Bringing Biodiversity Back Into the Urban Environment, P. 126-135

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 city and bioregion in the world, with more than 85% of the is indicative of the landscape scale as the main population residing in major towns or cities. 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 (Melbourne, 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

Load more