TASMANIA’S NATIVE VEGETATION POLICY: TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK By STEPHEN HARRIS BSc (Hons), MSc Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Tasmania March 2011 i STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any University, and to the best of my knowledge, contains no copy or paraphrase of material previously written or published by any other person except where due reference is given in the text. Stephen Harris University of Tasmania HOBART March 2011 ii STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY OF ACCESS This thesis is not to be made available for loan or copying for two years following the date this statement was signed. Following that time the thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Stephen Harris University of Tasmania HOBART March 2011 iii STATEMENT OF CO-AUTHORSHIP The following people and institutions contributed to the publication of the work undertaken as part of this thesis: Harris, Shaw and Crane (2009) on ex situ conservation planning for Tasmania. S. Harris (60%), J. Shaw, University of Stellenbosch (25%) and N. Crane, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (15%) Details of authors’ roles: S. Harris made key contribution to the formulation and development of the idea, sourced relevant data and information, and directed and led the preparation and refinement of initial and successive drafts. J. Shaw contributed to the development of the paper, sourced some data on threatened species and provided input on the early drafts of the paper. N. Crane assisted S. Harris in preparing an early draft and locating some literature references. Paper by Harris, Allen, Baker, Bird, Bowman, Connolly, d'Arville, Harwood, Rozefelds and Wardlaw (1991) on guidelines for collecting dendrochronology samples from Tasmanian public reserves. S. Harris (45%), K. Allen, Monash University (6%); P. Baker, Monash University (6%); T. Bird (6%); D. Bowman, University of Tasmania (6%); A. Connolly, Environment Protection Authority Queensland (6%); L. d'Arville (6%); C. Harwood, CSIRO (6%); A. Rozefelds, Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery (6%); T. Wardlaw, Forestry Tasmania (6%). Details of authors’ roles: S. Harris defined the problem, scoped the required elements of the paper, prepared an early draft of the paper with assistance of A. Connolly, chaired a half day workshop of specialists, synthesised relevant conclusions from the workshop, led the refinement of successive drafts of the manuscript and designed the decision tree with assistance (mainly formatting) from L. d'Arville. iv K. Allen, P. Baker, T. Bird, D. Bowman, C. Harwood, A. Rozefelds and T. Wardlaw contributed comments from various specialist perspectives in a workshop and subsequently commented on drafts of the paper. A. Connolly assisted in preparing an early rough draft of the paper and locating some literature references. L. d'Arville assisted in formatting the decision tree and preparing the final paper for submission. We the undersigned agree with the above stated "proportion of work undertaken" for each of the above published peer-reviewed manuscripts contributing to this thesis. Signed:.......................................... ............................................................ Associate Professor Kate Crowley Associate Professor Marcus Haward Supervisor Supervisor School of Government School of Government University of Tasmania University of Tasmania Date.......................................... ....................................................... v GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ABIF Australian Biological Information Facility ABRS Australian Biological Resources Study ACF Advocacy Coalition Framework AFS Australian Forestry Standard ANZECC Australian New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (replaced by the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council in 2001 BDAC Biological Diversity Advisory Council BIOSIRT Biosecurity Surveillance Incident Response and Tracing CAPAD Conservation and Protected Areas Database CAR Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative CARSAG Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Scientific Advisory Group CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CEPA Communication, Education and Public Awareness CERF Commonwealth Environmental Research Facilities CFOC Caring for our Country CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora COAG Council of Australian Governments CLAC Crown Land Assessment Committee CMA Catchment Management Authority CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry vi DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts DIISR Department of Innovation, Industry Science and Research DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment EA Environment Australia (now the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) ENGO Environmental Non-Government Agency EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ERHOA Environment and Resources Heads of Agency ESCAVI Executive Steering Committee on Australian Vegetation Information ESD Ecological Sustainable Development FPP Forest Practices Plan GBIF Global Biological Information Facility GIS Geographic Information System GMO Genetically modified organism GSPC Global Strategy for Plant Conservation IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia ICM Integrated Catchment Management IGAE Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment ISO1401 International Standard: Environmental Management System JANIS Joint ANZECC/MCFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub-committee LUPA Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. LWRRDC Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation vii M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCFFA Ministerial Council on Forestry, Fisheries and Agriculture MERI Monitoring and Evaluation Resource Indicator NCRIS National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy NFI National Forest Inventory NGO Non-Government Organisation NEPI New Environmental Policy Instruments NHT Natural Heritage Trust NLWRA National Land and Water Resources Audit NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Service NRM Natural Resource Management NRMMC Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council NRNGA Natural Resource New Governance Arrangements NRS National Reserve System NVF Native Vegetation Framework NVIS Native Vegetation Information System OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PAMA Public Authority Management Agreement PFT Private Forests Tasmania PI photo interpretation RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (initiated at Ramsar in Iran) RFA Regional Forest Agreement viii RMPS Resource Management Planning System RPDC Resource Planning and Development Commission RTBG Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens SOE State of Environment SOF State of Forests TAC Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre TASVEG Tasmanian Vegetation map TASVEG VCA Vegetation Condition Assessment based on the Tasmanian Vegetation map TERN Terrestrial Ecosystem Research Network TLC Tasmanian Land Conservancy UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation VMA Vegetation Management Act WHA World Heritage Area ix ABSTRACT Vegetation policy initiatives were rare throughout much of Tasmania‘s European history until the 1970s. Evidence of policy learning was even rarer, and no substantial policy framework existed until the proclamation of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970. This was the chief instrument until it was eclipsed in importance for vegetation management in 1997 by the Regional Forest Agreement. Although developed to support a sustainable forest industry, it has developed a wider importance as the principal de facto vegetation policy framework, arguably overshadowing the importance of other Acts and policies. Evaluation and learning mechanisms are built into the Regional Forest Agreement and episodic improvements at the policy level have been demonstrated as a result. Both these instruments however, are considered to fall short of a comprehensively articulated development of vegetation policy because of gaps and the limitations of their particular perspectives. From the 1980s, following the strengthening of Commonwealth control over natural resources, most policy initiatives in vegetation have originated at the national level. The state has been responsive to these initiatives developed sometimes bilaterally with the Commonwealth or often multilaterally with other states and territories and the Commonwealth. National obligations under international agreements have been the eventual impetus for a wide range of actions at the state level. While Commonwealth and state policy objectives have tended to converge, there is still a poorly coordinated policy pathway from state government level to local government and Natural Resource Management (NRM) regional bodies. The national agenda-setting over the last two decades has resulted in some policy gaps at the state level. A sub-optimal policy and process milieu exists for dealing with many vegetation issues. There has also been the construction of an excessively intricate administrative and policy delivery framework. The small size of the state and its bureaucracy, and close professional relationships of some of the actors, may have benefited