Than Just the Odd Tree
TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree
Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Jane Elix & Judy Lambert – Community Solutions
Research Report 1/98 National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation
Land & Water Resources Research & Development Corporation TO CONTENTS
TO PREFACE
More than just the odd tree
Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Jane Elix & Judy Lambert – Community Solutions
National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation
Research Report 1/98 TO CONTENTS
TO PREFACE
Published by: Environment Australia: Biodiversity Group
GPO Box 636 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone (02) 6250 0200 Facsimile (02) 6250 0399
© Environment Australia LWRRDC
Information contained in this report may be copied or reproduced for study, research information or educational purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication has been published by Environment Australia and the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC) under the National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve the sustainable management of land, water and vegetation. Where technical information has been prepared by or contributed by authors external to Environment Australia and LWRRDC, readers should contact the author(s) and conduct their own inquiries before making use of that information.
This project was supported by Environment Australia through the Bushcare Program and by LWRRDC. For information relating to the Bushcare Program please contact Environment Australia.
Authors: Jane Elix and Judy Lambert Community Solutions 179 Sydney Road Fairlight NSW 2094 Telephone: (02) 9948 7862 or (02) 9332 3913 Facsimile: (02) 9948 7862 or (02) 9332 3913 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.peg.apc.org/~comsols
Working in collaboration with Jamie Pittock World Wide Fund for Nature David Goldney, Sue Wakefield and Brian Stone Environmental Studies Unit Charles Sturt University Sue Salvin and Fred Gulson NSW Farmers’ Association
Publication data: Elix, J. and Lambert, J (1997). More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation, Research Report 1/98.
Design and typesetting: WhizzbangArt
Cover photo: Grassy White Box Woodland remnant. Courtesy Kevin Thiele.
Printed by: Union Offset
ISBN: 0 642 54001 2 TO CONTENTS
projects was funded in 1994 to examine different Preface aspects of the ecology of native vegetation, and develop practical methods for better management Clearing of native vegetation from much of by individual landholders. A number of projects, Australia’s prime agricultural land has caused the primarily based in the extensively cleared and widespread fragmentation of natural ecosystems, highly degraded woodland ecosystems, identify reducing their viability and threatening the key processes by which different types of maintenance of native flora and fauna and the disturbance influence the long term maintenance ecological processes upon which productive rural and conservation of remnant native vegetation. landscapes depend. The degradation of ecosystem The projects develop and demonstrate practical processes in the agricultural zone is the result of a measures to reconstruct, rehabilitate or manage particular suite of ecological, economic, social and remnant vegetation in highly degraded or altered institutional circumstances. These must be landscapes. understood before effective policies and programs to combat degradation can be established. In addition to developing a broadly-based Recognising this, the Land and Water Resources ecological understanding, it is also important to Research and Development Corporation understand the range of socio-economic issues (LWRRDC) funded a review entitled Remnant which influence the protection and sustainable Vegetation in the Rural Landscape: a consultancy management of remnant native vegetation. report which highlighted Projects funded under this component range from identifying the market and non-market values of, • the difficulty in planning and conducting and the attitudes of rural landholders to, remnant essential long-term ecological research due to vegetation. Projects also focus on the the annual funding cycle of existing programs, development of improved legislation, incentives and and effective mechanisms/systems that would • the lack of an adequate understanding of the assist landholders to retain native vegetation on socio-economic factors which influence land private land. The range of projects contribute managers’ decisions regarding remnant significantly to an understanding of the socio- vegetation. economic issues influencing the protection and management of remnant native vegetation. In response to the findings of the review, Environment Australia and LWRRDC joined The Research and Development program, part together to establish a national program of funded by Environment Australia under Bushcare, research and development on the rehabilitation, is already providing a valuable information base management and conservation of remnant native on the ecological, economic and social values of vegetation. The program, which commenced in remnant vegetation. It is highlighting the 1994, aims to assist government agencies, importance of ensuring that off-reserve nature community groups and landholders to better conservation measures are supported by private manage and protect remnant native vegetation landholders and that economic and ecological through application of improved knowledge and values are included in the decision making understanding gained from research. The program process. The series of papers arising from this has a strong emphasis on practical outcomes in program is aimed at ensuring widespread managing remnant native vegetation and dissemination of the research results in the promotes the development of effective links expectation that the knowledge gained from between vegetation managers and researchers. research and development investment will lead to improved management of native vegetation and, The program has two main themes: ecological therefore, sustainable land management and the research and socioeconomic research. A range of conservation of biodiversity. This paper brings
iii TO CONTENTS
together the views of private landholders and public land managers responsible for the management of grassy White Box woodland remnants to define incentives and barriers to the increased conservation of those remnants. Through extensive consultation with relevant stakeholders, the project identifies practical measures which can be implemented across land of different tenures.
For more information about the research and development program please contact LWRRDC or Environment Australia. For information about assistance available under Bushcare for management of remnant vegetation please contact Environment Australia.
Phil Price LWRRDC Andrew Campbell Environment Australia
iv Contents
Executive summary 1
Background 1
The project 1
Project outcomes 2
Barriers to conservation 2
In conclusion 4
1. Project background 5
1.1 Why grassy White Box woodlands? 5
1.2 Project objectives 5
1.3 Context 5
1.4 Benefits of collaborative work 6
2. Project outline and methodology 7
2.1 Selection of focus areas 7
2.2 Identifying significant remnants: conservation status, ownership and management 7
2.3 Stakeholder involvement 8
3. Project outcomes 14
3.1 Grassy White Box woodlands identification and mapping 14
3.2 Incentives for conservation 14
4. Preferred model for grassy White Box woodland conservation 23
4.1 Specific package of measures (tool kit) for private landholders 24
4.2 Recommendations regarding Voluntary Conservation Agreements 25
4.3 Recommendations regarding public land 26
4.4 Recommendations regarding the role of governments 26
5. References 27
6. Appendices 29
Grassy White Box woodlands project sites 30
Appendix 1: Project contacts and participants 31
Appendix 2: Questionnaire distributed 41
Appendix 3: Financial incentives 48
v
BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
In drawing together the Project Team, Community Executive summary Solutions felt that there were distinct benefits to be derived from involving
Background • an academic research institution with expertise Most of our Eucalypt woodlands occur in areas of in remnant vegetation ecology (Charles Sturt greatest agricultural productivity and, as a result, University) these woodlands have become extremely • a major non-government conservation fragmented. The State of the Environment report organisation, (World Wide Fund for Nature), states that nearly 90% of Australia’s temperate and woodlands have been cleared. It is also in these areas that the greatest impacts of land degradation • a peak farmer organisation (New South Wales on production are being experienced – land Farmers’ Association). degradation which has been closely linked to loss of trees and other deep-rooted species. The project
Yet these woodland areas have not received the The towns and surrounding districts of Wagga attention given to tall eucalypt forests on the Wagga, Bathurst/Orange/Cowra and Tamworth eastern seaboard or in Western Australia’s south- were chosen as the centres for the field work. west. Nor do they have the charismatic image of Significant remnants of grassy White Box the arid and semi-arid areas of the ‘great woodlands were chosen for study and their Outback’. conservation status, ownership and management regimes were identified. Box woodlands are one of the most poorly conserved ecosystems in Australia. Scientists Both remnants in relatively intact condition and Suzanne Prober and Kevin Thiele estimate that as those in which the ecological community might be little as 0.01% of grassy White Box woodlands restored with altered management were included remain in a relatively intact condition. These intact in order to provide a broader perspective on remnants, and others in a condition from which incentives and barriers to conservation the ecological community might be regenerated, management. occur largely in small, scattered patches along the An important aspect of this project was to increase lower western slopes of the Great Dividing Range awareness of the significance of these sometimes from southern to northern New South Wales and undervalued woodland communities and to in a small number of locations in north-eastern develop a sense of pride and ownership in their Victoria. retention and proper management.
Developing incentives to ensure greater Stakeholders were involved in a variety of ways conservation of our woodlands is an essential throughout the project including through aspect not only of conserving the rich diversity of species and ecosystems for which Australia is • individual interviews recognised globally, but also of maintaining • completing a questionnaire agricultural production. • participation in a follow-up forum This project was coordinated by Community • receipt of written information, in particular the Solutions – a consultancy partnership between grassy White Box woodland Updates Ms Jane Elix and Dr Judy Lambert, both of whom have a long standing interest and involvement in • media information distribution remnant vegetation protection and ecological • participation in field days sustainability.
1 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
• participation in peer review and other related result, even where there are positive attitudes to workshops remnant vegetation, those attitudes often do not translate into action. • individual contact with researchers and others working in the area However, while private landholders were keen to see the development of incentives which assisted • reporting to LWRRDC/Environment Australia. in recognition of grassy White Box woodlands and in providing sound management advice based Project outcomes on ecological principles, the levels of awareness and the identification of mechanisms appropriate Mapping to public land were generally less well developed. All of the sites selected for study within this Since some of the most intact grassy White Box project, and those additional sites identified by woodland remnants occur on public land, either participants in the project, fell within the area in cemeteries or roadside reserves, and since a predicted by Prober (1996) to contain the landscape approach to vegetation management is remaining grassy White Box woodlands. important, mechanisms for conserving those Only one-fifth of all the sites considered were remnants on public land require urgent attention. considered by the owners or managers to be in either ‘very good’ or ‘good’ condition. This may Incentives for conservation relate to various aspects of past management, but The types of incentives raised and discussed by may well reflect the fact that more than two-thirds participants in this project fell under the following (68%) of areas identified by respondents are headings currently being grazed by stock without any particular management aimed at conserving the • Financial incentives native species. • Provision of technical information and advice
• Property-based incentives Barriers to conservation The majority of those participating in the project • Legislative protection were interested in protecting the remaining • Working in the local community. remnants, with some expressing surprise that grassy White Box woodlands is in fact a The Project Team has identified a need for a disappearing ecological community. package of initiatives, which together form a set of tools from which landholders and land The majority of those interviewed or responding managers can choose those most appropriate to to questionnaires identified the key barriers as their circumstances. being
• financial constraints Recommendations regarding
• lack of knowledge or awareness of the value private land of grassy White Box woodlands For those managing private land, a specific package of measures (tool kit) has been • difficulties in changing already established developed, which includes attitudes to rural management. 1. Provision of practical information and advice The issues involved are complex, with many as to the importance of grassy White Box landholders failing to recognise the direct links woodlands and other woodland remnants and between sustainable agricultural production and retention of threatened remnant vegetation. As a
2 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
the most appropriate management for their mechanism for secure management of grassy future conservation through White Box woodland remnants of high conservation value. However, a number of • the development of a simple kit, based on perceived problems with the Agreements limit interviews with key landholders and land their application. managers, and Based on feedback received during this project, it • establishment of government sponsored is recommended that programs in which rural producers with a strong and demonstrated interest in, and • the terms of Voluntary Conservation commitment to, conservation farming, receive Agreements which enable the Minister to vary financial and administrative support to provide an Agreement at any time be reviewed to on-the-job learning about remnant vegetation remove uncertainties about possible Ministerial management and rehabilitation in their own intervention in ongoing management of communities. private properties;
2. Provision of financial and ‘in kind’ incentives • additional personnel and resources be made for integrated management which includes a available to the New South Wales National strong ecological component aimed at Parks and Wildlife Service to enable faster conserving remnant native vegetation. Rural processing of enquiries about and applications financial assistance, whether from local, State for, Voluntary Conservation Agreements; or Commonwealth government, should be • the New South Wales Government explore the made contingent upon the development of option of establishing an independent, whole property management plans which community-based Trust to promote and include ecologically strategic retention and administer Voluntary Conservation Agreements rehabilitation of remnant vegetation. Both (based on the experience of Victoria’s Trust for taxation rebates and local government rate Nature and given quite high levels of rebates which are subsidised by State and/or scepticism among participants in this project Commonwealth government have a role to about Voluntary Conservation Agreements). play in this area. Also important is the integration of farm management plans with broader regional vegetation management plans Recommendations regarding being developed in the draft New South Wales public land native vegetation conservation legislation. Many of the grassy White Box woodlands sites of high conservation value are on public land, either 3. Provision of fencing subsidies, contingent in small local cemeteries or on road or railway upon entry into management agreements reserves. which commit to management for conservation purposes. Given that knowledge of those sites and awareness of their value appears less well 4. Development, by State and Commonwealth developed than for sites on private land, it is governments, of a ‘stewardship’ scheme. recommended that local governments, Rural Lands Protection Boards and the Roads and Traffic Recommendations regarding Authority be encouraged to undertake Voluntary Conservation comprehensive mapping of their remaining Agreements remnant vegetation, with a view to managing Voluntary Conservation Agreements available remaining areas of relatively intact grassy White under the New South Wales National Parks and Box woodlands primarily for nature conservation. Wildlife Act should, and to some extent do, offer a
3 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
State and local governments should also work The Commonwealth has a role to play in ensuring with interested local residents to develop, that regional strategies do, indeed, address maintain and promote important grassy White Box conservation issues at a landscape level. sites as local heritage attractions. Working with State agencies, the Commonwealth can also ensure provision of compatible and up- Recommendations regarding the to-date information which is relevant at the role of governments regional and local levels. The issues surrounding conservation of grassy White Box woodlands present a microcosm of the In conclusion broader issues surrounding the conservation and This project has focused specifically on grassy management of remnant woodlands across the White Box woodland because of its scarcity and Australian rural landscape. The issues highlighted the extent to which it has disappeared or been within this project provide some significant degraded through competition with other rural indicators in priority setting for major vegetation land uses. However, much of what comes out of programs such as the Commonwealth’s Bushcare this project is applicable to other forms of programme. The need to bring together public remnant vegetation, and in particular other Box and private land management in ways which will woodlands. Grassy White Box woodlands can be protect the remaining remnants on a landscape used to build awareness of the plight of remnant scale, and the need for support by the woodlands, the loss of woodland trees and their Commonwealth and State governments for local equally important understorey communities. That government provision of incentives and provision awareness can then provide a focus for expanding of sound management advice, not only to private targeted actions in rural communities for landholders but also to public land managers, vegetation management on a landscape scale. cannot be over-emphasised.
4 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
and Ironbark communities which are in deep 2 1. Project decline.
background 1.2 Project objectives Funded by a grant from the Land and Water 1.1 Why grassy White Box Resources Research & Development Corporation woodlands? (LWRRDC) and Environment Australia, the project had the following objectives. “White Box trees remain abundantly scattered throughout the landscape, [but] tree regeneration 1. Building on existing information on the is limited and the native understorey community locations and conservation status of grassy is very rare, either due to complete clearing for White Box woodland remnants in New South cropping, replacement by improving pasture, or Wales to identify, through stakeholder altered floristic composition and weed invasion consultation caused by livestock grazing” (Prober and • incentives likely to lead to conservation of Thiele, 1993a). those remnants Box woodlands are one of the most poorly • the general costs to government of such conserved ecosystems in Australia (Specht, 1975; initiatives, and Benson, 1991). The grassy White Box woodlands which remain in relatively intact condition, or in a • barriers to such conservation. condition from which the ecological community 2. Bringing together academic research, a major might be regenerated, occur largely in small, non-government conservation organisation and scattered patches along the lower western slopes a peak farmer organisation to work closely of the Great Dividing Range from southern to with rural landholders in a collaborative northern New South Wales and in a small number project to expand community understanding of of locations in north-eastern Victoria. the issues involved. As Prober & Thiele (1993b) observe, “The grassy 3. Examining the place of on-farm Conservation White Box woodlands are extremely poorly 1 Agreements in remnant vegetation retention reserved. The few reserves that do contain grassy and management. White Box woodlands were gazetted long after modifications had already occurred”. 4. Providing an initial assessment of costs to
Because of its preference for better soils in areas government(s) of implementing incentives of major agricultural production, the grassy White necessary to increase conservation of grassy Box woodlands community is at greater risk than White Box woodland remnants. some of the other temperate woodland 5. Developing a model for on-farm conservation communities. That scarcity itself provides a focus of remnant vegetation, using grassy White Box for action. However, most of the outcomes woodlands as a case study. developed in this project are equally applicable to other remnant woodland communities across temperate Australia – in particular all of the Box
1 After extensive survey and investigation, Prober & Thiele identify as the only exceptions an intact remnant in the Wongarbon Nature Reserve (south-east of Dubbo) and examples in the Snowy River National Park in north-eastern Victoria. 2 As several speakers at the Victorian National Parks Association conference on Box and Ironbark woodland conservation identify (Victorian Naturalist, Volume 110, Number 1).
