions were made for Biosphere Reserves most of Australia’s Biosphere Reserves were under legislative protection. The EPBC Act established and according to these goals, were states that the Commonwealth may formulate individually well chosen. However, development management plans for any Biosphere Reserve of the Program at an international level has within Commonwealth areas, and may left many of Australia’s existing Biosphere cooperate with States and Territories to prepare Reserves lacking relevance, through a failure management plans for Biosphere Reserves to incorporate adequate change to keep pace within States or Territories. Such plans must be with international developments, or to adopt the consistent with the Australian Biosphere Reserve Biosphere Reserve designation as a priority. Management Principles, which are set out in the EPBC Regulations. The Act specifi es that the Existing Australian Biosphere Reserves were Commonwealth may give fi nancial assistance declared under the auspices of the federal for the protection or conservation of a Biosphere government, after nomination by individual Reserve (Environment Australia 1998).

ZONE OF COOPERATION

CORE

BUFFER Fig. 1 An ideal Biosphere Reserve. (Adapted from UNESCO / MAB; Biosphere Reserves in a Nutshell; http://

KEY research and monitoring ecotourism housing, businesses www.unesco.org/mab/nutshell. htm).

129 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia

Prince Regent River

AUSTRALIA

Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga)

Unnamed Yathong Bookmark Fitzgerald River SYDNEY Hattah-Kulkyne and Murray-Kulkyne Kosciuszko MELBOURNE Croajingolong Morning Peninsula and Western Port Wilsons Promontory

Macquarie Island

Biosphere Reserve 1000 km

Fig. 2 Locations of Australian Biosphere Reserves.

The status of Australian Biosphere Reserves longest standing designations illustrates vary from site to site, with some reserves such limitation. The South-West National more closely fulfi lling the requirements of the Park Biosphere Reserve (Tasmania), which Statutory Framework for Biosphere Reserves was declared during the early fl ourish of the than others. Many reserves are limited by Program, was offi cially revoked in February geography in their ability to participate in all 2003. This reserve is the fi rst Australian aspects of the Biosphere Reserve Program Biosphere Reserve to be de-listed. One of the (Parker 1993). Variations in local circumstances major problems associated with the listing of the such as land use, tourist numbers to the core South-West was that existing National Park and areas (National Parks), population and local World Heritage Area designations competed governance, impact upon the degree to which with Biosphere Reserve status. Even if only in a site may function as a Biosphere Reserve. theory, the multiplicity of designations for the Due to the long history of the designation and region was considered problematic (G. Copson management of National Parks and World pers. comm. 2003). The diffi culties experienced Heritage Areas, and associated wilderness in in applying Biosphere Reserve principles in the Australia, Biosphere Reserves are often viewed South-West are common to other Biosphere as superfl uous, illustrated by the management Reserve designations similarly compromised of these areas under the auspices of their through multiple protected area designations. respective National Park Management Plans and managers (Parker 1993). In contrast, the most successful Australian Biosphere Reserves are undoubtedly those that Despite statements regarding the guidelines were designated under a federal government and benchmarks for Biosphere Reserves ‘model program’ — Bookmark Biosphere contained within the EPBC Act, there is a Reserve and the Fitzgerald River National strong degree of limitation in some Biosphere Park. These Biosphere Reserves received an Reserves. The de-listing of one of Australia’s advantage as recipients of seed funding and

