INSPIRE: n. the arousing of feelings, ideas and impulses that lead to a creative activity. v. to uplift the mind of spirit. PLACE: n. the connection between nature and culturewhich gives meaning to our everyday life. v. to position or arrange. NOTHOFAGUS GUNNII: n. Deciduous beech, the only native deciduous tree endemic to the island of Tasmania, Australia.

FINAL

Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens LIVING COLLECTIONS PLAN

Inspiring Place

ROYAL TASMANIAN BOTANICAL GARDENS LIVING COLLECTIONS PLAN prepared for the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

Inspiring Place Pty Ltd Environmental Planning, Landscape Architecture, Tourism & Recreation 208 Collins St Hobart TAS 7000 T: 03 6231-1818 F: 03 6231 1819 E: [email protected] ACN 58 684 792 133

in collaboration with

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collections Working Group

Alan Matchett Director Dunedin Botanic Gardens

Date Version 21.12.07 Preliminary Draft 14.03.08 Draft for Internal Review 19.05.08 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation July 2008 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation V2 11.07.08 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation V3 04.08.08 Draft for Steering Committee and Board Review Prior to Public Consultation V4.2 (w/minor edits) 10.12.08 Draft for Public Consultation 18.05.09 Final Report 07-15/07-UUU

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 An Overview of the RTBG ...... 1 1.2 The Living Collections Plan ...... 4 1.2.1 Management Context ...... 4 1.2.2 Purpose of the Living Collections Plan ...... 6 1.2.3 Preparation of the Living Collections Plan...... 7

2. The Development of the Living Collections at the RTBG ...... 9 2.1 Early Development Ð Settlement to c1900 ...... 9 2.2 c1900 to c2000 ...... 11 2.3 The Start of the New Millennium...... 15 2.4 Common Threads Over Time ...... 16

3. The Living Collections Today...... 19 3.1 Categories of Collections...... 19 3.2 Overview of the Collections ...... 20 3.2.1 Tasmanian Collections ...... 21 3.2.2 Conservation and Research Collections ...... 23 3.2.3 Southern Hemisphere Collections ...... 26 3.2.4 Cultural and Ornamental Collections...... 27

4. The Value of the Living Collections ...... 33 4.1 The Contribution of the Living Collections to the Values of the RTBG ...... 33 4.2 The Value of Individual Collections...... 35 4.2.1 Method of Assessing Individual Collections ...... 35 4.2.2 The Results - The Values of Individual Living Collections ...... 37

5 Issues Arising for the Management of the Living Collections ...... 41 5.1 Issues in Relation to the Vision, Mission, Goals and Policy Framework of the SMP ...... 42 Issue 1 Focus of the Collections...... 42 Issue 2 Lack of Clear Policies Ð Establishing New Collections ...... 42 Issue 3 Lack of Clear Policies Ð De-Accession ...... 43 Issue 4 Lack of Botanical Integrity ...... 43 Issue 5 Lack of Space...... 44 5.2 Issues Identified by the Evaluation of the Collections ...... 45 Issue 6 Strengthening the Defining Attributes ...... 45 Issue 7 Limited Return from Collections...... 46 Issue 8 Limited Interpretation ...... 48 5.3 Issues Identified with the Establishment and Care of the Living Collections...... 48 ii Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Issue 9 Quarantine...... 48 Issue 10 Pests and Disease...... 49 Issue 11 Weeds ...... 51 Issue 12 Site Suitability and Horticulture ...... 51 Issue 13 Capacity to Manage ...... 53 Issue 14 Big Picture Commitments and Issues (Climate Change)...... 55

6. Policies for Living Collections, Biodiversity and Conservation ...... 57

7. Directions Forward ...... 73 7.1 Sphere of Involvement ...... 72 7.2 Evolution of the Living Collections ...... 74 7.2.1 Physical Layout - Precincts...... 74 7.2.2 Changes to Collections ...... 81