5 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
1.3 Context 1.4 Benefits of collaborative For more than a decade, concerns about land work degradation and decline in native vegetation have This project was coordinated by Community been widely recognised. However, competition Solutions – a consultancy partnership between between pressures for increased agricultural Ms Jane Elix and Dr Judy Lambert, both of whom production and the retention of native vegetation have a long standing interest and involvement in remains the most significant threat to our remnant vegetation protection and ecological woodlands (State of the Environment Advisory sustainability. Council, 1996). As the State of Environment report In drawing together the Project Team, Community acknowledges, agriculture and its effects through Solutions felt that there were distinct benefits to “land clearing, fertiliser use, tillage, changes to be derived from involving water flows, pollution from pesticides and herbicides” produce significant direct pressures on • an academic research institution with expertise the state of our land resources. Clearing for urban in remnant vegetation ecology (Charles Sturt development, harvesting for firewood and, to a University) lesser extent, cutting for fencing materials have • a major non-government conservation also contributed. organisation (World Wide Fund for Nature); Most of our Eucalypt woodlands occur in areas of and 3 greatest agricultural productivity and as a result, • a peak farmer organisation (New South Wales these woodlands have become extremely Farmers’ Association). fragmented. The State of the Environment report states that nearly 90% of Australia’s temperate Bringing these diverse interests together with woodlands have been cleared. It is also in these private landholders and those with responsibilities areas that the greatest impacts of land degradation for public land management was considered to be on production are being experienced – land of fundamental importance to the project in that it degradation which has been closely linked to loss built on of trees and other deep-rooted species. • a diversity of skills and perspectives among Yet these woodland areas have not received the the Project Team partners attention given to tall Eucalypt forests on the • information exchange between key eastern seaboard or in Western Australia’s south- stakeholders and the sense of joint ownership west. Nor do they have the charismatic image of of the outcomes resulting from this exchange the arid and semi-arid areas of the ‘great Outback’. • the ability of Project Team partners to form strategic alliances to conduct follow-up work Developing incentives to ensure greater designed to ensure adoption of outcomes from conservation of our woodlands is therefore an the project. essential aspect, not only of conserving the rich diversity of species and ecosystems for which Australia is recognised globally, but of maintaining agricultural production.
3 As has long been identified (Hall, Johnston & Chippendale, 1975; and others), White Box (Eucalyptus albens) Woodlands are generally found on “gentle slopes and plains, in broad shallow valleys and, occasionally, on the lower slopes of hills and mountains….White Box… prefers at least moderately fertile soils which do not become waterlogged”. Occurring between 27 and 37°S and at altitudes between 500 and 1500ft, in the west of the Great Dividing Range, these are soils preferred for cropping and grazing.
6 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
2.2 Identifying significant 2. Project outline remnants: conservation status, ownership and and methodology management
2.1 Selection of focus areas Criteria for assessment In determining the locations which should form The Project Team sought to include in the project the focus of field work for this project, the a representative sample of remaining grassy White partners in Community Solutions sought input Box woodlands, both on rural properties and on from public lands having a range of different tenures.
• a literature review Both remnants in relatively intact condition and those in which the ecological community might be • perusal of Royal Botanic Gardens database of restored with altered management were included Eucalyptus albens locations in order to provide a broader perspective on • discussions with research scientists Suzanne incentives and barriers to conservation Prober and Kevin Thiele, and others working management.
in remnant ecology In determining the conservation status/condition • the other members of the Project Team. of grassy White Box woodland remnants, Community Solutions was keen to ensure that the It was agreed that the locations chosen should criteria used enabled landholders and managers to • have significant remaining grassy White Box determine the status themselves, since a woodland remnants within a reasonable significant part of increasing conservation activity distance is believed to lie in ‘learning by doing’.
• provide an opportunity to visit key sites Participants were asked to determine the conservation status of their remnants as being • provide an opportunity to meet with landholders and public land managers who • very good (scattered White Box trees, with might be responsible for managing grassy many different native grasses, herbs and White Box woodland remnants in the area. wildflowers in the understorey)
Towns which enabled ready access to a diversity • good (scattered White Box trees, with several of public land managers while at the same time different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in the being within reasonable travelling distance from understorey) grassy White Box woodland remnants were • fair (scattered White Box trees, with only a judged to be few different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in • Wagga Wagga the understorey), or
• Bathurst/Orange/Cowra • poor (scattered White Box trees with introduced pasture and/or weeds). • Tamworth. In discussion with other members of the Project These three locations, and the districts Team, it was agreed that these categories, whilst surrounding each, were therefore chosen as a somewhat subjective, were useful in having the focus for field work. landholder/manager define the present condition of White Box remnants. The categories used were also readily equated with those used by David
7 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Goldney and associates in rating and mapping In that work, twelve climatic indices (representing remnant woodlands in the Central West of New annual and seasonal means and extremes for South Wales. In that work Goldney et al (1993) temperature and precipitation) were estimated for have used 5 ratings 120 records of E. albens from across its range. The data were used to derive a climatic profile for • Sustainability Index 1 E. albens, using each climatic parameter. The Pristine condition same climatic variables were predicted over a grid • Sustainability Index 2 system (with a resolution of 0.025 degrees latitude Near pristine – some disturbance and longitude, or approximately 2.5 km) across south-eastern Australia, using latitude, longitude • Sustainability Index 3 and elevation predicted from a continental Digital Some conservation value – disturbance Elevation Model. All grid points falling within the evident, some regeneration climatic profile of E. albens were then extracted, • Sustainability Index 4 giving a predicted distribution of the species Degraded – usually trending to based on climatic factors. The grid points with a Sustainability Index 5 5–95% probability of falling within this envelope were chosen by Prober to represent the main • Sustainability Index 5 distribution of the White Box woodlands. Severely degraded – no regeneration, advanced Eucalyptus dieback. Brian Stone (Environmental Studies Unit, Charles Sturt University) imported these grid points into the Prober and Thiele have focused their work on GENASYS Geographic Information System (using areas described by Goldney et al as being UNIX software) to generate a grid cell coverage Sustainability Index 1, while in the present work map of the predicted distribution of grassy White Project Team members agreed that Box woodlands. Sites visited, and those about • Sustainability Index 1 generally equates with which reliable location advice was received Very Good condition throughout this project, were then plotted on this
• Sustainability Index 2 with Good condition grid system using latitudes and longitudes taken from 1:25,000 or 1:100,000 topographical maps. • Sustainability Index 3 with Fair condition, and
• Sustainability Index 4 and 5 with Poor 2.3 Stakeholder involvement condition. As indicated by Young et al (1996), based on extensive work by previous researchers, Mapping “ownership” of conservation initiatives is an Detailed mapping of the remaining White Box important part of their success. Only when remnants across New South Wales is a project people have been involved in, and understand requiring time and resources far beyond those the importance of, rural nature conservation available to this project. This project identified initiatives are they likely to participate in other mapping projects which might encompass implementing them. grassy White Box woodlands, and related the An important aspect of this project was to increase work done in this project to previous predictive awareness of the significance of these sometimes mapping ‘envelopes’ developed by Prober (1996). undervalued woodland communities and to
As described in 1996, Prober used the Bioclimatic develop a sense of pride and ownership in their Prediction System (BIOCLIM, Nix 1986, Busby retention and proper management. 1991 – see Prober for references) to predict the distribution of Eucalyptus albens (White Box).
8 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Stakeholders were involved in a variety of ways identified in each area. Each was sent preliminary throughout the project including through information about the project, previous work on grassy White Box woodlands and an invitation to • individual interviews participate in the project. Promotion of the project • completing a questionnaire and calls for people interested in participating were also made through articles published in both • participation in a follow-up forum the New South Wales Farmers’ Association • receipt of written information, in particular the magazine ‘New South Wales Farmer’ and the Grassy White Box Woodland Updates World Wide Fund for Nature’s ‘Wildlife News’.
• media information distribution All those expressing interest in the project were asked about possible locations of relatively intact • participation in field days remnants of grassy White Box woodlands. • participation in peer review and other related Contacts were entered in a database maintained workshops by Community Solutions (see Appendix 1) and
• individual contact with researchers and others were included in all follow-up aspects of the working in the area project.
• reporting to LWRRDC/Environment Australia. Conducting the interviews
Appointments were made to visit those in each Individual interviews location willing to take part in interviews. During an informal interview lasting between 30 and 90 Recruitment minutes, participants were encouraged to discuss Throughout this project, Community Solutions their remaining grassy White Box woodlands sought to involve as diverse a group of areas, current use and management of them, landholders and land managers as possible. opportunities and barriers to protection of these areas, and the ways in which these grassy White Whilst time and resources available for personal Box woodland remnants might be further interaction with individual land owners and conserved through more formal arrangements. managers was limited, every effort was made to include among interviewees the diversity of Outcomes of the interview, conducted by one of owners and managers who might have the partners in Community Solutions, were responsibility for on-ground management of recorded through extensive note-taking by the remnants of grassy White Box woodlands. other partner.
This was achieved through direct contact with Several of the interviews involved more than one various government agencies, local governments, participant, with couples managing a family farm non-government community conservation groups, or small groups of neighbouring farmers coming local research scientists and others in the together. community who might have an interest in grassy Those being interviewed were encouraged to White Box woodlands management, as well as provide opportunities to visit and photograph with private landholders who might have White relevant sites, with several taking up that Box remnants on their properties. opportunity to discuss sites on their own Through telephone networking in the properties or public land for which they had some communities around Wagga Wagga, management responsibilities. Bathurst/Orange and Tamworth, 10 land owners A total of 29 grassy White Box woodlands sites or managers having significant stands of White were visited. These included public lands Box woodland in fair to very good condition were
9 BACKBACK TO CONTENTS TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
managed by a range of different agencies and follow-up forums, was sent to all contacts private rural properties. Nine of the sites visited contained in the project database. are on the south-west slopes, 11 in the central- The forums were held in Tamworth, Orange and west and 9 in the north-west. Wagga Wagga approximately 6 months after the initial visits. Key contacts identified during the Questionnaires initial visits or through subsequent interactions At the conclusion of each interview, each with members of the local communities were participant was asked to complete a short contacted individually and encouraged to attend questionnaire (see Appendix 2) and to return it to these forums. During the recruiting process, Community Solutions using the stamped, emphasis was placed on recruiting a mix of addressed envelope provided. Because of stakeholders, primarily both private landholders participation by more than one person in some and public land managers from a diversity of interviews, the number of questionnaires returned relevant agencies. exceeds the number of sites visited. The numbers participating and sectors represented Forty two of the 59 questionnaires distributed to in each of the forums are shown in Table 2. those contacted during the initial round of site Each six-hour forum consisted of facilitated visits and interviews were returned. Respondents plenary and small group discussions in which were identified as follows (Table 1). participants were encouraged to explore key issues emerging from earlier parts of the project Follow-up forums and to indicate preferred directions for the Outcomes of the initial site visits, individual conservation of grassy White Box woodlands. interviews and questionnaire responses were Reporting back from the small working groups collated and key issues emerging presented in the was provided both on standardised recording form of a short issues paper prepared by the sheets and as short presentations during which Project Team. This paper, together with an one of the partners in Community Solutions took invitation to participate in one of a series of extensive notes.
Table 1: Grassy White Box woodlands questionnaire respondents
Wagga Wagga Bathurst/Orange Tamworth
Farmers/graziers 6 4 7
Government officers 3 2 2
Local government staff 2 2 2
Academics 1 – 1
Conservation non-government organisations – 1 2
Other 2 1 3
Totals* 14 (23) 10 (15) 17 (21)
*One respondent failed to complete the section of the questionnaire providing demographic information.
( ) Numbers in brackets are the numbers of questionnaires distributed
Outcomes of these questionnaires have been analysed through queries developed using a Microsoft Access database. Although the numbers involved are small, the results obtained provide some clear trends which help to strengthen qualitative information obtained at interview.