130 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia assistance from Commonwealth and State The objectives of the MAB Urban Group are to: authorities. This aid has not been extended to other Australian Biosphere Reserves, and as a • Identify contributions that the Biosphere result, others do not feature as prominently or Reserve concept have made or could make successfully in the Australian Network. in urban planning and management, including in the context of the Convention on Biological New Biosphere Reserves (urban and peri- Diversity with its focus on the ecosystem urban) approach Illustrative of the new application of Biosphere • Examine if there is, or should be, a place for Reserves are those declared in bioregions urban areas and cities in the World Network containing urban areas. Biosphere Reserves of Biosphere Reserves (beyond serving as can encourage a regional view of sustainable transition areas) development and strategic planning, • Explore alternative ways and means of recognising that urban planning and greater recognizing selected cities, or parts thereof, bioregional management cannot be separated. as sites that exemplify the Biosphere Reserve The emerging new generation of Biosphere model Reserves are fundamentally different to the • Stimulate a discussion within MAB and original suite reserves. The difference lies in the with relevant partner institutions and bottom-up approach, where communities gain organisations, on the development of an interest through other residents or community agenda for possible future MAB activities in champions of the concept. Driven from a grass- this area (UNESCO 1998, p. 5). roots level, new interest has been spawned in the otherwise dormant Program (with only a The Urban Group is producing recommendations couple of exceptions, both of which maintain concerning the appropriate application of the strong community drive). Biosphere Reserve concept to urban areas and their hinterlands. These contributions include UNESCO’s MAB Program developed the suggestions for collaboration among established fi rst internationally recognised mission to Biosphere Reserves with an interest in urban/ consider cities as ecological systems. The peri-urban issues; options for how MAB best accumulated two decade-long experiences could recognise efforts towards more sustainable of over 100 studies in all regions of the world urban development and management, if such — covering a wide spectrum of biogeographic, efforts are to be recognized; and outlining bioclimatic, economic, social, cultural, political elements of a possible future interdisciplinary and development situations — have contributed research agenda on the Biosphere Reserve to an improved knowledge and understanding concept in relation to urban areas and their of these complex and variable human systems, hinterlands. The work of this group is furthering and to establishing the bases for an ecological the concept of Biosphere Reserve application paradigm of urban / peri-urban / industrial and contributing to a broader appreciation of the systems (UNESCO 1998). The Program has basic differences between traditional protectionist been dedicated to improving the effi ciency, self- approaches such as World Heritage Areas and suffi ciency and humanness of cities, minimising National Parks and the integrative regionalist their impact on near and distant hinterlands Biosphere Reserve approach. in an effort to making them more sustainable, conserving and liveable (Celecia 1996). THE MORNINGTON PENINSULA – WESTERN PORT URBAN BIOSPHERE RESERVE The establishment in 2000 of the MAB The Mornington Peninsula, situated International ad hoc Working Group to Explore approximately 70 km south-east of Melbourne is the Application of the Biosphere Reserve Concept about 50 km long and 16 km wide. The 175 km to Urban Areas and their Hinterlands (the MAB long peninsula coastline extends from Frankston Urban Group) was a signifi cant step in the in Port Phillip Bay, southward to Bass Strait, progression of the Biosphere Reserve Program. then northward to Quail Island in Westernport

131 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia

Bay. The Mornington Peninsula – Western The recommendation for a Biosphere Reserve Port Urban Biosphere Reserve establishes a in the Mornington Peninsula – Western Port set of challenging objectives in relation to local, was fi rst mooted in the 1998 French Island national and global issues of sustainability. The Management Plan by Parks Victoria. The fi rst Mornington Peninsula, that part of Port Phillip community meeting in support of the proposal was Bay that abuts it, and Western Port and its held in June 1999. This led to the establishment catchment, including Phillip and French Islands, of a working group consisting of community form what is recognised as one of Victoria’s representation, and founding partners including most biologically diverse regions (Mornington the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council; Parks Peninsula Shire Council et al. 2002). Victoria; The Department of Infrastructure; Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; and The region also sustains some of Victoria’s Phillip Island Nature Park. In 2000, a further most valuable farming activities, including a recommendation for the area as a Biosphere fl ourishing wine industry, horticulture, dairying, Reserve was reiterated in the Environment cattle grazing and cut fl owers. Both Port Phillip Conservation Council Marine Coastal and and Western Port are important for recreation Estuarine Investigation Final Report (The and commercial fi shing and an expanding Environment Conservation Council Victoria) and in aquaculture industry. Land clearance and the Phillip Island Nature Park Management Plan its impact on water quality, along with the (Phillip Island Nature Park). The Reserve was enormous demands being made on the offi cially declared by UNESCO in November 2002. marine environment are issues of concern for the sustainable use of the region. Parks are The Biosphere Reserve was designed in two a fundamental component in protecting the phases. Phase one covers approximately 2100 region’s diverse range of ecosystems, and km², including a permanent population of there is growing recognition that conserving 180 000 and a seasonal population of biodiversity and caring for nature encompasses approximately 270 000. Phase two extends all land, both urban and rural. the area of the Biosphere Reserve to 3400 km². Five Shire councils are incorporated within the The Mornington Peninsula – Western Port Biosphere Reserve area: Mornington Peninsula, region was proposed as a Biosphere Reserve Frankston, Bass Coast, Cardinia City and Casey. (Fig. 3) because of its outstanding values, which Local Catchment Management Authorities are include: also signifi cant within the administrational area of the Biosphere Reserve (Mornington Peninsula 1. French Island, which supports a higher Shire Council et al. 2002). diversity of animals than on comparable mainland areas. The island is nationally The Mornington Peninsula – Western Port signifi cant because of its undisturbed and Biosphere Reserve is driven by the founding continuous range of habitats partners, assisted by the interim committee 2. Western Port, one of the state’s most used comprised of various specialists, interest groups marine areas for commercial and recreational and community members. The committee purposes, is an area of great biological sought community support for the project, diversity. It features a wide range of habitat including conducting workshops, educating types, including deep channels and seagrass the public, obtaining seed funding and meadows, mangroves, saltmarsh and commissioning a consultant to evaluate the melaleuca thickets. Also present are a wide potential economic opportunities and outcomes variety of marine invertebrates and about of the Biosphere Program. 65% of Victoria’s bird species 3. The Mornington Peninsula, which features Brunkhorst (2000) states that the Biosphere outstanding landscapes and sustains some Reserve Program is one form of bioregional of the state’s most valuable land (Mornington planning that has long proposed regional- Peninsula Shire Council et al. 2002). landscape scale, integrated ‘on-ground’ models