Attachment A The Management Framework for the RTBG ...... A1 A.1 RTBG Vision ...... A1 A.2 RTBG Mission...... A3 A.3 RTBG Management Goals and Strategies ...... A4 A.4 The Policy Framework ...... A6 A.5 Interpretation Themes...... A8

Attachment B The Master Plan ...... B1

1. INTRODUCTION

1 . 1 A N O VERVIEW OF THE RTBG

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens (Map 1.1) in Hobart (hereafter referred to as the RTBG or the Gardens) has a long-standing position in the world network of botanic gardens Ð botanic gardens being institutions “holding documented collections of living plants for the purposes of scientific research, conservation, display and education”1

Established by Governor Sorell in 1818, just two years after the Sydney Botanical Gardens were founded, the RTBG is one of six Royal Botanical Gardens in the world Ð the others being at Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, Kew and Edinburgh in the United Kingdom and Hamilton in Ontario, Canada.

The RTBG is located on the Queens Domain, in an expansive cultural precinct that includes, amongst other places, Government House, the historic Beaumaris Zoo site and Soldiers Memorial Avenue all of which are set within a larger landscape of remnant native grasslands and woody grasslands.

The RTBG itself is approximately 14.5 hectares in size including the Gardens proper and land under the control and management of the RTBG along the Derwent River foreshore, including Pavilion Point, though this is isolated from the main Gardens by the Domain Highway.

The site shares a temperate climate with the rest of Tasmania. Mean temperatures range from 11.7¼C at night to 21.5 ¼C during the day in summer and 4.4¼C to 11.5 ¼C in winter. Severe frosts are infrequent due to the proximity to the Derwent River. The long-term annual average rainfall at the site is 567.9mm (data collected at the Gardens since 1841) but in the past 10 years has been lower at 463.6mm. Importantly, however, precipitation exceeds evapo-transpiration over the year. The site is protected to some extent from westerly and southwesterly winds but is exposed to strong winds from the north and northwest that, at times, have resulted in loss of limbs and occasionally whole trees. Sea breezes from the southeast occur in summer and have a moderating effect on temperatures.

1 Waylen, K. 2006. Botanic Gardens: Using Biodiversity to Improve Human Well-Being Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, United Kingdom. Pg. 6 Map 1.1. Location of the RTBG. Chapter 1 Introduction 3

The shape of the site can be described as an elongated triangle, orientated on a north and south axis. The Gardens have an easterly aspect, a close proximity to the Derwent River and a sweeping outlook to the Meehan Ranges arising from its moderately sloping topography (1:5 to 1:20) that runs from sea level to an elevation of 30m.

The underlying geology is primarily Jurassic dolerite except at the eastern boundary where a layer of sandstone extends into the site. Naturally the soil is light clay over heavy black clay but much of the soil within the Gardens has been modified or improved including the importation of sandy loam soils to some areas.

The Gardens have three primary visitor entries: the historic Main Entry via Lower Domain Road, the Lower Entry off the Domain Highway and the Northern Entrance from Lower Domain Road at the far end of the property. There are also several lesser-used service entrances.

Survey data indicates that over 400,000 people visited the gardens in 2005- 2006 and that of these roughly three-quarters were Tasmanian residents. The total visitation places the RTBG amongst the most visited recreational and tourism attractions in the State.

The RTBG is a State Government statutory body, governed under the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Act 2002 (hereafter, the RTBG Act) and is administered by the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and Arts (DEPHA). A seven member RTBG Board is appointed by the Minister to manage the RTBG under the RTBG Act, with the Board appointing a Director to manage day-to-day operations within the Gardens.