10 BACKBACK TO CONTENTS TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Distribution of written publications. The Community Biodiversity information Network also published an article about the project (Community Biodiversity Network, July Because of expressed interest in the project and 1996) and has expressed interest in doing a the need to keep people interested and to follow-up article. Whilst somewhat sceptical about stimulate involvement, Community Solutions the likely implications of the project for their produced a short desk-top published newsletter at future access to remaining grassy White Box regular intervals throughout the project. The first woodlands sites, the New South Wales Apiarists issue of this newsletter was distributed to Association were active participants in the process approximately 150 people on the database as at and published an article in their magazine, ‘The end August 1996. Copies were also made available Australasian Beekeeper’ (April 1997). to other LWRRDC/Environment Australia remnant vegetation grant recipients, in support of a presentation to the annual program coordination Media information distribution meeting in Bendigo (approximately Since the initial site visits and interviews, one of 30 participants). Those participating in a one-day the partners in Community Solutions has ‘Remnant Vegetation in the Central West’ workshop completed an initial interview with documentary sponsored by ‘Save the Bush Central West’ and film-maker Rae Fry, who was developing a held in Orange in September 1996 (approximately proposal for a program on woodland 90 participants; see Wakefield, 1996) also received conservation. Referred to Community Solutions by copies of the newsletter in support of a poster and Environment Australia Biodiversity Group staff presentation at that workshop. member John Lumb, Ms Fry expressed interest in
The second issue of the project newsletter was obtaining additional information about the project made available at the CSIRO hosted workshop and its participants for possible use in the ‘Temperate woodlands in Australia’, held in documentary. Any progress in this direction will Braidwood from 4–6 December 1996. Copies of be referred to Environment Australia and LWRRDC the second, third and fourth issues of the project for approval prior to proceeding. More recently, newsletter have been sent to an expanding Soil and Water Conservation Association New database, which at the conclusion of the project South Wales Officer, Val Porter and Kestrel Films contained more than 300 people (see have also contacted Project Team members, with a Appendix 1). view to using material from the project in an educational program being conducted by the Both the New South Wales Farmers’ Association Association. and the World Wide Fund for Nature presented articles about the project in their regular
Table 2: Participants in follow-up forums
Wagga Wagga Bathurst/Orange Tamworth
Farmers/graziers 8 12 6
Government officers 4 8 5
Local government staff 2 3 1
Academics 2 5 1
Conservation non-government organisations 5 10 4
Other 1 7 6
Totals 21 45 23
11 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
As a result of media interviews conducted as one Losing the War?’, held in Orange in September aspect of the LWRRDC peer review workshop, the 1996. Organised by Charles Sturt University’s partners in Community Solutions were also Environmental Studies Unit, this conference approached for interviews with ABC rural radio was part of the Central West Save the Bush from the various regional centres which formed a program (see Wakefield, 1996), and focus of the work. • a two-day workshop on ‘Temperate As a result of hearing some of the ABC interviews, woodlands in Australia: Biology, conservation, the ABC’s 7:30 Report did a feature story on management and restoration’. This workshop, grassy White Box woodlands on 21 February held in Braidwood, was sponsored by 1997. The story focused on the work of LWRRDC, and brought together ecologists, landholders in protecting grassy White Box land managers and others with an interest in woodlands and the economic benefits that result. developing mechanisms for better managing Project Team members, David Goldney and his Australia’s temperate woodlands. Arising out of team from Charles Sturt University and Jamie this workshop, Hobbs & Yates (CSIRO Wildlife Pittock from World Wide Fund for Nature, were & Ecology, Perth) are editing a book for interviewed as part of the program. Community publication as part of an ongoing vegetation Solutions worked closely with the researchers in management series published by Surrey the lead-up to the program. Beatty. Work presented from the grassy White Box woodlands project will form the basis of In the month leading up to the follow-up forums, one chapter in that publication (Lambert, Elix the Public Relations Unit at New South Wales & Binning, in preparation). Farmers’ Association produced a segment promoting the project and the forums. This segment went to air in their regular weekly Individual contact with program on rural commercial radio across researchers and other working in the State. the area Throughout the course of this project, participants Participation in field days in the Project Team have become aware of a range of related activities, some focused on grassy A poster presentation was also included in the White Box woodlands, others more broadly on Charles Sturt University’s Environmental Studies remnant woodlands and yet others across the Unit display at Enviro 1997, held in Mudgee in whole diversity of remnant vegetation in the rural March. The display attracted considerable interest landscape. Where possible, individual contact was among the approximately 1500 people attending. made with those carrying out these activities and That poster was also displayed at the national they have been kept informed of the progress on conference of the Australian Network for Plant this project through the grassy White Box Conservation, held in Coffs Harbour in June 1997, woodlands updates. the focus of that conference being on sharing the vision for plant conservation. Research scientists Suzanne Prober and Kevin Thiele, who initiated much of the work focusing Participation in peer review and on grassy White Box woodlands, are continuing to other related workshops develop new initiatives. They are currently interacting with New South Wales National Parks As a member of the Project Team, Dr Judy Lambert and Wildlife Service in a bid to secure Natural also participated in and presented papers to Heritage Trust funding to develop a Protected • a one-day conference on ‘Remnant vegetation Area Network of grassy White Box woodlands in the Central West: Winning the Battles but sites of high conservation value, with Community
12 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Solutions having been given the opportunity to the values of remnant bushland in the Central make input to the development of that proposal. West region of New South Wales, also provides valuable insights into the factors which might be Researcher Phillipa Walsh, working with the New addressed in furthering conservation initiatives for South Wales Natural Environment Panel based at grassy White Box woodlands and other remnant the New South Wales Nature Conservation Council, woodlands. has also been developing a database of significant grassy White Box woodlands sites suitable for Beyond that, there is an ever-expanding literature nomination for listing on the Register of the relevant to the status and conservation of remnant National Estate. As part of that work, Phillipa and vegetation across Australia. Perhaps the more her successor, Kate Harris, have contacted pertinent to this project are the current Community Solutions to seek advice as to sites developments surrounding State Environment included in this project and to ascertain opinions Planning Policy 46 and remnant vegetation on the quality of various sites of common interest, protection in New South Wales. In July 1997, the in order that the most significant sites might be Department of Land and Water Conservation nominated to the Register. released for public comment a White Paper providing a proposed model for native vegetation As a direct result of this project, Community conservation in New South Wales. Throughout this Solutions has been contacted by people living in project both World Wide Fund For Nature and the north-eastern Victoria. That contact has provided New South Wales Farmers’ Association have made information on a site at Lurg, near Benalla, which ongoing contributions to that process and will was being restored under the former Land continue to do so. Environment Assistance Program, and another property at Coonda, also near Benalla, which is being revegetated by a private landholder as part Reporting to LWRRDC of his commitment to the Land for Wildlife Throughout the project, progress reports have Program. been provided to the funding bodies, LWRRDC and Environment Australia. Initial progress Both Keith Holmes and his local group of reporting was by way of a short presentation to a concerned residents at Bodangora in the peer review workshop conducted as part of the Wellington district in central New South Wales and national R&D program on rehabilitation, Russ Watts from Upper Manilla north of Tamworth management and conservation of remnant have built on information provided by this project vegetation, held in Bendigo, Victoria in September to establish local initiatives for the conservation of 1996 (see Price & Tracy, 1996). Participants in that grassy White Box woodland remnants. workshop provided useful feedback on outcomes Other publications such as the farmers’ guide to of the initial site visits and preliminary analysis of trees and bushland on the north-west slopes and questionnaires and assisted in shaping the plains, being developed by the North-West emphasis of follow-up forums. Catchment Management Committee, provide That report was followed by submission of a further information about the plight of temperate written milestone report in December 1996, on woodlands and some of the initiatives which which Program Manager Phil Price from LWRRDC might be taken to further their conservation. and his peers in the co-funding organisation, A review of the conservation status of temperate Environment Australia’s Biodiversity Group, woodlands in Australia, sponsored by the World provided useful comment. Wide Fund for Nature, also provides valuable context-setting and other information. The research paper by Hodgkins et al (Hobbs & Yates, in preparation) examining landholder attitudes to
13 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Box woodland remnants assessed as being in 3. Project outcomes either ‘very good’ or ‘good’ condition, these together being only one-fifth of all sites considered. This may relate to various aspects of 3.1 Grassy White Box past management, but may well reflect the fact woodlands identification that more than two-thirds (68%) of areas identified and mapping by respondents are currently being grazed by As shown on the map which follows, all of the stock without any particular management aimed at sites selected for study within this project, and conserving the native species. those additional sites identified by participants in the project, fell within the area predicted by 3.2 Incentives for Prober (1996) to contain the remaining grassy conservation White Box woodlands.
The apparent concentration of sites in the south- Overview west, central-west and north-west slopes is an The majority of those participating in the project artefact of the method used, these being the were interested in protecting the remaining locations visited. Additional sites identified during remnants, with some expressing surprise that consultative forums and through direct contact grassy White Box woodlands is in fact a with people in local communities during the disappearing ecological community. In the north- project, suggests that small pockets of grassy west, in particular, participants frequently White Box woodlands (in varying ecological commented that there are still plenty of White condition) do exist along the western slopes, from Box trees around, while in a small group south of the Victorian border to the far north of discussion in the south-west those present New South Wales. commented that White Box is a less attractive Among those responding to the questionnaire, plant community than are tall forests or other 64% had grassy White Box woodland remnants on types of vegetation and that they are therefore less properties for which they have management likely to be a focus of conservation attention. responsibility. In discussing barriers to greater conservation of Only 6% described their remaining grassy White grassy White Box woodlands, the majority of Box woodlands as being in “very good” condition, those interviewed or responding to questionnaires with a further 13% describing their grassy White identified as the key factors Box woodland remnants as being in “good” • financial constraints condition. Almost one-third (29%) of participants reported remnants which are in “fair” condition • lack of knowledge or awareness of the value and a further 19% described their remnants as of grassy White Box woodlands
“poor”. A further one-third of all respondents • difficulties in changing already established described their White Box remnants as varied in attitudes to rural management. condition or of mixed quality. While the assessments of quality were clearly reliant on the As Hodgkins et al (in press) have identified, the landholder/manager’s ability to identify whether issues involved are complex, with many understorey species were native or introduced, landholders failing to recognise the direct links and are subject to variability between individuals, between sustainable agricultural production and they provide at least some measure of condition. retention of threatened remnant vegetation. As a result, even where there are positive attitudes to Perhaps most significant among the observations remnant vegetation, those attitudes often do not is the relatively small proportion of grassy White translate into action. The results of a recently
14 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
published Western Australian survey by Jenkins and the identification of mechanisms appropriate (1996) suggest that the shift from awareness to to public land were generally less well developed. action is to a significant extent financially driven, Since some of the most intact grassy White Box but that when land degradation and the effects of woodland remnants occur on public land, either rising watertables associated with vegetation loss in cemeteries or roadside reserves, and since a become apparent, action follows more quickly. landscape approach to vegetation management is The feedback received in this project relating to important, mechanisms for conserving those the conservation of grassy White Box woodlands remnants on public land appear to require greater is generally closely aligned with the findings in attention. other studies relating to the conservation of The types of incentives raised and discussed by threatened ecological communities in rural participants in this project fall under the following landscapes. Coates (1987), in her survey of headings landholders in the Western Australian wheatbelt, found that “fencing subsidies, the supply of low • financial incentives cost trees, tax concessions, extension work by • provision of technical information and advice government departments, relief from local government rates, worker schemes and low • property-based incentives interest loans” were the preferred incentives. • legislative protection Much of Coates’ work has been reaffirmed in recent findings by Jenkins (1996). In her study in • working in the local community. the Western Australian wheatbelt, Jenkins found that over 70% of farmers listed “better financial Financial incentives assistance for fencing and replanting” as desirable. Among respondents in Jenkins’ study, “83% said Grants and subsidies that they thought that the government should Asked about the types of incentives which might provide some sort of financial assistance for encourage conservation of remnant grassy White fencing bushland.” Box woodlands, initial contacts generally favoured
Gilfedder & Kirkpatrick, in their survey of grants or subsidies for the cost of fencing landholder attitudes towards the conservation of materials. Few of those interviewed were lowland grasslands in Tasmania, found that interested in “direct handouts” for conservation respondents were generally not favourably work. Rather, they identified opportunities for disposed towards conservation covenants because cooperative effort, with governments providing of the constraints they might place on property funding for materials and the landholder management. They found mixed reactions to both providing labour. Good examples of such tax deductibility and rate rebates, with “The cooperative efforts are already apparent on some biggest single identified incentive that landholders private properties, especially where Landcare recognized [being] the provision of money for groups have been the focus for funding fencing materials”. In that survey, advice on applications. management issues was also a major form of Participants in the follow-up forums again assistance seen as desirable. identified financial incentives as an essential
However, while private landholders were keen to aspect of initiatives to conserve grassy White Box see the development of incentives which assisted woodlands or other remnant vegetation. in recognition of grassy White Box woodlands Subsidies to fence out remnants in return for entry and in providing sound management advice based into a management agreement to maximise the on ecological principles, the levels of awareness conservation value of selected remnants was
15 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
consistently seen as a good mechanism for Within the follow-up forums, both tax and local providing financial support. However, the nature government rate rebates received considerable of, and administrative arrangements for, such support as other possible financial incentives, conservation agreements will play a critical role in although views on these varied within groups in their uptake. A scheme in which priorities are set each of the forums. As in the initial interviews, through a transparent process which includes rate rebates were generally seen as being relevant consultation with landholders was identified as a only so long as local councils received preferred approach. Private landholders favour reimbursement from other levels of government, such a scheme because it enables them to play an preferably the Commonwealth. In some instances, active role and to contribute to the process concerns were also expressed that local through input to planning and through the governments may not have the skills and provision of labour. resources necessary to properly administer a rebate scheme designed to achieve increased Asked about whether fencing out of small conservation management. This may be overcome remnants which remain on both public and when regional vegetation assessments are private land is likely to contribute significantly to conducted and Regional Vegetation Management grassy White Box woodlands conservation, given Plans established as part of the process associated the external pressures on such areas, most forum with the introduction of a new Native Vegetation participants stressed the educational and Management Act for New South Wales. However, motivational aspects of fencing schemes as almost provision of adequate advice to local governments as important as the immediate conservation will be dependent upon the level of both benefits. When challenged as to whether ecological and communication expertise allocating the same amount of funding to fencing associated with the Regional Vegetation out and management of the few remaining larger Management Committees and the proposed Native areas of grassy White Box woodlands might Vegetation Advisory Council. achieve a better conservation result, most still favoured an on-property fencing subsidy scheme Tax concessions because of the “ownership” and participation likely to result. Concerns about the ongoing While tax rebates were also seen as very relevant, management of larger tracts of public land many on rural properties expressed concerns that reinforced this view. in the absence of a taxable income, these are of little return to landholders who might want to take Local government rate concessions conservation initiatives but are unable to do so for financial reasons. Tax credits, raised as an At interview, many of the private landholders also alternative through which producers defer their expressed an interest in gaining some form of tax deductions based on expenditure for remnant rating concession for those areas set aside for vegetation conservation to a year in which they conservation purposes. While several local have a taxable income, were generally treated government representatives expressed concerns with some suspicion by forum participants that local governments could probably not bear because of uncertainty about changing the costs of such concessions, at least one local government policies into the future. government staff member noted that because the areas involved are small, it may be feasible. Others were interested in such rate concession Provision of information and schemes, so long as local government could technical advice receive financial support from other levels of Among those initial contacts who completed government. questionnaires, help from scientists in identifying grassy White Box woodland remnants and advice
16 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
on the best ways of protecting those remnants interested in improving their management of were less favoured than was direct funding, but grassy White Box woodlands and other remnants. each of these were preferred to entry into In some cases this may be because landholders Conservation Agreements. The strong desire for and managers are unaware of the support which better practical information about identification is available through programs such as ‘Farming for and management of remnant Box woodlands is the Future’ and Landcare. However in other cases, reinforced by the results of a survey conducted by it is simply that scientists do not yet have ‘an Dr Steve Hamilton of the University of answer’ and are thus either failing the Melbourne’s Dookie College (see Price & Tracy, expectations of those who seek information or are 1996). Jenkins (1996) also found that landholders unwilling to provide ‘best bet’ information which in the Western Australian wheatbelt thought that can be further developed through practical information was “inadequate or not readily experimentation done in collaboration with the available” on a number of technical aspects of landholder. To the extent possible, scientists vegetation management. should be working with landholders and managers to test ‘best bet’ approaches to remnant Information about identification vegetation management across the landscape. The issue of White Box identification brought Other landholders with on-ground experience varied responses from among those interviewed. (ie. peers of those seeking the information) are While some were very confident that White Box is generally viewed as the preferred providers of readily distinguished from the most closely related such information, being able to present the Grey and Yellow Box species, many were less information in easily understood forms and having confident about the identification of native a high level of credibility among their peers. understorey. Participants in the various forums discussed the need to acknowledge the competing demands on Information transfer on management landholder time when planning for activities Where private properties are being used for grassy which might increase their participation in White Box woodlands or other remnant research, conservation initiatives. However, some there is a strong desire among the landholders to participants also commented that the availability be involved in the research and to be kept of time relates directly to the priority which informed of research activities and their outcomes. landholders place on these activities as compared Opportunities for adaptive management based on with other activities which might take them away such interaction were seen to be high, but several from conservation effort. of the landholders involved do not feel these opportunities have, until now, been adequately met. The challenge for information transfer is to provide technical information in ways which These views were reinforced by those who promote awareness of the need for integrated participated in the follow-up forums, where landscape management based on a better participants frequently referred to the need for understanding of the land and water systems more information about the management of involved. Practical advice is required which builds remnant woodlands, and grassy White Box greater understanding of woodlands in particular. While there was a generally held perception that scientists may have • the importance of maintaining whole relevant technical information, that information is ecological systems, in which trees, their not reaching landholders and managers in a understorey plant species and the related format in which they can use it. Practical, easily animals and soil organisms interact for the accessible information based on real-life health of the system experiences is being sought by those who are
17 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
• the links between vegetation retention and Property-based incentives protection of drainage systems and water Building on previous work with Young et al courses (1996), the Project Team members sought to • the links between on and off-farm explore the extent to which property-based rights management of the landscape. might serve as incentives for the conservation of grassy White Box woodlands. Included in these Whilst, as was noted earlier, scientists may not are the spectrum of covenants and management have all the answers, there is sufficient agreements available through the National Parks information and knowledge available to work and Wildlife Service in New South Wales or under with rural communities to build improved consideration based on experiences in Victoria vegetation management systems. Kits such as and elsewhere. those recently launched by Charles Sturt University’s Environmental Studies Unit and that The success of all such programs was seen to be which is being prepared by the North-west Slopes dependent upon adequate resourcing, both and Plains Vegetation Committee and the North- financially and in terms of the personnel available West Catchment Management Committee (Reid, in to provide information and support to landholders preparation) will assist in achieving this goal. and managers.