132 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia

Biosphere

Reserve Port Phillip Bay Western Port

French Island

Mornington Peninsula

N

Phillip Island

10 km Bass Strait

Fig. 3 Mornington Peninsula – Western Port Biosphere Reserve. be developed with local communities. A meetings are held. Decisions are made in Biosphere Reserve gives local communities concert, using mediation and facilitation, new responsibilities for their own sustainable rather than sequentially or in opposition future while providing a thread to re-sew 3. Problem solving integration through the peoples’ identity to the landscape. This synthesis of all evidence by utilising holistic contrasts with managing their own ‘patch’ in thinking. Social, economic, environmental isolation and/or being excluded from ownership and management aspects of an issue are and responsibility for managing nearby public interconnected, and recognised as of equal land in a wider context. importance in decision making on any issue 4. Integration by scale and place is achieved Four areas of Integrated Local Area Management through working towards community goals (ILAM) facilitate the success of an urban otherwise known as the local vision. Policy, Biosphere Reserve (Brown 1995, p. 10): practice and problem solving only exert an infl uence when they are applied to specifi c 1. Policy integration where policy communities localities. Scenarios, community needs are formed through a vertical integration. All analyses, projections and guided imagery the stakeholders including both government may all help communities to articulate their (federal, state and local) and community shared vision. interests develop a common policy direction, through negotiation between all stakeholders. Although a formal ILAM program was not The natural policy communities on most long- intentionally implemented at the Mornington standing issues collaborate on a continuing Peninsula – Western Port Urban Biosphere basis, rather than the present mainstream ad Reserve, all of the elements of such a program hoc approach exist, which has aided communication and 2. Practical integration through the development implementation. An integrated and localised of multi-skilled teams through a horizontal approach driven by an engaged community is the integration. A range of occupations and key to the success of Urban Biosphere Reserves. skills are needed on any one local issue, from approving development applications to Sustainable development initiatives for the regenerating sand dunes, and regular team Mornington Peninsula – Western Port Urban

133 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia

Biosphere project will enhance rather than and management in urban environments. replace existing programs and arrangements, The Biosphere Reserve Program has been a including: theoretical model for bioregional sustainability, but only recently recognised for its practical • A program accrediting sustainable land and and active potential in this way. Until recently, water uses, with accreditation being used to the Biosphere Reserve Program experienced promote and market products and services very limited success and received little interest • Encouraging improved agricultural practices from either relevant government agencies or through cooperative programs the community for more than two decades of • Encouraging further ecotourism opportunities implementation due largely to a government-led • Developing regional environmental model concerned with passive, science-based performance indicators that measure goals. Some exceptions exist, for example, the environmental improvements Bookmark and Fitzgerald Biosphere Reserves, • Developing partnerships with scientifi c, which have exhibited greater success due to educational and industrial organisations to fi nancial input from government. Therefore it is conduct research into the region’s natural argued that Biosphere Reserves implemented in systems a government-led manner in Australia will only • Developing voluntary codes of practice succeed with the initial and ongoing fi nancial covering the recreational use of land and assistance of some outside agency such as the marine ecosystems federal government. • Attracting funding for the reserve through grants and sponsorships New Biosphere Reserves are those driven by • Enhancing communication networks, local community in partnership with local councils including visitor centres (Mornington toward a coordinated bioregional planning and Peninsula Shire Council et al. 2002). management vision. The Mornington Peninsula – Western Port Urban Biosphere Reserve Initiatives under the new Biosphere Reserve indicates an integrated local area management designation include a Sustainability Framework, approach that is cross-jurisdictional, trans- developed and implemented by a local disciplinary and cross-sectoral at a municipal Shire council, in consultation with the local level. This model may be useful for other urban community. The Framework delineates values and peri-urban regions considering ecological the community regarded to be most signifi cant, development alternatives, both in Australia where each value corresponds to existing or and overseas. Although a new reserve, the developed local council policies. Proponents of Mornington Peninsula declaration indicates new developments within the Shire are required that it is presently succeeding and will continue to consider and address the Framework, prior to achieve incremental conservation practices to consulting with the Shire council regarding through this bioregional urban planning approach. specifi c development issues. The Sustainability Framework has assisted the council in applying ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the Biosphere Reserve concept to an urban I would like to extend my thanks to the CSIRO and peri-, through balancing Sustainable Ecosystems Urban and Regional community values with sustainable development Futures Group for their support of my project criteria, and through priority for a long-term through the CSIRO Postgraduate Top-up environmental vision. Scholarship, particularly Guy Barnett for his supervision. I also greatly appreciate the support SUMMARY and assistance of my supervisors Dr Lorne Recognition of landscape scales for human Kriwoken and Dr Elaine Stratford at the Centre for impact management and integration of people Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania. and their local environment for social, economic Thanks also to Geoff Copson, Department of and environmental sustainability highlights Primary Industries, Water and Environment, for a defi ciencies in current practices of planning valuable interview in March 2003.