4 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens are of exceptional national, state and local significance Ð being:

“...an integral part of the nation’s history, reflecting the transition of the country from a subsistence outpost to a community of people making a valuable contribution to global conservation through the collection, propagation, display and conservation of Tasmania’s native flora. In the process of its evolution, the RTBG has become a garden of exceptional beauty that holds a significant place in the hearts and minds of its many users and attracts visitors from around the world. The Gardens retains significant reminders of its various stages of development including built elements, living collections and individual plants dating from the period of its colonial establishment and later Victorian era gardenesque landscaping. The Gardens have exceptional international significance as a leader in the conservation of Tasmania’s flora. Many of the species under their care and/or research only occur in Tasmania (i.e. are endemic to the State) and as such are of importance for the conservation of the world’s biodiversity.”

from the Overall Statement of Significance - the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-20282.

1 . 2 T H E L I V I N G C OLLECTIONS P LAN

1.2.1 Management Context

Given the importance of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens to the community, the nation’s heritage and world botanical knowledge and capital, a considered and comprehensive approach to management is being taken Ð one that is grounded in a governance framework that aims to deliver outcomes that will sustain the site’s significant values into the long-term future (Figure 1.1).

Amongst the elements, comprising the strategic framework for the Gardens is this current document, the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collections Plan (hereafter, the Living Collections Plan or the LCP).

2 Inspiring Place 2008. Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-2028 unpublished report to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.

State, Local and National RTBG Act 2002 Legislation

Organisational citizenship and community partnerships Recognised professional policies and guidelines, • Visitor and Community Survey e.g. • Thematic Interpretation Plan • ICOMOS Burra Charter Strategic Master Plan • Conservation Management Plan • Australian Natural (20 year management • Living Collections Plan Heritage Charter framework) • Asset Management Plan National and International agreements e.g. • International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Strategic (Operational) Conservation Plan • The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (5 year operational • 2010 Targets for Botanic framework) Gardens • Climate Change commitments

RTBG Business and DTAE departmental Operational Plan obligations and DTAE 2007 - 2008 Corporate Plan 2006 - 2009

Statutory

Non-statutory policy Individual Business Unit Plans Operational

Figure 1.1 RTBG Governance Framework 6 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

The LCP recognises that the living collections of the RTBG are its raison d’etre. The LCP has, therefore, been conceived within the context of the vision, mission, goals, strategies and interpretation plan of the RTBG (Attachment 1) which emphasise, amongst other things, the;

focus of the collections on Tasmania’s flora and associated flora from the southern hemisphere;

role of the Gardens as an organisation that contributes to the conservation of the world’s flora and importantly to Tasmania’s flora; and

the long-standing contribution that the Gardens make to the community, its economy and its sense of place.

It is critical, therefore, that the collections are managed and maintained at the highest standards if the vision for the Gardens is to be achieved and its significant values are to be protected.

1.2.2 Purpose of the Living Collections Plan

The purpose of the LCP is, then, to provide the basis for management of the existing and future collections over the next 20 years (concurrent with and responding to the strategic framework set out in the Strategic Master Plan) including the policies and principles for management in support of the procedures to be applied in the day-to-day activities of Gardens staff.

By way of background to the establishment of living collections policies and procedures, the LCP provides:

background to the development of the living collections (Section 2);

a discussion of the status and condition of the collections today (Section 3) and their value (Section 4); and

an overview of the current concerns for the management of the living collections (Section 5);

before setting out

a policy framework for overcoming these concerns and for on-going management of the collections (Section 6) and

Chapter 1 Introduction 7

a series of recommendations to guide the evolution of the living collections over the next 20 years in line with the Strategic Master Plan (Section 7).

For the purposes of the LCP, a living collection is defined as a managed group of plants/and or propagules that describes a particular collecting focus. It need not be physically grouped in one location, and a single accession may be part of multiple collections. Nor does a collection need to be in-ground as it can be comprised of stored propagation materials (i.e. a seed collection) or potted collections held in a nursery and/or other dedicated sites.

In addition, a collection may meet one or more of the general objectives of conservation, research, education, ornamental display or maintenance of heritage values.