In discussing the need for greater information on While each of the schemes being explored is the conservation management of grassy White dependent upon voluntary entry by the Box woodlands, almost all participants expressed landholder, each was perceived, by the landholder, support for a simple and easily accessible kit to have a differing level of control associated with it. which provides information on species identification and relevant aspects of management. Voluntary Conservation Agreements Administered by the National Parks and Wildlife Increasing public awareness Service, Voluntary Conservation Agreements are Participants in the initial interviews and in each of intended to provide permanent protection for the the follow-up forums also commented on the lack special natural, cultural or scientific values of an of awareness in the community of the significance area of land. They are joint agreements between a of White Box woodland remnants. While forest landholder and the Minister for the Environment, remnants might have more public appeal and with entry into an agreement being entirely have been the focus of community conservation voluntary. campaigns, remnant woodlands have received Even among the most motivated of private little public attention, such that many in the landholders interviewed, there remained a degree community are unaware that the ‘patch of bush’ in of scepticism about possible entry into Voluntary their back paddock or the local cemetery has real Conservation Agreements for the conservation of conservation significance. This attitude was amply remaining grassy White Box woodland remnants. summed up in one forum, by the comment Concerns about the extent to which the National “They [the White Box trees] have always been Parks and Wildlife Service or the responsible there and they are taken for granted.” government minister might gain a controlling influence over property management were often Related to this perception is the fact that while expressed, with the major concern being White Box trees might be recognised and perhaps provision of powers for the responsible minister even valued by some, few in rural communities to change the conditions of an agreement. recognise either the scarcity or the ecological significance of the associated understorey species. Among those who had made initial efforts to enter into such agreements, concerns were expressed
18 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
• that they can be entered into only for land When presented with an outline of the which meets certain criteria with respect to ‘stewardship’ approach, just over half of all initial conservation significance contacts responding to the questionnaire (53%) felt that such a proposal would work, with 26% • as to the relatively lengthy and complex feeling it would not work and the remainder process which applicants must complete being undecided. Both at interview and in the before signing off an a Conservation follow-up forums, participants saw such a scheme Agreement, and as being appropriate both to the management of • the permanency of Conservation Agreements, remnants on private property and also as a way of once entered into, and the likely implications encouraging local involvement in management of of this encumbrance on a property’s title both public land remnants. for subsequent management and for later Using grassy White Box woodlands as a starting resale opportunities. point, Prober & Thiele and others are developing Despite these concerns, all of which were a ‘stewardship’ concept of remnant management reiterated by forum participants in each of the through which landholders would retain locations visited, Voluntary Conservation ownership and day-to-day management of the Agreements were seen as an important property- areas, while linking them in some form of ‘reserve based conservation mechanism for the small system’ in which participants agreed to various number of landholders who are willing to invest aspects of conservation management. substantial time and resources in conservation initiatives on their properties and who want to Prober and Thiele “Protected Area Network” ensure that those investments are retained in proposal perpetuity. While not presented in detail to either the initial However, in general, both the initial interviewees interviewees or in the subsequent forums, a and participants in the follow-up forums were concept being developed by Prober and Thiele is more interested in developing options which perhaps on the next rung of a hierarchy of retain their autonomy over management of private property-based conservation mechanisms property. applicable to grassy White Box woodland remnants. In their concept, remnant areas of Stewardship arrangements grassy White Box woodlands which are small in size and have a diversity of ownership, but have a As Young et al (1996) identify, effective motivation high level of ecological integrity, would be linked requires teaching “how” as well as teaching together within a common, nationally recognised “what” the basic message is, and in rural framework. The system being developed by communities the teaching of what and how is Prober & Thiele would involve protection of often best achieved through learning by doing. individual sites, both on public and private land, As an alternative to Voluntary Conservation through a range of existing mechanisms such as Agreements, stewardship schemes provide a Local Environment Plans, Voluntary Conservation mechanism for achieving this. Agreements and other protection categories. All As discussed in the follow-up forums, landholders would be linked together through an overarching would be encouraged to become part of a policy and management structure, currently being ‘stewardship’ scheme, through which they are termed a Protected Area Network. This Network paid a small fee in exchange for entering into an would represent a new category of ‘reserve’, agreement to manage critical parts of their own administered by the National Parks and Wildlife and/or adjoining public land, with an emphasis on Service, within which individual landholders retain conservation rather than production. ownership and management of their remnants.
19 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Of key importance to many of the private of greater profile and support across the landholders, both in individual interviews and in community. the forums, was the desire to retain grazing access Stewardship agreements entered into between to their remnants at times of high need, such as landholders or other parties with an interest in lambing and shearing times when additional conservation of natural resources and the agencies shelter is required. Several of those interviewed responsible for areas of public land, might were interested in exploring options for altered provide a basis on which to develop agreements and flexible management which would enable for those areas where they are not placed under occasional stocking in ways which might retain legal constraints. Morton and his colleagues both White Box regrowth and conservation or (Morton et al, 1995) have also proposed similar restoration of native understorey. While the mechanisms for ecological and landscape proposed Protected Area Network might not meet management in the arid and semi-arid regions of that need, small remnants of high conservation Australia. value might be conserved through the Network, with other remnants being managed through Land for Wildlife and Wildlife Refuges various other ‘stewardship’ arrangements. Whilst a Land for Wildlife scheme similar to that Some participants in the forums expressed a view run in Victoria did not form part of the initial that, in order to be effective, voluntary schemes in consultation with landholders, the concept was which landholders have substantial flexibility in tested with participants in the follow-up forums stocking and other management arrangements, because the scheme was, by then, under would require monitoring to ensure compliance consideration in New South Wales (see Prescott & with conditions of a funding agreement. Concerns Associates, April 1996). were then expressed that such monitoring might bring with it high administrative costs and Victoria’s Land for Wildlife scheme has operated possibly unwanted intrusion in accessing since the early 1980s as a scheme in which participating properties. However, it would seem landholders interested in wildlife management in that Property Agreements proposed within the their land can register that interest. Having planned New South Wales Native Vegetation registered as participants in the Land for Wildlife Management Act could readily accommodate scheme, they then receive property signage, stewardship agreements, provided the Agreements regular newsletters and management notes, and remain subject to some form of random audit. the opportunity to participate in field days and other activities in support of their work.
Stewardship on public land Many participants in the forums were not familiar Because of the significance of Travelling Stock with the Land for Wildlife scheme. However, Routes and Reserves as grassy White Box among those familiar with the scheme, it had woodland remnants, and the observation that widespread acceptance and was seen as relevant these reserves are, in many cases, no longer to the conservation of grassy White Box required regularly for stock movements, Rural woodlands as an important wildlife habitat. Lands Protection Boards clearly have a role to Newsletters and other information and on- play in conserving remaining grassy White Box property support provided through the scheme woodlands. In areas where Travelling Stock were seen as able to assist in developing sound Routes and Reserves are in lower demand than in conservation management and to increase the past, some Travelling Stock Routes and landholder participation. A small number of Reserves are now being managed for lighter participants in the various follow-up forums stocking, with a view to allowing both tree and expressed concerns that programs such as Land understorey regeneration. This approach is worthy for Wildlife are entirely voluntary and this
20 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
4 provides no measure of future security for regulation should be precautionary. They also conservation initiatives taken by a committed identify the risk of irreversible loss as a key current owner. However, for most participants, indicator of the need for a regulatory component this flexibility was seen as an advantage, in any incentive package – a risk which is encouraging participation and the building of particularly relevant for an ecological community skills and knowledge about conservation as much at risk as is grassy White Box woodlands. management. Initial reactions to the introduction of native By contrast, the Wildlife Refuge scheme which has vegetation protection legislation in South Australia operated in New South Wales for more than two some 15 years ago, and the more recent decades was seen as being of little benefit. Few experiences associated with State Environmental participants in the follow-up forums were aware Planning Policy No. 46 (SEPP46: Protection and of the scheme. Among those who knew of its Management of Native Vegetation, August 1995), existence, doubts were expressed as to the level both indicate that private landholders react of resourcing committed to it, the difficulties of adversely to stringent controls on their property entry to the scheme and its relevance to the management. However, as Minister Wotton (cited conservation of grassy White Box woodlands or in Department of Land and Water Conservation other habitat remnants. Issues and Options paper, Feb 1996) identifies
One of the few advantages associated with “a voluntary approach alone is unsuccessful” in Wildlife Refuges is that they apply to public as conserving valuable native vegetation. well as private land. Since significant remnants of grassy White Box woodlands occur on public Working in the local community land, this is seen as an important factor. Opportunities for landholders and others to work Some participants expressed concerns that both together to conserve areas on private and public the Land for Wildlife and Wildlife Refuge schemes land were identified as important by some of place too strong an emphasis on ‘wildlife’, leaving those interviewed. Both the Mangoplah Landcare little opportunity to further educate landholders group in the south-west and local producers in and the wider community about the importance of the north-west reported sound experiences of habitat and, in particular, the understorey species such work. which go to make up a healthy ecological There is clearly goodwill towards conservation community. management of important remnants among those involved in this project. This is reflected in the fact Legislative protection that almost half (43%) of all questionnaire The need for an underpinning regulatory safety- respondents indicated that as local landholders net in any package of incentives to conserve they see it as a good idea to have landholders biodiversity was explored in some detail by take responsibility for and manage adjoining areas Young et al (1996). They concluded that “other of public land which have conservation mechanisms rely on a substantial underpinning of significance. government regulation for their effective implementation” and that where possible such
4 It is important to ensure, however, that legislation does not actively work against native vegetation protection. When discussing conservation management on public lands, concerns were often expressed that forthcoming changes to the NSW Bush Fires Act may have recently placed responsibilities on landholders and land managers which encourage frequent burning of bushland areas to reduce fire hazards. Although other provisions being considered enable landholders not to undertake hazard reduction burning where it will impact on environmental values, not yet demonstrated, there is widespread concern among those who have adopted a conservation ethic that this will have serious adverse effects on both White Box regeneration and the survival of understorey species
21 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Government funded programs the need and seeks support. Such training might
Of concern to several of those interviewed was include issues relating to group dynamics, the discontinuation of the Commonwealth funded communications, goal setting and strategic Local Environment Assistance Program (LEAP), planning, administrative and facilitation skills which landholders and local communities have building. used to good effect to fence out, restore and Most participants in the forums identified the need manage grassy White Box woodlands areas on for time, money and motivation as the key barriers both public and private land. Among those to greater involvement in local community groups involved, the LEAP scheme was seen not only to working for the conservation of remnant provide strong financial multiplier effects, but also vegetation. However, provision of leadership by to assist in integrating young people into rural people respected in the community was also seen communities and to strengthen the sense of as an important aspect of successful group work community ownership and goodwill towards these towards conservation of remnants. important vegetation remnants. The employment of paid facilitators, who can Within the various follow-up forums, views as to significantly increase the efficiency of use of the success of such programs varied, the support individual and group time, was seen as important apparently relating in significant part to the careful in building and maintaining group participation. selection of suitable trainees and coordinators and Although group work was generally identified as the development of a commitment to the project important in conserving remnants on public land, between those two parties. several of the participants in the follow-up forums identified a strong need to reach out to those Training for local groups landholders who prefer to maintain their independence and to operate outside of a group, Provision of training to assist working in groups since this is where many private landholders in was also identified as useful in increasing the rural sector prefer to be, especially with conservation work within some rural regard to the management of their own communities, although participants in the various properties. forums were generally of the view that such training is only useful where the group identifies
22 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
circumstances. The toolkit will clearly need to 4. Preferred model include • programs which provide a mechanism for for grassy White ‘leading edge’ rural producers to serve as project leaders in the provision of peer group Box woodland education about the significance of grassy White Box woodlands and other woodland conservation remnants in the rural landscape
Having completed this project, it is the aim of the • mechanisms for defining priority areas for Project Team that the work should contribute to action, these priorities being identified in terms of sites, methods of conservation, management • raising awareness of the plight of grassy White issues to be addressed and participants to Box woodlands on the western slopes of New receive support South Wales • tools to assist in assessment of remnants for • arresting the decline in grassy White Box retention, rehabilitation needs and woodlands and related woodlands and to opportunities and the creation of reconstructed increase the number of remnants in good landscapes where existing remnants are ecological condition, and inadequate to ensure ecological sustainability • providing landholder communities with the • the building of links between financial returns capacity to recognise a healthy woodland to rural producers and conservation landscape, which includes optimal placement management and retention of woodland trees. • fencing subsidies, as the preferred mechanism This project has focused specifically on grassy for protecting those remnants which are White Box woodlands because of its scarcity and assessed as having a high priority for the extent to which it has disappeared or been conservation degraded through competition with other rural land uses. However, much of what comes out of • the adoption of a group focus, recognising that this project is applicable to other forms of group activities are more cost-effective and remnant vegetation, and in particular other Box can more readily address landscape woodlands. Grassy White Box woodlands can be perspectives which are ecologically important. used to build awareness of the plight of remnant Carl Binning from CSIRO has provided some woodlands, the loss of woodland trees and their estimates for the costs of various aspects of the equally important understorey communities. That package of measures, and has also provided some awareness can then provide a focus for expanding additional information regarding CSIRO’s work in targeted actions in rural communities for the area of financial incentives. His full report can vegetation management on a landscape scale. be found at Appendix 3 but extracts relating to In striving to meet the goals outlined above, the costing are included in this section. Project Team has identified a need for a package of initiatives, which together form a set of tools from which landholders and land managers can choose those most appropriate to their
23 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
4.1 Specific package of 2. Provision of financial and ‘in kind’ measures (tool kit) for incentives for integrated management private landholders which includes a strong ecological component aimed at conserving remnant native For those responsible for managing grassy White vegetation. Box woodlands on private property, the package of measures should include the following Based on the recognition that to retain existing native vegetation (especially that which is as at 1. Provision of practical information and risk as are grassy White Box woodlands) is far advice as to the importance of grassy White more cost-effective than to undertake Box woodlands and other woodland remnants restorative activities in the future, rural and the most appropriate management for financial assistance, whether from local, their future conservation. State or Commonwealth government, This might best be achieved through should be made contingent upon the development of Whole Property • the development of a simple kit based on Management Plans which include interviews with key landholder and land ecologically strategic retention and manager interviews. With support from the rehabilitation of remnant vegetation. Both Land & Water Resources R&D Corporation, or taxation rebates and local government rate another appropriate funding body, this kit rebates which are subsidised by State and/or could be developed by the Project Team, Commonwealth government have a role to using interviews to be conducted with a play in this area. diversity of participants in the project. The estimated costs of producing and distributing Binning and Young (1997) have recommended 1000 copies of a print kit alone would be that “Commonwealth and State governments approximately $6000. However, the Project encourage local governments to provide rate Team is of the view that audio and video rebates for land covered by a management materials to complement the print kit would agreement that provides for vegetation greatly enhance the impact of the materials. conservation.
• establishment of government sponsored Supplementation should be provided in the programs in which rural producers with a first 3 years and decrease by 20% each year strong and demonstrated interest in, and thereafter. Following this transition, rate commitment to, conservation farming receive rebates should be built into the rating base of financial and administrative support to provide local governments by reviewing the basis for on-the-job learning about remnant vegetation land valuation and rating.” management and rehabilitation. Such a Binning (see Appendix 3) estimates that if program might most appropriately be 1000 hectares are conserved over four local developed as a Commonwealth Employment Shires, the cost may be as little as $2500 per Program, either as a part of the current Green annum per shire. Corps program or elsewhere within rural employment programs. Integration of farm management plans with broader Regional Vegetation Management Binning estimates that the cost of a Plans is needed in order to achieve the coordinating officer to facilitate on-the-job landscape perspective necessary for ecological learning might be in the realm of $70–80,000 sustainability. This might be achieved through per annum with additional administrative costs the planning schemes currently being totalling less than $10,000. developed in the New South Wales Native
24 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Vegetation Conservation legislation. However, consistent with fencing assistance currently in order to achieve ecological sustainability provided in the Murray Catchment. objectives, it will be important that both Binning and Young (1997) have suggested that Regional Vegetation Management Committees fencing subsidies be tied to the level of and the proposed Native Vegetation Advisory commitment of the landholder to a binding Committee have within their membership management agreement. They have suggested sufficient ecological expertise to be effective, the following steps together with sufficient landholder representation to ensure ‘ownership’ of the • for non-binding agreement such as a plans by the local community. person involved in Land for Wildlife
3. Provision of fencing subsidies, contingent • for a fixed term agreement, for example upon entry into Management Agreements 30 years which commit to management for • for an agreement in perpetuity such as for a conservation purposes. site that is important for an endangered Whilst preliminary advice (Department of Land species and Water Conservation, Feb 1996) A stepped scale has the advantage of appealing to acknowledges “provision of fencing… as vital all landholders through a non-binding “Land for to vegetation conservation”, no commitment to Wildlife” scheme, whilst maintaining a strong a fencing subsidy scheme is apparent in incentive to enter a binding agreement (Binning & subsequent materials received from that Young 1997). Department (Department Land and Water Conservation, April 1997; July 1997). The 4. Development, by State and Commonwealth World Wide Fund for Nature, working with the governments, of a ‘stewardship’ scheme which New South Wales Farmers’ Association, the encompasses both Total Environment Centre and Greening • the Prober & Thiele proposal for Australia, has developed a quite detailed establishing a Protected Area Network proposal as to how a remnant vegetation which differs in designation from any of fencing subsidy scheme might operate. Given the existing protected area categories, and the high level of importance placed by landholders on the provision of fencing • a less rigorous but financial incentive-based subsidies, not only in this project but also in component akin to that proposed by others in Western Australia (Coates, 1987; Morton et al (1995) for the arid Jenkins, 1996) and Tasmania (Gilfedder & pastoral zone. Kirkpatrick, 1995), it is important that that proposal receive further attention. 4.2 Recommendations
Binning (see Appendix 3) estimates that regarding Voluntary conservation of 10,000 hectares would be Conservation Agreements yielded per $1 million of public funds spent. While Voluntary Conservation Agreements This is based on 100% assistance and remnants available under New South Wales National Parks of approximately 25 hectares in size. If and Wildlife legislation should, and to some remnants are larger than 25 hectares, or less extent do, offer a mechanism for secure than 100% assistance is provided, the number management of grassy White Box woodland of hectares conserved per dollar spent will remnants of high conservation value, perceived rise. Binning reports that these costs are problems with the Agreements limit their application.