134 Section 3: Perspectives from Australia

REFERENCES Environment Australia 1998: Environment Ball, J. 2002: Towards a methodology for Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act mapping ‘regions for sustainability’ using — biodiversity conservation — Biosphere PPGIS. Progress in Planning 58: 81–140. Reserves, Environment Australia. Vol. 1, Barnett, G. 2001: Ecosystem Services for 270 p.; Vol. 2, 428 p. Available at http:// regional sustainability. BDP environment www.deh.gov.au/epbc/species/biosphere. design guide, the Royal Australian Institute of html and http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/ Architects. May 2001. 3 p. pasteact/3/3295/top.htm. Batisse, M. 1982: The Biosphere Reserve: Figgis, P. 1999: Australia’s national parks a tool for environmental conservation and and protected areas: future directions: management. Environmental Conservation a discussion paper. Sydney, Australia, 9(2): 101–111. Australian Committee for the IUCN. 84 p. Brown, V. A. 1995: Turning the tide: integrated (ACIUCN occasional paper; no. 8). local area management for Australia’s coastal Mornington Peninsula Shire Council; Phillip zone. Canberra, Australia, Department of Island Nature Park; RMIT; Parks Victoria Environment, Sport and Territories. 71 p. 2002: The Mornington Peninsula – Western Brunkhorst, D. J. 2000: Bioregional planning: Port Biosphere Reserve — Stage 1 resource management beyond the new nomination. Melbourne, Australia. 118 p. Millennium. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Naveh, Z. 2000: What is holistic landscape Harwood Academic Publishers. 162 p. ecology? A conceptual introduction. Brunkhorst, D. 2001: Building capital through Landscape and Urban Planning 50: 7–26. bioregional planning and Biosphere Parker, P. 1993: Australia’s Biosphere Reserves: Reserves. Ethics in Science and a report. Canberra, Australia, Australian Environmental Politics, February 1: 19–32. Nature Conservation Agency. 59 p. Brunkhorst, D.; Bridgewater, P. B. 1995: Phillips, A. 1997: Working landscapes and Identifying core reserve networks in coastal Protected Areas: the agenda for the 21st bioregions. 2nd UNESCO international Century. Linking Protected Areas with working conference on Biosphere Reserves. landscapes conserving biodiversity. Proceedings UNESCO, Seville, Spain. 12 p. of the third international conference on science Celecia, J. 1996: Towards an . and management of Protected Areas. Nova Nature and Resources 32(2): 3–6. Scotia, Canada, Science and Management of Cochrane, P.; Muldoon, J. 2000: National reports Protected Areas Association. Pp 3–18. — Australia. Paris, France, UNESCO. 4 p. UNESCO 1998: UNESCO MAB Advisory Davis, B. W.; Drake, G. A. 1983: Australia’s Committee for Biosphere Reserves: fi fth Biosphere Reserves: conserving ecological meeting – application of the Bisphere Reserve diversity. Canberra, Australia, Australian concept to urban areas and their hinterlands. National Commission for UNESCO. 48 p. SC-97/CONF.502/4. Paris, UNESCO. 5 p.

135