1.2.3 Preparation of the Living Collections Plan

The Preparation of the Living Collections Plan has included a review of documents of relevance including the Situational Analysis of the Cultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Botanical Gardens 20063 which incorporates some guidance on the status of the various areas of the Gardens and directions for their management and great detail about individual beds, mature trees and built structures. Some of the issues raised therein are incorporated at a broad level in the following discussion.

The Living Collections Plan has also been informed by a history of the Gardens prepared as part of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Conservation Management Plan and by the writing of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan.

The bulk of the information herein, represents new work conducted as part of the preparation of the current Living Collections Plan. This new work has been a collaboration between:

the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collections Working Group, with detailed input from Mark Fountain, Botanical and Public Programs and Manager Natalie Tapson, Horticultural Botanist:

Alan Matchett, Director of the Dunedin Botanic Gardens; and

Inspiring Place Pty Ltd.

3 Macfadyen, A. and Papworth, N. (2006) Situational Analysis of the Cultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LIVING COLLECTIONS AT THE R TBG

The following section provides a chronological history of the development of living collections within the Gardens. A more comprehensive history of the Gardens as a whole is found in the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Conservation Management Plan4.

2 . 1 E A R L Y D EVELOPMENT Ð S ETTLEMENT TO C 1 9 0 0

The Government Gardens were established by Lieutenant-Governor William Sorell in 1818. The initial purpose of the Gardens was to supply the Governor’s table and for the acclimatization of fruit and vegetables. There are few records from the period, giving little indication of what was grown, but it appears the gardens were poorly maintained.

In 1827 Lieutenant-Governor George Arthur expressed the wish for a botanical garden on the Domain with the addition of local native plants to the collection. The appointment of Superintendent William Davidson in December 1828 saw the realization of this wish, with 150 native species collected from Mt Wellington within four months of his engagement. A report in the local newspaper, The Courier, from February 1834 stated that 141 plants of over 60 species of native flora collected from Mt Wellington and the banks of the Huon River were sent by Davidson to the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Davidson had already expanded the collection on his arrival, bringing around 200 vines, various fruit trees, ornamentals and seed from England as well as a supply of tools. He oversaw the construction of the Arthur Wall in 1829 but the heating system that it incorporated was unnecessary because unlike England, fruit in Tasmania did not require additional heat to ripen. He did, however, utilize 50 ft of the wall to support the RTBG’s first glasshouse, a lean-to construction that housed 200 pineapples. This new direction appears to have been short-lived and by 1838, four years after Davidson’s untimely dismissal, the collection was again recorded as being in a poor state.

The management of the Government Gardens fell to the Botanical and Horticultural Society of Van Diemen’s Land (after various amalgamations and re-namings later to become the Royal Society of Tasmania) in 1844 under Lieutenant-Governor John Eardley-Wilmot. The appointment of Superintendent Francis Newman in 1845 led to the addition of 60 new genera

4 Godden, Mackay and Logan 2008. Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Conservation Management Plan unpublished report to the RTBG. 10 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

comprised of over 250 species to the living collection. The function as an acclimatization garden continued through the 19th century, with Newman bringing 28 varieties of apple from England and the development of an experimental orchard during his tenure.

It is unclear what happened to Davidson’s original native collection but Newman prepared beds for 50 local native species and a New Zealand collection in the northern section of the Gardens. It was during Newman’s time that the Royal Society sought more scientific rigour in the collection with the establishment of a garden based on plant systematics. This came to fruition with the construction of a circular garden with plants scientifically grouped and labeled5. A pinetum was also planted during Newman’s time. This collection was built on by his successor Francis Abbot Jr with further conifer plantings on the steep banks above the Lily Pond in 1862 and the lining of the carriageway to the new entrance in the 1870s.

The first scientific journal published in Tasmania was the Tasmanian Journal and when this ceased publication in 1849, papers were published directly by the Royal Society. The Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania provide a sound record of the living collection until 1885 when the administration of the Gardens passed from the Royal Society to the state government under the Tasmanian Museum and Botanical Gardens Act 1885.