25 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Based on feedback received during this project, it comprehensive mapping of their remaining is recommended that remnant vegetation, with a view to managing remaining areas of relatively intact grassy White • the terms of Voluntary Conservation 5 Box woodlands primarily for nature conservation. Agreements, which enable the Minister to vary an Agreement at any time, be reviewed to State and local governments should also work remove uncertainties about possible Ministerial with interested local residents to develop, intervention in ongoing management of maintain and promote important Grassy private properties White Box sites as local heritage attractions.
• additional personnel and resources be made available to the New South Wales National 4.4 Recommendations Parks and Wildlife Service to enable faster regarding the role of processing of inquiries about, and applications governments for, Voluntary Conservation Agreements The issues surrounding conservation of grassy
• the New South Wales Government explore the White Box woodlands present a microcosm of the option of establishing an independent, broader issues surrounding the conservation and community-based Trust to promote and management of remnant woodlands across the administer Voluntary Conservation Agreements Australian rural landscape. The issues highlighted (based on the experience of Victoria’s Trust for within this project provide some significant Nature and given quite high levels of indicators in priority setting for major vegetation scepticism among participants in this project programs such as the Commonwealth’s Bushcare: about Voluntary Conservation Agreements). the National Vegetation Initiative. The need to bring together public and private land management in ways which will protect the 4.3 Recommendations remaining remnants on a landscape scale, and the regarding public land need for support by the Commonwealth and State Clearly, the initiatives outlined above have greater governments for local government provision of relevance to the conservation of grassy White Box incentives and provision of sound management woodlands on private land than for those areas on advice, not only to private landholders but also to public land. However, as already noted, many of public land managers, cannot be over- the sites of high conservation value are on public emphasised. land, either in small local cemeteries or on road or The Commonwealth has a role to play in ensuring railway reserves. that regional strategies do, indeed, address Given that knowledge of those sites and conservation issues at a landscape. awareness of their value appears less well Working with State agencies, the Commonwealth developed than for sites on private land, it is can also ensure provision of compatible and recommended that local governments, Rural up-to-date information which is relevant at the Lands Protection Boards and the Roads and regional and local levels. Traffic Authority be encouraged to undertake
5 Some work is already in progress in this regard, with a group of Rural Lands Protection Boards in the central-west of New South Wales nearing completion of a vegetation survey of their lands. The Lockhart Shire Council is also nearing completion of a roadside survey, and the Olympic Highway 2000 project in the south-west of the State is also undertaking an extensive survey of that route. These surveys, and others which might already be in progress, can provide valuable information for inclusion in Regional Vegetation Management planning processes being established under State legislation. Sites of high conservation value should properly be protected either through Local Environment Plans or through the establishment of Voluntary Conservation Agreements. Several might also be appropriate for entry on the Register of the National Estate.
26 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
to Symposium of the Ecological Society of 5. References Australia, Aust. National University, Canberra, September 1993. Benson JS (1991). The effect of 200 years of European settlement on the vegetation and Hall N, Johnston D & Chippendale GM (1975). flora of New South Wales. Cunninghamia 2(3). Forest Trees of Australia. 3rd edn. Aust. Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Binning C & Young MD (1997). Motivating people: Using management agreements to conserve Hobbs RJ & Yates CY. (In preparation). Temperate remnant vegetation. Dynamic resource woodlands in Australia: Biology, conservation, accounting and policy evaluation project management and restoration. Outcomes of a report. CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology. Report to workshop held in Braidwood, New South Environment Australia, Canberra. Wales; Dec 1996. Surrey Beatty, In preparation.
Coates A (1987). Management of native vegetation Hodgkins D, Watson G, Goldney D & Tyson G on farmland in the wheatbelt of Western (1997, in preparation),The attitudes of Australia. Resource Management Technical landholders to a range of environmental Report No. 145, Department of Agriculture, WA. issues, including the values of remnant bushland in the Central Western Region of Department of Land and Water Conservation New South Wales. In: Hobbs RJ & Yates CY. (Feb 1996). Native vegetation protection and Temperate woodlands in Australia: Biology, management in New South Wales: Directions conservation, management and restoration. and options for reform. Prepared by the Dept. Outcomes of a workshop held in Braidwood, Land & Water Conservation for the Native New South Wales; Dec 1996. Surrey Beatty, Vegetation Forum, Sydney. In preparation. Department of Land and Water Conservation Jenkins S (1996). Native vegetation on farms (April 1997). Native vegetation reform survey 1996. Resource Management Technical package: Question and answer sheet. Prepared Report 164. Agriculture Western Australia, by the Dept. Land & Water Conservation, South Perth. Sydney. Lambert J, Elix J & Binning C (In preparation). Department of Land and Water Conservation Temperate woodlands: Developing successful (July 1997). A proposed model for native conservation policies. In: Hobbs RJ & Yates vegetation conservation in New South Wales. CY. Temperate woodlands in Australia: White Paper prepared by the Dept. Land & Biology, conservation, management and Water Conservation, Sydney. restoration. Outcomes of a workshop held in Gilfedder L & Kirkpatrick JB (1995). A survey of Braidwood, New South Wales; Dec 1996. landholder attitudes and intentions towards the Surrey Beatty, In preparation. longterm conservation of native lowland Morton SR, Stafford-Smith DM, Friedel MH, Griffin grasslands. Report to the Grasslands Ecology GF & Pickup G (1995). The stewardship of Unit, Aust. Nature Conservation Agency, arid Australia: Ecology and landscape Canberra. management. J. Environmental Management Goldney DC, Cardale S, Stone B and Witchard M 43, pp. 195–217. (1993). An assessment of the quality and long- term sustainability of remnant bushland in Molong 1:100,000 map sheet (Central Western region of New South Wales). Paper presented
27 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Victorian National Parks Association (1993). Box & Service (undated). Voluntary Conservation Ironbark woodland conservation. Proceedings Agreements Handbook. Published by the New of a conference. Published in The Victorian South Wales NP&WS, Hurstville for the New Naturalist 110(1), Feb. 1993. South Wales Government. Wakefield S (ed) (1996). Remnant vegetation in Prescott A & Associates (April 1996). A review of the Central-west— Winning battles but losing the New South Wales Wildlife Refuge program the war? Conference proceedings, Charles Sturt with reference to the Victorian ‘Land for University, Bathurst. Wildlife’ scheme. Report to New South Wales World Wide Fund for Nature (Oct 1996). Remnant National Parks & Wildlife Service, Hurstville. vegetation fencing scheme — A proposal for Price P & Tracy K (1996). National R&D program New South Wales. World Wide Fund for on rehabilitation, management and Nature, Australia with New South Wales conservation of remnant vegetation. Land & Farmers’ Assoc. , Total Environment Centre & Water Resources R&D Corporation, Canberra. Greening Australia, Sydney.
Prober SM (1996). Conservation of the grassy Young MD, Gunningham N, Elix J, Lambert J, White Box woodlands: Rangewide floristic Howard B, Grabosky P & McCrone E (1996). variation and implications for reserve design. Reimbursing the Future: An evaluation of Aust. J. Botany 44, pp. 57–77. motivational, voluntary, price-based, property- right and regulatory incentives for the Prober SM & Thiele K (1993). Surviving in conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity Series cemeteries — The grassy White Box Paper No. 9, Commonwealth Department of woodlands. National Parks Journal (February the Environment, Sport and Territories, 1993), pp. 13–15. Canberra. Prober SM & Thiele K (1993b). The ecology and genetics of remnant grassy White Box woodlands in relation to their conservation. Victorian Naturalist, 110(1), pp. 30–36.
Reid N (1996, In preparation). A farmer’s guide to trees and bushland on the North-west slopes and plains. North-west Slopes and Plains Vegetation Committee & North-West Catchment Management Committee.
Specht RL (1975). A national system of ecological reserves in Australia: The report and its recommendations. Proceedings of symposium, Aust. Academy of Science, Canberra. Report No. 19, pp. 11–21.
State of the Environment Advisory Council (1996). State of the Environment: Australia. Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
28 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
6. Appendices
29 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Grassy White Box woodlands project sites
• Sites visited Other sites identified Predicted grassy White Box distribution
Figure 1 Prober (1996) used the Bioclimatic Prediction System (BIOCLIM, Nix 1986, Busby 1991 – see Prober for references) to predict the distribution (an envelope) of E. albens. Twelve climatic indices (representing annual and seasonal means and extremes for temperature and precipitation) were estimated for 120 records of E. albens from across its range (revised from the eucalypt dataset EUCALIST, Chippendale and wolf 1984). The data were used to derive a climatic profile for E. albens for each climatic parameter. The same climatic variables were predicted over a grid system (with a resolution of 0.025 deg latitude and longitude, or approx. 2.5 km) across SE Aust., using latitude, longitude, and elevation predicted from a continental Digital Elevation Model (Hutchinson, 1989; Hutchinson and Dowling 1991). All grid points falling within the climatic profile of E. albens were then extracted, giving a predicted distribution of E. albens based on the climatic parameters. The grid points falling within the 5–95 percentiles of this E. albens climatic profile were chosen by Prober to represent the main distribution of the White Box woodlands. Brian Stone ESU, CSU imported these grid points into the GENASYS Geographical Information System (UNIX software) to generate a grid cell coverage map of the predicted distribution.
30 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Continued IQF Yes Yes NSW 2787 State p/c NSW 2350 NSW 2866 NSW 2343 NSW 2800 NSW 2343 Yes Yes NSW 2800 NSW 2810 NSW 2339 NSW 2866NSW Yes 2795 NSW 2663 NSW 2866 Yes NSW 2777 NSW 2792 NSW 2346 Yes Yes NSW 2650 NSW 2176 NSW 2650 NSW 2845 NSW 2370 Armidale Oberon Molong Orange Spring Ck via Quirindi Town Four Mile Creek Wahroonga Kelso Molong Wantabadgery Junee Mandurama Manilla Molong Springwood White Haven Lane,Via Boggabri NSW 2382 Bossley Park Via Dundee Wallerawang PO Box 261 “Gowrie” 9 Alpugi Place 31 Taylor St 31 Taylor “Parakeet” P O Box 110 (“Allendale”) Grenfell “Greenacres”, Spring Ridge Rd“Greenacres”, Quirindi Address 1 Park” “Tufnell “Millamalong” “Three Rivers” “Three “Timaroo” Ophir Rd PO Box 294 “Cardington” 30 Burns Rd “Gundawarra” RMB 471 “Waral”, 9 Jindabyne St 5 Rowe St, Lake Albert Wagga Wagga 5 Lidsdale St Bridgewater Anne Douglas Rae Lesley Jock Meredith Tim & Janet Graham & Anita Wells” “Tunbridge Will Megan James Peter Margaret Brian Clive Barbara Tony Roger Jan & Kevin Rob & Eve Frank & Judy W & D Family Name First Name Hatherly Griffin Fry Garrett Hawkins Howard Fraser Armstrong Chappel Davidson Denne Fisher Ashton Bereseford-Smith Aleva Watts Atkinson Birmingham Chalker Alcorn Campbell Barnes Blackley Brown Project contacts and participantsProject Organisation Appendix 1 Appendix Note: I = Interviewed Q = Completed a questionnaire F = Attended a follow-up forum
31 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model s es Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IQF State p/c NSW 2340 NSW 2797 Yes Yes Ye NSW 2339 NSW 2795 NSW 2652 Yes Yes NSW 2866 NSW 2793 Yes Yes NSWNSW 2787 2867 NSW 2800 NSW 2382 Yes Yes NSW 2795 NSW 2795 NSW 2652 NSWNSW 2343 2346 Yes Yes NSW 2655 Yes Yes NSW 2660 Yes Yes NSW 2864 NSW 2800 NSW 2866NSW Yes 2346 NSW 2339 Yes Yes Y NSWNSW 2866 2795 Yes NSW 2652 ACT 2618 NSW 2870 NSW 2820 NSW 2029 NSW 2820 Rose Bay Mangoplah Via Molong Woodstock Tarana Manilla Town Orange Willowtree Lyndhurst Cumnock Boggabri Old Junee The Rock Manilla Kelso Via Culcairn Quirindi Georges Plains Mangoplah via TamworthWooloomin NSW 2340 Via Hall Cudal Parkes Orange Molong Wellington Bathurst Molong Wellington Willowtree Address 1 “Goonamurrah” Turondale Rd“Goonamurrah” Turondale Duramana “Amaroo” RMB 271 Upper Moore CreekRMB 271 Upper Moore Tamworth P O Box E61 “Shelysse” “Werribee” 14 Hughes St “Carinya” Amaroo “Delhi Downs” “Kentucky” “Ginanny” “Kamaringi” Lowes Mt Rd Murrabar Cadia St “Wongalee” Turners Lane Turners C/- P O “Suncrest” Carinya Pks Rd “Kumonin” RMB 230 1/691 New South Head Rd “Bandoola”, Orange Rd “Tarcoola” 2 Elizabeth St P O Box 25 66 Lind Street Thelma Ron David John Aileen Kevin Louise Pam & Peter Ck Rd “Kurrajong”, Warrah Bev Owen Bruce Reg Toni & RobertToni “Kurrajong Hills” David & John “Nebraska” Graham Christine Neville Ian Max (MBS & MP) “Glen Bower”, Spring Range Rd Wyatt Stephen Herb NF & SM Mike Colleen Phil Geoff Mick Tein Joanna Jessie Ray and Judy “Craigilea” Family Name First Name Nelson Nicholas O’Brien O’Bryan Parmwell Reynolds Rowlands Russell Schneider Robertson Southwell Robertson McLeish Mitchi Pitson Pratten Spark Tolomeo Schrader Simson Sinclair Thompson May McClure McDonald McLachlan Tonkin Hutchison Legge Hynes Smitt Klimpsch Organisation