The Catalogue of Plants in the Royal Society’s Gardens published in 1857 and 1865 list all taxa (species, varieties, cultivars) grown at the Gardens in that year. The 1857 list divides the collection into Trees and Shrubs (496 taxa), Climbers (71), Coniferae (135), Roses (70), Herbaceous Plants (200), Bulbs and Tuberous Rooted Plants (162), Annuals (177), Succulents (19), Fruit Trees (Apples (103), Cyder Apples (8), Pears (54), Vines (29), Oranges (8), Apricots (6), Plums (25), Nectarines (1), Cherries (12), Mulberries (2), Medlar (1), Figs (6), Gooseberries (10), Currants (1), Raspberry (1), Agricultural Grasses etc.(26).

As well as the catalogues, the List of Plants Introduced into the Gardens of the Royal Society of Tasmania was published from at least 1859 until 1884. The lists, however, give no idea of where specimens were planted, making it difficult to gauge whether the trees listed are those surviving today. Francis Abbott Jr (Superintendent from 1859-1903) is largely responsible for the detailed information available in the Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania. As well as the lists he provided seasonal information on

5 The garden was likely based on a model from JC Loudon’s Encyclopedia of Gardening of which the RTBG has an 1855 copy with the words Royal Society of Tasmania written in the front cover.

Chapter 2 The Development of the Living Collections 11

the leafing, flowering and fruiting of selected species and information on the distribution of plants to public places in Tasmania and overseas6.

Abbott was also largely responsible for the increase in the diversity of exotic trees in the immediate area of the Gardens including the expansion of conifers onto the Domain. In an 1887 report he suggested improvements to the natural features of the Domain with the addition of exotics and the gradual thinning of natives to create a park-like appearance, as funding became available. He suggested, given water shortages, care was needed in the selection of trees with deciduous trees only planted in the lower Domain. He proposed a pinetum be planted on the Domain due to insufficient space for such a collection in the Gardens themselves. Today the obvious remnants of Abbott’s vision are the conifer plantings on the hillside opposite the Garden’s main entrance and the 1887 avenue of Atlantic cedars on Davies Avenue.

2 . 2 C 1 9 0 0 T O C 2 0 0 0

A proposed Garden guide by Superintendent John Wardman circa 1914 and an associated map (see Figure 2.1) prepared by students from the University of Tasmania give us a good idea of both the location and types of collections during that period. Wardman’s guide mentions a number of key plants and collections that are still visible in the Gardens including:

the conifers bracketing the main entrance including the Sequoia gigantea (now Sequoiadendron giganteum) and Cedrus deodara as well as the Spanish fir (Abies pinsapo) inside the gate and the Canary Island Date Palm on the opposite side;

the wisteria opposite the Friends Cottage;

the Schinus in front of the Visitor Centre and the cork oak (Quercus suber) below it;

the Magnolia and New Zealand Collections;

the palm collection including the existing specimen of Phoenix canariensis, Canary Island Date Palm;

6 Abbott kept meticulous records of who received plants including names and numbers, dates, destinations and the cost to Royal Society members. As a result of Abbot’s lists, we know that much of the extant Victorian planted heritage in churches, schools and parks in Tasmania originated at the Gardens.

Map 2.1 Wardman’s Map Chapter 2 The Development of the Living Collections 13

the Lily Pond and its collection of water lilies (Nymphaea) and the Bunya Pine (Araucaria bidwillii), the Norfolk Island Pine (Araucaria heterophylla) and Hoop Pine (Araucaria cunninghamii) below the pond;

the oak and elm collections of which few original plants remain; and

elements of the conifer collection in the Pinetum along the upper part of the Gardens including: Cedrus atlantica, Pinus nigra var austrica, Pinus sabiniana, Pinus radiata, Pinus jeffreyi, Pinus sylvestris and Abies nordmanniana.

Ira Thornicroft took over as Superintendent in 1936 when the Gardens were, yet again, in a poor state. He had the rubbish tip on the large lawn above the current Gazebo cleared and planted as a rose garden (replanted in the 1970s and finally removed 2002), the pond cleaned out and the surrounding beds replanted. Thornicroft designed the present Conservatory which opened in August 1939. The display of flowers, palms and ferns was supplemented with model gardens of different countries that were prepared by the largely female staff during the war years. Thornicroft made several trips to collect native flora from Mt Field in the1940s, the plants to be housed in a newly built bush house.

In 1964 the RTBG absorbed 2.2ha of land to the east of the Eardley-Wilmot Wall (the Eastern Section) from Government House. This area has gone on to hold a range of unrelated collections (including the conifer cultivars). The current Fern House was also built in 1964.

By 1968 the Gardens had once again gone through a period of upheaval, the nursery was non-functional and the Conservatory closed. A new propagator, Tony May (who became Superintendent in 1976), was employed mid-year and by Christmas the Conservatory was again opened, displaying coleus and impatiens, followed by tuberous begonias which had not been displayed since the 1950s. In the same year (1968) the new tropical house was completed (although not officially opened until 1971 and closed in 1995) where Pete’s Patch now stands and work started on propagating that collection. The Floral Clock was also built in 1968 and the AMP Arch installed to commemorate the Gardens 150th anniversary.

The French Memorial Fountain was built in 1972 in the Eastern Section. The original intent of Stephen Walker, the designer of the French Memorial Fountain, was for the French Fountain beds to display Tasmanian plants collected by the early French explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries. This was

14 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

finally achieved in 2004 when much of the conifer planting was removed and the area landscaped with appropriate Tasmanian natives.

In the following years, the Rills (1972), the Protea and Erica collections(1984) and the Japanese Garden (1987) were all built in the Eastern Section. The Japanese Garden was constructed as part of a sister city project with Yaizu in Japan. It was designed by Japanese landscape architect Kanjiro Harada, and in return an Australian garden was designed by RTBG landscaper Joseph Vitesnik for the Hotel Seagreen in Yaizu.

The construction of the Easy Access Garden with its raised beds started during the Year of the Disabled in 1981 and was completed in 1985. The Herb Garden was built in 1983. The terraced beds near the Anniversary Arch housing part of the Rhododendron and Camellia collection and the Gondwana collection were constructed in 1984. The Cactus House was opened in 1984 and the collection refurbished in 2004, with the donation of the Oglesby collection of cacti and succulents.

The 1990s saw the resurgence of the Tasmanian native collections and a growing commitment to local and world flora conservation. The Epacridaceae collection was reinstated in 1994 (the existence of an earlier 20th century collection was unknown at the time). Conservation became a focus at this time with the RTBG involved in roadside rescues in collaboration with the then Department of Transport and the establishment of ex-situ collections of threatened native species. The refurbishing of the Fern House with a provenanced collection of Tasmanian species was begun in 2002.

The Chinese collection was established in 1996 from seed wild-collected in Yunnan Province by then Acting Director, Jim Cane.

The 1990s also saw the impact of the root rot disease Armillaria luteobubalina on the living collection. Two large and a number of smaller excavations took place to remove infected plants and soil Ð the main lawn (1000 m3), the lawn directly above the Gazebo (1200 m3) and the bed below the cork oak and the American bed at the eastern end of the Floral Clock Lawn (100 m3). In all almost 200 plants, including around 70 mature trees were removed in the period 1996-98. Despite the loss of plants, a positive effect has been the opening up of new vistas and remodeling of the topography of the main lawn was undertaken to flatten part of it for events. The action to control the disease and protect the rest of the living collection has been successful with only one small area still infected and the status of the disease being continually monitored.

Chapter 2 The Development of the Living Collections 15

In 1996, Pete’s Veggie Patch was established on the site of the demolished Tropical House. Originally a small patch of unimproved ground, it was used as a focus for the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s gardening show which quickly developed a large following. Raised beds and paving work were carried out by TAFE students. The site has since become an important attraction within the Gardens for visitors.