32 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Continued Yes Yes Yes IQF State p/c NSW 2048 NSW 2790 NSW 2350 NSW 2795 NSW 2705 NSW 2795 NSW 2820 NSW 2795 ACT 2601 NSW 2800 NSW 2794 NSW 2800 NSW 2975 NSW 2831 NSW 2866 ACT 2602 NSW 2975 NSWNSW 2870 2867 NSW 2975 NSWNSW 2866 2800 Yes Yes NSW 2351 NSW 2340 NSW 2975 NSW 2866 Yes NSW 2421 NSW 2120 NSW 2795 Stanmore Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Lithgow Armidale Wellington Orange Leeton Orange Bathurst Cowra Geurie Bathurst Parkes Bathurst Molong Bathurst Cumnock Orange Armidale Bathurst Molong Upper Manilla NSW 2346 Bathurst Molong Thornleigh Turondale Bathurst Paterson Bentley Del. Centre WA 6983 Tamworth Town Address 1 2 Holt St 21 Gurwood Road Australian National Botanic Canberra PO Box 537 P O Box 330 Panorama Ave. PO Box 53 PO Box 342 154 Russell St P O Box 60 Gardens, GPO Box 1777 Gardens, Panorama Ave PO Box 861 6 Cypress St 6 Cypress 5 Kite St P O Box 17 “Deenderrah” UNE Panorama Ave “Gundebooka” Link, PO Box 184Bushcare Lyneham Civic Ctr, Cecile St Civic Ctr, “Mullungeen” Panorama Ave “Murrabar” 46 Oakleigh Ave PO Box 17 Kite St Panorama Ave Locked Bag 104 65 Panorama Road “Tocal” Kara-Jane Jeannette Ben John Beth Keith, Felicity & Netta ‘Noonee Nyrang’ Richard Isobel Gary Andrew David Brian Jenny & Russ Bruce Eric Sylvia J F Gavin Lyn Ross Mark Iain Bob Penny David Mervyn ong Neville Bennett Mills Daw Correy Williams Higgins Holmes Cardale Bath Howling Mawsley Richard Fisher Goldney Stone Wilks Wakefield Sue Wiggins Farr Whitehorn Mollie Smith Whiting Hussey Stewart Waters Watts Wherry Moore Vassey Gulliford Bob Brouwer Family Name First Name Organisation Aust Network for Plant Conservation Aust Trust for Conservation Volunteers Aust Trust Aust Network for Plant Conservation Agriculture and Environment Consulting and Environment Agriculture Group Armidale Tree Central West Regional Organisation of CouncilsCentral West Armstr Central West CMC Central West CMC Central West Planning Group Central West Australasian Beekeeper Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Studies Unit Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Carbonne Shire Council – Mayor Carbonne Shire Bathurst Conservation Group Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Studies Unit Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Studies Unit Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Carbonne Shire Council Carbonne Shire CALM — WA Services Council – Environmental Carbonne Shire Studies Unit Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Birds Australia (RAOU), Northern Birds NSW Group Services Bruce Smith Tree & Mt Arthur Reserve Aboretum Burrendong Studies Unit Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental C.B.A.lexander Ag. College
33 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IQF 3168 State p/c NSW 2866 Yes Yes NSW 2640 Vic QLD 4067 NSW 2975 NSW 2640 NSW 2830 Yes Yes NSW 2790 NSW 2790 NSW 2107 VIC 3888 NSW 2790 NSW 2787 QLD 4067 NSW 2350 Yes Yes NSW 2370 NSW 2640 NSW 2795 NSW 2797 ACT 2602 VIC 3888 NSW 2640 NSW 2790 WA 6056 ACT 2601 NSW 2640 NSW 2794 Yes ACT 6200 Molong Albury Town Albury Dubbo Clayton St Lucia Glen Innes Armidale Avalon Bathurst Lithgow Lithgow St Lucia Via Orbost Albury Perthville Midland Oberon Albury Lithgow Lyneham Albury Georges Plains NSW 2795 Hartley Lyneham Via Orbost Cowra Canberra Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Yes Kyndhurst “Fortignac” via GPO Box 789 GPO Box 789 7 Merinda Pl “Waitara” 662 Blackburn Rd Panorama Ave “Shelysse” PO Box 439 306 Carmody Rd “Bundari” 206 Lambeth St PO Box 95 PO Box 95 LMB 4 PO Midland GPO Box 789 PO Box 428 GPO Box 789 PO Box 95 PO Box 84 306 Carmody Rd PO Box 789 PO Box 84 35 Mid Hartley Rd PO Box 588 PO Box 51 Martin’s Ck, Bonang Hwy Martin’s Bernard Brian Peter John Kath Jo Bill Andrew Hedy Suzanne Ck, Bonang Hwy Martin’s Alan Jocelyn Robyn Sue Jane Mike Neil Peter Richard Helen Sandra Carl Ariel Mark Kevin Hickey Smith Family Name First Name Address 1 Glanznig Andreas Windsor Donna Weiss Bowers LockwoodLord Miller Mike Walpole Wray Dykes Bishop Bennett Graves Book Young McIntyre Sue Spence Hobbs McLeod Wood Curtis O’Bryan Bryant Binning Lindenmayer David Prober Thiele Nolan Organisation Deakin University Cundumbul Landcare Group Cundumbul Landcare Group Cundumbul Landcare CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology(visiting scientist) CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology CRES, Aust. National Uni. Agriculture CSIRO Tropical Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Studies Unit Charles Sturt Uni – Environmental Cox’s River TCM Cox’s CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology CSIRO CSIRO Agriculture CSIRO Tropical Charles Sturt Uni – Riverina School of Science and Technology Charles Sturt University Charles Sturt University Charles Sturt University Landcare Charlotte Vale Charles Sturt University Cox’s River CMC, Chair Cox’s River TCM Cox’s Charles Sturt University – Dept Env Science Citizens Wildlife Corridor Climax Mining Cox’s River CMC Cox’s Charlotte Vale Landcare Charlotte Vale Community Biodiversity Network Branch Council of Aust. Apiarists- Inverell Cowra Shire Council – Dept. Environmental Services Council – Dept. Environmental Cowra Shire River CMC Cox’s
34 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Continued IQF 3632 3647 State p/c ACT 2601 ACT 2601 NSW 2795 ACT 2602 NSW 2340 Yes Yes NSW 2343 Yes Yes Yes NSW 2800 NSW 2001 NSW 2871 NSW 2001 NSW 2343 NSW 2001 NSW 2800 NSW 2800 NSW 2590 NSW 2871 NSW 2794 NSW 2895 NSW 2350 NSW 2830 NSW 2001 NSWNSWNSW 2866 2001 2866 NSW 2820 NSW 2795 NSW 2640 Yes Yes Vic Canberra Canberra Bathurst Canberra Victoria Park WA 6100 Sydney Orange Quirindi Shepperton Vic Sydney Sydney Orange Darling Heights QLD 4350 Quirindi Orange Forbes Tamworth WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Albury Kelso Dubbo Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Cowra Sydney Forbes Sydney Armidale Albury Wellington Molong Kelso Molong Town GPO Box 636 GPO Box 636 PO Box 1480 Box 787 49 Manchester St GPO Box 39 PO Box 2146 PO Box 1057 4 Oakdene Rd GPO Box 39 GPO BOX 39 PO Box 53 PO Box 302 PO Box 50 PO Box 2146 PO Box 136 PO Box 535 7 Lee St PO Box 445 GPO Box 39 PO Box 136 GPO Box 9868 PO Box 1467 PO Box 829 PO Box 228 C/- 397 Tribune St C/- 397 Tribune PO Box 169 Lee St 20 Lee St Dookie College John Kathy Liz Tim Bill Stan Ian Ian Peter Jon Tim Cheryl Ian Katrina Darren David Warwick PO Box 60 Cliff Pam Gary Fleur Lumb Tracy Campbell Andrew McLennan Rod Griffin Safstrom Rod Elder McDonald Brad Sheahan Mark Watts Bott Berry Cole Garrard Harcombe Louise Lynch O’Reilly Paton Shelly Sinclair-Hannocks Sharyn Smith Allworth David Kulinskis Venita Carr Guyver Hull Allan Massey Moppett Patsy Stelling Graham Hamilton Steve Family Name First Name Address 1 Organisation Environment Aust. Biodiversity Group Environment Dept. Land & Water Conservation, Catchment Planner Dept. Land & Water Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Dept. Natural Resources and Env (Vic) Dept. Natural Resources Dookie College, University of Melbourne Dubbo City Landcare Aust. Biodiversity Group Environment Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Conservation – Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation & DCNR Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation, Lachlan TCM Dept. Land & Water Council Evans Shire Aust. – Roadsides Cons Officer Greening Australia Greening Australia Greening Environment Aust. Biodiversity Group Environment Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Dept. Land & Water Conservation Dept. Land & Water Environs Consulting Pty Ltd Environs Council Evans Shire
35 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IQF 3168 0 3675 State p/c NSW 2790 NSW 2871 Vic NSW 2794 NSW 2380 NSW 2656 Yes Yes Yes NSW 2800 NSW 2663 NSW 2655 Yes Yes NSW 2358 NSW 2850 NSW 2109 ACT 2601 NSWWA 2795 6005 NSW 2871 NSW 2346 Yes Yes ACT 2601 NSWACT 2767 2601 NSW 2795 NSW 2001 NSW 2351 NSW 2001 NSW 2866 Vic Lithgow Forbes Gunnedah Lockhart Clayton Cowra Orange The Rock Uralla Junee Manilla Mudgee Canberra Cootamundra NSW 2590 Mangoplah NSW 2652 Canberra Town Canberra Perth West Doonside Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Bathurst Forbes Armidale Sydney Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Sydney Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Yes Bathurst Molong Glenrowan PO Box 95 PO Box 431 PO Box 21 PO Box 510 “Nut Park” PO Box 19 GPO Box 2182 “South Winslombe” 90 Market St GPO Box 2182 PO Box 189 GPO Box 2546 PO Box 165 168 Baylis St PO Box 1495 PO Box 1467 186 Bayliss St 1562 Limekilns Rd PO Box 5481 55 Church St 55 Church Railway St 4 Thomas St Clive Tammy Sally John Geoff Michelle PO Box 53 Colin Graham Glen David Chris Ashley Bruce Phil Nicki Bindi David David Karen Samantha PO Box 9868 Dick Lyn Ernst Len Les Karen Thomas Fleming Higgins Maguire Horrocks Greg Sly Lemon Burrows Vanzella Slinger Bostock Jaeger Taw Gowing Gyorgy Hamilton Clare Conroy Price Family Name First Name Address 1 Watson Cunningham Saul Walker Holland Courtney Patrick Southwell Malcolm GPO Box 9868 Retke Reade Dean dePlater Curtis Davidson Ian Kerr Green Organisation Leeton Horticultural College Assoc Landcare Lithgow/Oberon Landcare Manilla Landcare Regional Specialist, DLWC Landcare, Lockhart Shire Council Lockhart Shire Committee MDB Community Adv. Dept. Ecology & Botany Monash University, Landcare Junee Landcare Macquarie Uni., School of Biological Sciences Group Mangoplah Landcare Group Mangoplah Landcare LWRRDC LWRRDC Landcare Cootamundra Landcare facilitator Landcare Land & Water Research Centre Research Land & Water Landcare Coordinator, Orange/Bathurst Coordinator, Landcare Jenolan Caves Reserve Trust Lachlan CMC Greening Australia Greening Group Kestel Research Kings Park & Botanic Gardens Kingstown Landcare Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening Greening Australia Greening
36 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Continued IQF State p/c NSW 2830 NSW 2800 NSW 2800 NSW 2720 Yes NSW 2369 NSWNSW 2350 NSW 2800 2346 NSW 2820 NSW 2680 Yes Yes NSW 2220 NSW 2780 NSW 2795 Yes Yes NSW 2350 NSWNSW 2220 2220 NSW 2782 NSW 2795 Yes Yes NSW 2850 NSW 2795 NSWNSW 2350 2795 Yes NSW 2220 NSW 2830 Yes Dubbo Orange Springwood NSWManilla 2777 Orange Tingha Wagga WaggaWagga Orange NSW 2650 Armidale Wellington Tumut Hurstville Wallerawang NSW 2845 Leura Queanbeyan NSW 2620 Mudgee Armidale Hurstville Hurstville Griffith Bathurst Armidale Oberon MussellbrookQueanbeyan NSW NSW 2333 2620 Queanbeyan NSW 2621 Bathurst Dubbo Hurstville Bathurst Queanbeyan NSW 2620 Bathurst Town PO Box 865 Locked Bag 21 PO Box 71 Locked Bag 1 P O Box 294 Locked Bag 1 PO Box 477 Shorts Rd P.O. Box 949 P.O. PO Box 1967 PO Box 100 PO Box 7 PO Box 2115 105 Banna Ave 87 Faulkner St PO Box 1967 GPO Box 1967 154 Russell St 62 Fitzroy Street 62 Fitzroy PO Box 330 154 Russell St 6 Rutledge St P O Box 402 6 Rutledge St 154 Russell St PO Box 1967 P O Box 351 154 Russell St PO Box 2115 P.O. Box 1007 P.O. David Dhyan Roger Graham Lindsay Carl Dennis Julianne Marion Jess Margaret “Benwerrin”, Mt View Pl. Andrea Bob Gary Tom Phil Roger Chris Jason Douglas Max Tony George Blore Beer KennedyMcCormickTupper Andrew Lester Williams Sonia Cooper Lembit Hawley Evans SivertsenSmart Szigethy Dominic Vaga Woodhall Steve Byrne Rehwinkler Rainer Richardson Vanessa Goodwin Alan Pressey Stacey Goode KinghamNadolny Neville Lloyd Burns Burrell Kingsford Grant Beukers Beckers Auld Family Name First Name Address 1 Organisation NSW Apiarists Association NSW Agriculture, Farming for the Future NSW Agriculture, on Farms Trees NSW Agriculture, Nature Conservation Council Nature Coordinator NE Landcare NSW Agriculture NSW Agriculture NSW Agriculture NSW Agriculture National Parks Assoc National Parks Assoc National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks Assoc National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service National Parks & Wildlife Service Mudgee Shire Council Mudgee Shire Murrumbidgee CMC
37 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IQF 0 State p/c NSW 2680 NSW 2580 NSW 2340 Yes Yes NSW 2594 NSW 2340 Yes Yes NSW 2343 NSW 2316 NSW 2247 NSW 2340 NSW 2000 NSW 2580 NSW 2343 NSW 2370 NSWNSW 2711 2800 NSW 2380 NSW 2795 NSW 2830 NSW 2870 NSW 2869 NSW 2350 NSW 2001 NSW 2800 NSW 2800 Yes Yes NSW 2800 NSW 2800 Town Goulburn Macksville Chatswood NSW 2057 Anna Bay The Rocks Quirindi Nemingha Griffith CootamundraYoung NSW 2590 Tamworth Peak Hill Glen Innes Tamworth Gunnedah Wagga WaggaWagga Goulburn NSW 2650 Hay Orange Quirindi Parkes Dubbo Armidale Sydney Orange Bathurst Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Orange Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Yes Orange Orange 122 Mundy St PO Box 259 PO Box 30 39 George St Lot 11, Nemingha Heights “Dutton Park” PO Box 441 PO Box 38 PO Box 441 “Milford Park” “Milford 7 Wilga St PO Box 602 PO Box 301 PO Box 219 60 Station Street 211 Alldis Place PO Box 502 PO Box 2133 PO Box 152 PO Box 337 Leeds Pde PO Box 1151 13 Caleula Cr GPO Box 1068 211 Hope St PO Box 883 148 Ashmont Avenue PO Box 883 Bob Lindsay Christine PO Box 1135 Greg Kate Sean Barrie David Tony Paul Darren John Sally Greg Sarah Warrick Tim Ron Sue Ross Cilla Geoff Jenny Neville Mandy Family Name First Name Address 1 Crossley Frank Hines Hughes Kennedy Shane Eden Reid Harris Myers Linnegar Matthew PO Box 2288 Gilbert Roberts Sunderland Glenn McClintock Ian Mercer Nuthall Peterson Hans Ware Waugh Wright Ragg Salvin Dodd Short Kenna Robertson Bruce Hodgkins Dennis Field Woods Wherry Watson Kinross Organisation NSW Apiarists Association NSW Apiarists Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Beekeepers Association NSW EPA NSW Apiarists Association NSW Apiarists Association NSW Beekeepers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Natural Environment Project C/-NCC Project NSW Natural Environment Group Nubrygyn Landcare Council Parry Shire NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association Council Parry Shire Council Quirindi Shire Council Quirindi Shire NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association NSW Farmers Association Orange Agricultural College Orange Field Naturalists Orange TAFE (Bush Regeneration) Orange TAFE Parkes Council Orange Agricultural College Orange Agricultural College
38 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Continued Yes Yes Yes Yes IQF State p/c NSW 2871 NSW 2866 Yes Yes NSW 2791 NSW 2800 NSW 2975 NSW 2871 NSW 2800 NSW 2351 Yes NSW 2351 NSW 2351 NSW 2866 NSW 2351 NSW 2351 Yes NSW 2000 NSW 5000 NSW 2351 NSW 2351 Yes NSW 2001 NSW 2800 NSW 2800 NSW 2072 NSW 2001 NSW 2346 NSW 2000 Yes Yes East Albury NSW 2640 Molong Orange Forbes Orange Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Carcoar Forbes Armidale Armidale Adelaide Armidale Bathurst Molong Armidale Armidale Mandurama NSW 2792 Armidale Armidale Sydney Coonabarabran NSW 2357 Sydney Manilla Coonabarabran NSWOrange 2357 Sydney Orange West TamworthWest NSW 2340 Sydney Town PO Box 15 Camp St 32 Spring St PO Box 4 PO Box 369 283 Butt St P O Box 6014, Halifax St “Penny Royal” PO Box 15 17 Triall Street 17 Triall PO Box 108 Locked Bag 21 PO Box 108 GPO Box 3482 P O Box 64 LMB 21 G.P.O. Box 3482 G.P.O. Mrs Macquaries Rd 2F/802-808 Pacific Highway Gordon Rm 306, 3rd Fl, Rm 306, 3rd St48 House, 11–31 York Transport Dennis Paul Gladys Norm Christine Hugh Margaret Locked Bag 1 Andrew Val Elizabeth Peter Graham William Peter Wal David Geoff Sandy Tony Bruce Eric Denise Greg Bruce John Peter Deane Wells SomertonCarroll Colin Ferson Mann Davison Boulton Clarke Jones Lee Day Whalley Williams John Kaine Ford Porter Spackman Ted Fitzhardinge Guy Dekkers Larnach Nowland Alison Pallett Handley TreweekePrell Rory Grant Green Lean Benson Ferris Semple Family Name First Name Address 1 Organisation Univ. of New England, Botany Department Univ. State Forests of NSW State Forests SA Farmers’ Federation Conservation Assoc., NSW Soil & Water of NSW State Forests The Good Oil Central West The Wilderness Society, of New England Univ. Thring Pastoral Co of New England, Botany Department Univ. Univ. of New England, Botany Department Univ. Univ. of New England, Botany Department Univ. of New England, Botany Department Univ. Univ. of New England, Deparment Zoology Univ. Rural Lands Protection Board, Molong Board, Rural Lands Protection Network Rural Women’s Rural Lands Protection Board, Molong Board, Rural Lands Protection Rural Lands Protection Board, Carcoar Board, Rural Lands Protection Rural Lands Protection Board Rural Lands Protection Bathurst Board, Rural Lands Protection Rural Lands Protection Board Rural Lands Protection Rural Lands Protection Board Rural Lands Protection Board Rural Lands Protection Rural Lands Protection Board Rural Lands Protection Rural Lands Protection Board Rural Lands Protection NSW Board Rural Lands Protection Rural Lands Protection Board Rural Lands Protection Royal Botanic Gardens Roadside Environment Committee Roadside Environment Roadside Environment Committee Roadside Environment Rail Services Authority Rail Services Authority