In 1998, the RTBG received a donation of southern hemisphere conifers from researchers at the University of Tasmania. This collection is comprised of about 60 of the 160 extant southern hemisphere conifers, and approximately half the collection is listed as threatened under the IUCN Red List. It has been maintained as a potted collection due to lack of in-ground space and excess material has been donated to the Tasmanian Arboretum. The Southern Hemisphere potted collection has been built up with donations of associated Gondwana flora since that time in the hope of eventually establishing an in- ground collection.

2 . 3 T H E S TART OF THE N E W M ILLENNIUM

A cottage garden was planted around the Friends Cottage (originally the Gatekeepers Cottage) in 2000. As the cottage was built in 1845 the Catalogue of Plants in the Royal Society’s Gardens 1857 was used as a basis for selection of plants for the display. The Salvia bed below the Restaurant deck was also landscaped and planted in 2000. The Herbaceous Border was renamed the Friends Mixed Border in 2006 after the display was extended and refurbished, and with archways and trellises for climbing roses and clematis added.

The Subantarctic Plant House, displaying the flora of Macquarie and Heard Islands was officially opened in 2000. This collection is housed in a prototype cold house, the only one of its kind in the world, displaying the flora of Australia’s subantarctic islands. The collection serves the dual functions of public display and providing material for research. The Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre (TSCC) opened in August 2005. This purpose built facility was constructed as part of the Millennium Seed Bank Project in partnership with the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. The TSCC has a target to store seed of 60% of Tasmania’s threatened species by 2010 and will provide the RTBG with a strong research focus which will likely result in positive conservation outcomes.

16 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

2 . 4 C O M M O N T H R E A D S O V E R T IME

A review of the history of the living collections shows that there are a number of important threads that have run through the collections from the very early beginnings of the Gardens to the present. For instance, the Gardens was largely set up to provide produce for the Governor’s table and today Pete’s Veggie Patch and the herb garden are amongst the most popular displays with visitors.

The importance of having a Tasmanian native element in the Gardens has also been a consistent theme from the time of Governor Arthur, although there was little evidence of his early directives or that of his successors when the present Tasmanian Collection was established in 1990.

Newman established the first pinetum and Abbott built on this. The conifers remain a significant element of the Gardens today in their own right as a taxonomic collection and individually, in many cases, as part of the significant tree collection.

The first New Zealand collection originated in Newman’s time and by the time Wardman produced his guide in 1914, it was well established and admired.

The areas of the Gardens developed early in its history also demonstrate elements of a gardenesque planting style with sweeping lawns, flowing paths and garden edges. Trees were planted as specimens to display their full form that continues into the present including a range of plants with exotic forms such as those of the Auracareacea, cordilines, etc.

More current RTBG living collections reflect rising and strengthening social and environmental consciousness since the late 1960s onwards. The Easy Access Gardens is an early example of horticultural therapy and later the Chinese collection responded to the need for greater botanical integrity in the development of collections. Most recently environmental emphases have brought a focus on the conservation of flora and water and a growing awareness of the protection of regional vegetation.

Whilst these threads can be construed as showing some positive continuity of outcome over time, the history of the collections and the specimens within them can also be shown to illustrate the ad hoc manner in which the Gardens have developed. For instance, many specimens and collections have been planted in the Gardens because they were available or donated to the Gardens, others reflect the personal preferences of staff, still others result from

Chapter 2 The Development of the Living Collections 17

public or other unwise pressures to display the widest range of geographic and taxonomic interests, all within the finite space available within the Gardens.

The discussions in the following sections reflect both these positive and negative threads of continuity and suggest policies and directions that build on the good whilst addressing the bad and indifferent.