39 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model Yes Yes Yes Yes s Yes Yes Yes Yes IQF 3000 3052 7001 3000 State p/c NSW 2001 NSW 2756 NSW 2663 Vic ACT 2600 Tas NSW 2350 Yes Yes NSW 2820 NSW 2820 5000 NSW 2820 NSW 2830 NSW 2820 NSW 2351 NSW 2351 ACT 2616 NSW 2351 Yes Yes NSW 2351 Yes Sydney Melbourne Eurongilly Windsor Campbell WaggaWagga NSW 2678 Wellington Melbourne Wellington Hobart Armidale SA Wellington Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Ye Wellington Dubbo Wagga WaggaWagga NSW 2650 Kensington NSW 2052 Town Belconnen Armidale Armidale Armidale Armidale GPO Box 528 Farrer House, 24 Collins St Farrer Kimvale North Terrace, Adelaide North Terrace, University of Melboune 29 North St PO Box 62 53 Warrawong St 53 Warrawong “Tatibah”, Pine Forest Rd Pine Forest “Tatibah”, PO Box 252- 78 P O Box 62 Northcott Drive 98 Thornton St Obley Rd P O Box 62 112 Fernliegh Rd Box 20 P.O. Uni. of NSW, Biological Sci. Uni. of NSW, PO Box 1 Jamie Wayne Greg Pat John Owen Ruth Denis Darren Sian Graham Paul Jeff Bob Allison Nick Peter Ian Jean Pittock Whitaker Owen King Berryman Tim Bell Carey Craythorn Syd Evans Murray McGhie Adam Kirkpatrick Jamie Johns Tremont Crosthwaite Jim Harry Reid Bennett Newton Family Name First Name Address 1 Metcalf Reeve e Sandall oup Treweek operty Marano Organisation Wantiool Landcare Group Landcare Wantiool Council Shire Wellington Wellington Shire Council Shire Wellington Wellington Field Naturalists/GW CMC Wellington World WideWorld Fund for Nature Wagga Wagga City Council Wagga Wagga Wambangalang Field Studies Centre Wambangalang Wellington Shire Council Shire Wellington WIRES Wagga Wagga City Council Wagga Wagga University of Western Sydney Hawkesbury Victorian Farmers Federation University of SA School Economics, Finance & Pr University of Canberra, Applied Ecology Research Gr University of Canberra, Applied Ecology Research University of Melbourne School of Biological Sciences University of NSW, Uni of Tasmania, Geography & Environmental Studies Geography & Environmental Uni of Tasmania, Univ. of New England, Dept. Ecosystem Management Univ. Manag. & Resource Uni of Melb – Dept Agriculture School of Economics & Management Uni of NSW (ADFA), Univ. of New England, The Rural Development Centr Univ. Univ. of New England, The Rural Development Centre Univ. Univ. of New England, Dept Environmental Education of New England, Dept Environmental Univ. WideWorld Fund for Nature
40 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Appendix 2 Questionnaire distributed
Due to the small numbers involved, and the similarity of questions provided to private and public landholders, the two sets of questionnaires were combined for analysis. Results are those from the 42 questionnaires returned during the life of the project.
41 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Questionnaire for Private Landholders
Grassy White Box Woodlands: incentives and barriers to rural conservation
Community Solutions is working with a team of experts in carrying out the above project, which has been funded by the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.
Judy Lambert and Jane Elix from Community Solutions have worked in the area of rural nature conservation extensively over the past few years. In particular, we collaborated with the CSIRO and the ANU’s Department of Environmental Law on a major project on incentives for protection of biodiversity. This project was funded by the Federal Environment Department, which recently published our 2 volume report – “Reimbursing the Future”.
The other project team members are
• Dr David Goldney and his colleagues from Charles Sturt University at Bathurst
• NSW Farmers Association (Fred Gulson is the main contact)
• World Wide Fund for Nature (Jamie Pittock is the main contact)
We are meeting with both private and public landholders who have remnant grassy White Box woodlands on their property to discuss how incentives might be introduced to help in the conservation of these remnants
We would be very grateful if you could help with our project by completing the attached questionnaire, and returning it to us in the reply paid envelope.
Thank you for your participation. If you require further information please contact Jane or Judy on the phone numbers above.
“Before European settlement, grassy Box woodlands covered millions of hectares between southern Queensland and northern Victoria. The woodlands were made up of number of different eucalypt species, including White Box (Eucalyptus albens) with an understorey of Kangaroo Grass, Snow Grass, Wallaby Grasses and abundant wild flowers such as Yam Daisies and Chocolate lilies. …We estimate that less than 0.01% of the original grassy White Box woodlands ... remain relatively unmodified.
…we need to clearly distinguish the tree from the ecosystem to which it gives its name: although White Box trees are common, the grassy White Box woodlands are extremely rare. This is a common problem in conservation – it’s easy to understand conserving a species, but the need to conserve ecosystems is harder to get across (Suzanne Prober and Kevin Thiele, 1995).“
Name
Address
Postcode
Phone ()
Fax ()
Please tick this box if you would prefer that your name not be used in reporting on this project
1. Location of property
Central West (Orange/Bathurst region)
South West Slopes (Wagga region)
North West Slopes (Tamworth region)
Other (please specify)
42 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
2. Do you have grassy White Box remnants on your property? (please circle your answer)
Yes/No If your answer is No, please go to question 7
3. How would you describe the quality of the remnants? (you may tick more than one box if you have remnants of differing quality)
very good (scattered White Box trees, with many different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in the understorey, for example Australian Yam Daisy, Leafy Templetonia or Purple Diuris)
good (scattered White Box trees, with several different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in the understorey)
fair (scattered White Box trees, with a few different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in the understorey)
poor (scattered White Box trees with introduced pasture and/or weeds)
Comment
4. Are your remnant areas of grassy White Box woodlands currently being grazed by stock? (please circle your answer)
Yes/No If Yes, how often
5. Do you consider it viable to protect these remnants for their environmental values? (please circle your answer)
Yes/No If No, why not?
6. What have been the barriers to you protecting these remnants?
1.
2.
3.
7. What sort of incentives would encourage and help you to take actions such as fencing out vegetation remnants like grassy White Box, and removing stock?
(Please number 1–5 with 1 being the most important and 5 being the least important)
help from scientists and other experts in identifying your grassy White Box remnants
advice on the best ways of protecting your remnants
tax breaks for the costs of fencing materials and labour
grants or subsidies for the costs of fencing materials and labour
rate rebates for the areas of land that are being protected
a Conservation Agreement with the government that might provide you with assistance in return for you agreeing to protect the remnants for a long period of time
other (please specify)
43 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
8A. A proposal has been put forward whereby the remaining areas of grassy White Box in NSW might be linked together in a reserve system, but with the ownership and day to day management being provided by the existing landholder.
Do you think this proposal would work?
Yes/No
8B. What factors would need to be considered in further developing this proposal?
1.
2.
3.
9A In some circumstances, grassy White Box remnants overlap private land and adjoining public land. It has been suggested that private landholders have responsibility for managing the whole area in such cases.
Is this a good idea?
Yes/No
9B If Yes, what would encourage private landholders to take on this role?
1.
2.
3.
10. Would you be interested in receiving more information about this project?
Yes/No
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE RETURN IT TO COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS IN THE REPLY PAID ENVELOPE ENCLOSED. PLEASE USE THE SPACE BELOW FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
44 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Questionnaire for Public Landholders and Managers and interest groups
Grassy White Box Woodlands: incentives and barriers to rural conservation
Community Solutions is working with a team of experts in carrying out the above project, which has been funded by the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation.
Judy Lambert and Jane Elix from Community Solutions have worked in the area of rural nature conservation extensively over the past few years. In particular, we collaborated with the CSIRO and the ANU’s Department of Environmental Law on a major project on incentives for protection of biodiversity. This project was funded by the Federal Environment Department, which recently published our 2 volume report – “Reimbursing the Future”.
The other project team members are
• Dr David Goldney and his colleagues from Charles Sturt University at Bathurst
• NSW Farmers Association (Fred Gulson is the main contact)
• World Wide Fund for Nature (Jamie Pittock is the main contact)
We are meeting with both private and public landholders who have remnant grassy White Box woodlands on their property to discuss how incentives might be introduced to help in the conservation of these remnants
We would be very grateful if you could help with our project by completing the attached questionnaire, and returning it to us in the reply paid envelope.
Thank you for your participation. If you require further information please contact Jane or Judy on the phone numbers above.
“Before European settlement, grassy Box woodlands covered millions of hectares between southern Queensland and northern Victoria. The woodlands were made up of number of different eucalypt species, including White Box (Eucalyptus albens) with an understorey of Kangaroo Grass, Snow Grass, Wallaby Grasses and abundant wild flowers such as Yam Daisies and Chocolate lilies. … We estimate that less than 0.01% of the original grassy White Box woodlands … remain relatively unmodified.
… we need to clearly distinguish the tree from the ecosystem to which it gives its name: although White Box trees are common, the grassy White Box woodlands are extremely rare. This is a common problem in conservation – it’s easy to understand conserving a species, but the need to conserve ecosystems is harder to get across (Suzanne Prober and Kevin Thiele, 1995).“
Name
Address
Postcode
Phone ()
Fax ()
Please tick this box if you would prefer that your name not be used in reporting on this project
45 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
1. Location of public lands
Central West (Orange/Bathurst region)
South West Slopes (Wagga region)
North West Slopes (Tamworth region)
Other (please specify)
2. Do you have grassy White Box remnants on properties for which your organisation is responsible? (please circle your answer)
Yes/No If your answer is No, please go to question 7
3. How would you describe the quality of the remnants?
very good (scattered White Box trees, with many different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in the understorey, for example Australian Yam Daisy, Leafy Templetonia or Purple Diuris)
good (scattered White Box trees, with several different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in the understorey)
fair (scattered White Box trees, with a few different grasses, herbs and wildflowers in the understorey)
poor (scattered White Box trees with introduced pasture and/or weeds)
Comment
4. Are these remnant areas of grassy White Box woodlands currently being grazed by stock?
Yes/No If Yes, how often
5. Are these remnant areas currently being mowed or modified in other ways?
Yes/No If Yes, could you please provide details
6. Would your organisation be interested in protecting these remnants for their environmental values?
Yes/No If No, why not?
7. What have been the barriers to your organisation protecting these remnants?
1.
2.
3.
4.
46 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
8. What sort of incentives would encourage and help your organisation to take actions such as fencing out the remnants and undertaking management activities to regenerate the areas?
(Please number 1–4 with 1 being the most important and 4 being the least important)
help with identifying your grassy White Box remnants from scientists and other experts
advice on the best ways of protecting your remnants
grants or subsidies for the costs of fencing materials and labour
a Conservation Agreement with the State government that might provide you with assistance in return for you agreeing to protect the remnants for a long period of time
other (please specify)
9. A proposal has been put forward whereby the remaining areas of grassy White Box in NSW might be linked together in a reserve system, but with the ownership and day to day management being provided by the existing landholder.
Do you think this proposal would work?
Yes/No
9B What factors would need to be considered in further developing this proposal?
1.
2.
3.
10A In some circumstances, grassy White Box remnants overlap private land and adjoining public land. A proposal has been suggested that private landholders have responsibility for management of the whole area. Is this a good idea?
Yes/No
10B If Yes, what would encourage public landholders to relinquish the responsibilities to private landholders.
1.
2.
3.
11. Would you be interested in receiving more information about this project?
Yes/No
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE RETURN IT TO COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS IN THE REPLY PAID ENVELOPE ENCLOSED. PLEASE USE THE SPACE BELOW AND ON THE BACK FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
47 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
be reflected through prices in the market place. Appendix 3 Hence, through the decisions of individual landholders, an optimal allocation of resources Financial incentives would be made. Clearly this is not the case because markets do not exist for many of the – Report by Carl Binning, CSIRO values and environmental services provided by woodlands. Financial incentives for An alternative approach is to identify what are the conserving grassy White Box costs and benefits of incentive based measures for Woodland conserving woodlands. If these costs and benefits can be easily quantified, they can be shared on Rationale for using financial the basis of who benefits. For example, the table incentives below explores the case of providing fencing In recent years financial incentives have been assistance. consistently promoted as having the potential to The table demonstrates that whilst the majority of play an important role in conserving vegetation the costs of a fencing assistance scheme could be such as grassy White Box woodlands. However, readily quantified, the majority of benefits are of a questions will always arise as to the costs of non-marketable nature. This presents a significant incentive based programs and, more generally, difficulty in objectively determining who should how the costs of vegetation management should bear the costs of a fencing assistance scheme. be shared between private individuals and the public sector. The following section provides Approaches to calculating the significance of non- some costings on individual instruments and some marketable values are available through the rationale for how the incentives identified in this various methodologies, such as contingent report can be most effectively targeted. valuation and hedonic pricing, covered in the broad discipline of applied cost-benefit analysis. An economic perspective These approaches can be used to quantify the public benefits arising from individual projects From the perspective of economic efficiency, in and hence guide how much public funding an “ideal world” there would be no case for the should be provided. This approach has been use of incentives. This is because the full adopted by the Murray Darling Basin Commission economic, social and environmental costs and which has recommended that costs for on-ground benefits of conserving remnant vegetation would
Table 1: Costs and benefits of providing fencing assistance
Costs Benefits
Landholder Public Landholder Public Opportunity cost is equal Loss of future use options Capital value of fence Threatened ecosystem to restricted land use conserved (eg. no grazing) Fencing materials Possible improved farm management Improved land Labour in construction of Extension and facilitation management ethic the fence services Amenity Flow on effect to other Maintenance of the fence Program administration landholders
Costs of future conservation management
Any loss of land value
48 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
works be shared on the basis of an assessment of In what circumstances can the costs and benefits of the project to various financial incentives be justified? stakeholders using cost-benefit analysis. They Binning and Young (1997) distinguish between emphasise the importance of involving all the “duty of care” landholders face for sustainable stakeholders in the process of evaluating costs land management and the provision of a non- and benefits (MDBC 1996). marketable “public conservation service” by Such an approach has many difficulties associated landholders managing vegetation to meet with the methodologies and techniques used to conservation objectives. They suggest that a place monetary values on non marketable goods. dividing line should be “drawn between those Even if these difficulties could be resolved, the management practices required to achieve landuse process of assigning values is very resource objectives at a landscape or regional scale and any intensive and costly and would vary between additional practices required to sustain sites of landholders. It is suggested that the use of such an unique conservation value”. Hence, a public approach would only be appropriate in the case conservation service is provided when the of very large once off projects rather than small community’s interest lies in securing active and incentive based schemes of the kind discussed in ongoing management of a particular site. this report. From this framework, the following situations in The fact that there are clear public benefits arising which incentives can be paid are identified by from actions to conserve threatened woodlands Binning and Young (1997) provides a strong case for the provision of public • Where community expectations resulting in funds. However, a more important factor is that legislative or policy changes cause duty of care without the use of incentives there are strong to be shifted significantly over a short period incentives for individuals to continue to degrade of time, financial assistance may be provided woodlands. This is clearly evidenced by continued to speed the transition to the new grazing and cultivation of grassy White Box arrangements and maintain community woodland remnants. support. Such payments should be “once off Ultimately the public’s objective is to secure a payments” in recognition of the need to adjust permanent change in landuse, which in turn to a new regime and should only be made requires changed management practices by where a permanent change in landuse is individual landholders. Governments can provide secured information and education materials, financial • Where the community seeks landholders to incentives, change property rights or regulate to manage areas of remnant vegetation at a secure a change in landuse. Young et al (1996) standard that is in excess of that required find that a mix of these instruments is most likely through existing regional planning processes to be most effective in meeting the policy and regulations. In these cases ongoing objectives. payments can be justified on the grounds of Beyond this general framework which provides a equity because a conservation service is being rationale for a mix of incentives to conserve provided by the landholder, and remnant woodlands, important questions to • Financial assistance should not generally be resolve are paid to landholders to meet their duty of care • in what circumstances can financial incentives for sustainable land management. be justified?, and Grassy White Box woodlands are a threatened • when made, how large should incentive ecosystem which require site specific payments be? management, including removal of all grazing
49 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
pressure to secure the continued presence of making a fair contribution. Further, landholders native understorey. For this reason the use of are often willing to undertake conservation incentive payments can be justified on both of the activities as long as they are not “out of pocket” grounds outlined above. If legislative changes, (Young et al. 1996; Binning and Young 1997). arising from the NSW government’s consideration For this reason, all incentives put forward in this of vegetation management following State report are modest and directly related to the input Environment Planning Policy 46, prohibit clearing costs of management. Concerns may be raised of grassy White Box woodlands then incentives about precedents being set for government to may be used to retain landholder support and provide assistance for other vegetation motivation as an effective steward and manager of management. that land. In the absence of legislative controls, payments may be justified to secure conservation Because grassy White Box woodlands involve small outcomes that would otherwise remain areas they provide a good opportunity to pilot a unregulated. program of incentives and evaluate the acceptability and impact of various alternatives. The outcomes of any program should be carefully How large should incentive monitored with a view to the potential to apply payments be? similar incentives to other threatened ecological Evaluating how large incentive payments should communities. be is a difficult task. In theoretical terms payment should be made at a rate that just exceeds the The incentives and their cost opportunity cost of conservation. However, the incentives put forward in this report will be well Fencing assistance below the opportunity costs of most landholders Fencing costs vary considerably depending on the because they only provide assistance for a purpose of the fence and the terrain on which it is proportion of the direct costs of managing the to be built. woodlands to meet conservation objectives. Box 1 explores a range of options for fencing The opportunity cost of each landholder will vary materials, costs are identified on the basis of considerably. For a landholder with a strong materials required to construct one kilometre of conservation ethic, no payment may be required fence. Costs for materials are shown to vary from to secure conservation outcomes as this is already approximately $1,000 to $3,000 per km depending the most highly valued use to the individual. on the combination of materials used. The use of Other landholders will be dependent on rabbit proof mesh approximately doubles the continued grazing for their livelihood and require material cost of the fencing and therefore is not substantial payments to voluntarily change considered cost effective. Given the predominance landuse practices. The objective of the policy mix of grazing in grassy White Box woodlands areas, a put forward in this report is to use education and seven strand wire fence with two barbs or a hinge information programs to shift landholder attitudes joint fence would be recommended. These lie in at the same time as providing financial assistance the range of $1,085 to $1,933. to provide a strong incentive for changed landuse. The costs in Box 1 are derived from average There is considerable anecdotal evidence that a prices at rural supply centers. These costs could small financial incentive may have an impact on potentially be reduced by seeking sponsorship behaviour that is well in excess of its size. This is from major fencing suppliers in return for a because incentives are a direct way of governments discount on materials. Taking these factors into acknowledging the contribution of the landholder account, assistance for the full costs of materials in providing a conservation service to the public. may average at $1200 to $1400 per kilometre. Thus costs are seen to be shared with both parties
50 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Box 1: Possible fencing materials and associated
Materials
Quantity Cost Strainer post 1 $18.00
Stay 1 $16.00
Star picket 1 $3.45
Concrete support post 1 $10.50
Plain wire 1500m $110.00
Barbed wire 500m $55.00
6 Wire hinged joint 200m $140.00
7 Wire hinged joint 200m $158.00
Mesh 1050mm 100m $205.00
Plain wire fences
No barbed wire 1 Barbed strand 2 Barbed strands ($36.67 extra) ($73.34 extra)
6 Plain wires/2 strainers/star pickets every 8 metres $939.25 $975.927 $1,012.58
Plain wires/2 strainers/star pickets every 8 metres $1,012.58 $1,049.25 $1,058.92
7 Plain wires/4 strainers/star pickets every 8 metres/ $1,290.58 $1,327.25 $1,363.92 concrete support posts every 50 metres
7 Plain wires/4 strainers/star pickets every 5 metres $1,339.33 $1,376.00 $1,412.67
Hinged joint fences
No barbed wire 1 Barbed strand 2 Barbed strands 7 Wire hinge joint Rabbit proof mesh ($36.67 extra) ($73.34 extra) ($90.34 extra) ($1350 extra)
2 Plain wires/2 strainers/ $1,345.92 $1,382.59 $1,414.26 $1,435.92 $2,695.92 star pickets every 8 metres/ 6 wire hinge joint
4 Plain wires/2 strainers/ $1,492.58 $1,529.25 $1,565.92 $1,582.58 $2,842.58 star pickets every 8 metres/ 6 wire hinge joint
5 Plain wires/2 strainers/ $1,565.92 $1,602.59 $1,639.26 $1,655.92 $2,915.92 star pickets every 8 metres/ 6 wire hinge joint
5 Plain wires/4 strainers/ $1,843.92 $1,880.59 $1,917.26 $1,933.92 $3,193.92 star pickets every 8 metres/ concrete support post every 50 metres/ 6 wire hinge joint
5 Plain wires/4 strainers/ $1,892.67 $1,929.34 $1,966.01 $1,982.67 $3,242.67 star pickets every 5 metres/ 6 wire hinge joint
51 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
Labour costs for fencing are usually about commitment of the landholder to a binding equivalent to the costs of materials but can vary management agreement. They have suggested the considerably depending on the terrain and following steps difficulties encountered in construction. It is • 33% for non-binding agreement such as a suggested that fencing assistance be limited to the person involved in Land for Wildlife costs of materials to ensure that landholders are committed to the outcomes of assistance, a • 66% for a fixed term agreement, for example, proposal already identified as acceptable to many 30 years of the landholders participating in this study. • 100% for an agreement in perpetuity such as The overall costings for such a scheme will also for a site that is important for an endangered depend on the ratio of the size of the remnant to species. its perimeter. A full cost of approximately A stepped scale has the advantage of appealing to $100 per hectare would seem reasonable. This is all landholders through a non-binding “Land for based on assumed costs of $1,250 per kilometre Wildlife” scheme, whilst maintaining a strong of fence covering an average of 12.5 hectares incentive to enter a binding agreement. which in turn assumes that the average remnant would be approximately 25 hectares in size. These Rate rebates costings yield an estimated conservation of 10,000 hectares per $1 million of public funds Binning and Young (1997) have made the spent. If remnants are larger than 25 hectares, or following recommendation in relation to rate less than 100% assistance is provided, the number rebates of hectares conserved per dollar spent will rise. “Commonwealth and State governments Clear criteria for eligibility and standards for encourage local governments to provide rate fencing would need to be made. Eligibility should rebates for land covered by a management be dependent on an assessment of the agreement that provides for vegetation conservation value of the site. Payment should be conservation”. tied to an on site inspection of a satisfactorily • 100% supplementation should be provided in completed fence, in the correct location. the first 3 years and decrease by 20% each These costs are consistent with fencing assistance year thereafter. currently provided in the Murray Catchment at • Following this transition, rate rebates should $1,200 km. The scheme is sponsored by a range be built into the rating base of local of companies and has provided funding for over governments by reviewing the basis for land 300 km of fencing at 180 sites. The scheme has valuation and rating. been very successful with demand outstripping supply with thorough site assessments being used Rates are generally based on the unimproved value to identify suitability and priorities for assistance of land. It is assumed that all land is used for (Martin Driver, Greening Australia pers comm). productive purposes, though this need not be the case. What is surprising is that despite the modest Fencing assistance and subsequent construction of impact rates relief would have in most areas a fence will not secure conservation outcomes in (approximately $10 ha per annum in Yass NSW) itself. Where significant assistance is paid it is their absence is very often cited as a major reasonable that the community secure management impediment to conserving remnant vegetation. This arrangements that ensure conservation objectives may be because of the symbolic nature of rates will be met in the long term. being associated with productive land. Based on Binning and Young (1997) have suggested that this example, it could be assumed that conserving fencing subsidies be tied to the level of 1000 ha of grassy White Box woodlands over
52 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
4 Local Government areas (250ha per Council), management of areas covered by a would cost each Council approximately $2500 per management agreement in perpetuity annum. • The Trust should be established with once off Rates may, however, be a significant issue in areas funding for 5–10 years. Public donations close to urban settlements which have been should be encouraged and be tax deductible subdivided for future. In these cases, the impact • The Trust would provide payments to of rates and land taxes may be prohibitive, but landholders based on applications for funding given that grassy White Box woodland is generally linked to monitoring of management found on soils of higher fertility, it is unlikely that agreements undertaken on a two yearly basis significant stands will remain in close proximity to urban development areas. • The Trust would provide performance payments for examples of exceptional Taxation issues management.”
The impact of rates and other expenses associated The objective of a trust would be to provide with land management on the tax liability of a landholders with guaranteed access to funding for landholder is another important issue. If a land- ongoing management costs. holder does not qualify as a primary producer any Governments are generally concerned that work undertaken on the property will not be tax funding commitments be restricted to a finite deductible. period, usually not greater than five years. The impact of taxation arrangements is well However, to be enduring, agreements to conserve illustrated in relation to payment of rates. grassy White Box woodlands will require ongoing A primary producer can claim the costs of rates as adaptive management. The Trust would hold a business expense against tax. A landholder funds to provide assistance for a range of managing for conservation cannot. Hence, a management actions, such as control of landholder managing for conservation is unanticipated pests and weeds. Application to the discriminated against and can pay up to almost Trust would be made jointly by the landholder twice as much in land rates on land set aside from and the management agency. This would be done production (this is based on a marginal tax rate of on the basis of monitoring against agreed 48%) as is payable on production land. Further, performance indicators every two years. expenses such as fencing and weed control are The Trust might also provide payments to not deductible and cannot be depreciated for tax landholders who have excelled in their purposes. management or achieved a particular milestone in It is recommended that arrangements for taxation relation to rehabilitation. Such a scheme need not of land managed for conservation be urgently be complex and might be initiated as a simple reviewed. Costings of changed taxation awards scheme. arrangements would need to be included in any A vegetation trust may also manage a revolving review process. fund for purchase of woodland areas of high conservation value. A revolving fund purchases A possible role for a vegetation trust land on the open market, places an in perpetuity Binning and Young (1997) have recommended covenant on the land, and then re-sells the land to that a landholder willing to conserve the area covered • “A range of Vegetation Management Trusts be by the covenant. As the property right is changed, established to provide funding for ongoing via the covenant, it is more likely that a landowner committed to vegetation management
53 BACK TO CONTENTS
More than just the odd tree: Report on incentives and barriers to rural woodland conservation, using grassy White Box woodlands as a model
will purchase the land. In this way the market be in the order of $8,000 per annum. Policy works to put a “willing” landholder in the place of support may be high in the establishment phase an “unwilling” landholder. of the program but would then become minimal. Perhaps a third of a policy officer’s time would be Revolving funds are attractive because they are spent on the project in the first year, that is cost effective and also because they may be more approximately $25,000. ecologically dependable. As Farrier (1995) notes, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get a resistant Some of these costs could be absorbed within landowner to change their management practices. existing programs. This is irrespective of the approach taken: regulations, information or incentives. By acting in References the open market, a dependable landholder Binning C & Young MD (1997). Motivating people: identifies themselves through the market. Using management agreements to conserve Moreover, because the seller is usually keen to remnant vegetation. CSIRO Wildlife & Ecology sell, there is no need to offer more than market report to Environment Australia, Canberra. value to secure a remnant. Farrier D (1995). Off-reserve management and the If the Trust failed to demonstrate good conservation of biodiversity, with particular performance it would be subject to the normal reference to the management of land in private budget process of government and funding would ownership. Report to the Tasmanian Forests diminish or halt altogether. and Forest Industry Council, Tasmania.
Extension and administrative costs Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) (1996). Cost-sharing for on-ground works. Murray Any incentives program would require program Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. support and extension services. Given the rarity of good quality grassy White Box woodland any Young MD, Gunningham N, Elix J, Lambert J, program could be tightly focused thereby Howard B, Grabosky P & McCrone E (1996). reducing administrative costs. On the other hand, Reimbursing the Future: An evaluation of significant time would need to be spent with each motivational, voluntary, price-based, property- landholder explaining the value and benefits of right and regulatory incentives for the taking action to conserve the woodlands. conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 9, Department of the The allocation of one full time field officer would Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra. seem an appropriate estimate in the first years of a program. The cost of a field officer with vehicle and other associated expenses would be in the order of $70,000–$80,000 per annum (NSW NPWS pers comm). It is likely that a field officer could provide extension support to a wider group of woodland communities. However, given the new nature of this type of program, it would be worth keeping the program tightly focused for the first one to two years and to carefully monitor the results.
A field officer would require administrative, corporate and policy support. These costs are difficult to estimate. Administrative support may
54