3. THE LIVING COLLE CTIONS TODAY

3 . 1 C ATEGORIES OF C OLLECTIONS

Today there are over 40 discrete living collections at the RTBG (Table 3.1) including in-ground, potted nursery and seed bank collections comprised of over 6000 species, varieties and cultivars7. The collections can be broadly divided into four major categories of collections:

Tasmanian Collections

Conservation and Research Collections

Southern Hemisphere Collections: and

Cultural and Ornamental Collections.

Within these categories, collections can be sub-grouped based on their principle focus, that is, whether they have a:

geographical basis Ð a collection of plants based on a defined geographical area or biome;

taxonomic basis - a collection of plants that demonstrates principles of plant classification;

demonstration purpose - a collection that displays specialised areas of botanical or horticultural interest or horticultural techniques;

heritage basis - a collection that exhibits a linkage with historic periods, cultural events, people or horticultural practices or periods; or

horticultural basis - a collection that is based on horticultural selections of species or display principles.

7 Note, the RTBG has Memoranda of Understanding with the Emu Valley Rhododendron Garden and the Tasmanian Arboretum regarding the exchange of living materials. In the case of the latter, the RTBG maintain holding collections of some of plants at the Arboretum. These collections have not been considered, herein, but should be managed and/or developed in the future in line with the policies of the LCP and the strategic framework of the SMP. 20 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Category Focus Collection

Tasmanian Geographical Focus Subantarctic Greater Hobart East Coast Tasmanian Foreshore Remnant Grassland Taxonomic Focus Epacridaceae Tasmanian Ferns Demonstration Focus WSUD Garden Heritage Focus French Memorial Horticultural Focus Visitor Centre Beds

Conservation and Geographical Focus Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre Research Conservation Collections (Potted)

Southern Hemisphere Geographical Focus New Zealand Gondwana Terraces Southern Hemisphere (Potted) Taxonomic Focus Southern Hemisphere Conifers (Potted) Horticultural Focus Protea

Cultural and Horticultural Focus Bedding plants - including Floral Clock Ornamental Conservatory

Deciduous Trees Ð (incl. Oak Woodland) Conifer Cultivars Mixed Border (Friends Border, Rills, Lily Pond, Iris) Rhododendrons & Camellias Fuchsia House Palm Collection Asian Woodland Salvia Collection Magnoliaceae Grey Foliage plants

Taxonomic Focus Eucalypt Lawn Conifer Species Demonstration Focus Herb Garden Pete's Patch/Economic Easy Access Garden Cacti & Succulents

Cultural and Heritage Focus Heritage Apples Ornamental (cont.) Significant Trees Cottage Garden Geographical Focus Japanese Garden Chinese Australian

Table 3.1 The Collections of the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens

Chapter 3 The Living Collections Today 21

3 . 2 O VERVIEW OF THE C OLLECTIONS

The following provides a précis of the background to and content of the principle collections within each of the four collection categories.

3.2.1 Tasmanian Collections

As noted, the inclusion of Tasmanian native species in the Gardens was encouraged by Lieutenant Governor Arthur as early 1827 and in recent years there has been a growing understanding of the need to display Tasmanian flora. Starting with no more than a dozen native plants scattered around the grounds in the 1980s, the Gardens today holds eleven identified collections displaying Tasmanian native species.

Geographic Focus

Principle amongst the geographically focused collections are the Subantarctic Collection and the Tasmanian Native Garden (1991) being significant drawcards for visitors to the Gardens, the former unique in the world.

The Subantarctic Plant House, opened in 2000, displays the flora of Macquarie and Heard Islands and is the only facility of its type in the world. The collection consists of 25 of the 41 vascular plant species considered to be native to Macquarie Island8 as well as 5 of the 11species occurring on Heard Island. Because of its uniqueness, the collection has been extensively used for research. There is a large interpretation sign before the entry to the House and panels within the House discussing the vegetation zones on Macquarie Island, and a brochure is also available.

The Tasmanian Native Garden was established from wild-sourced Tasmanian species laid out in habitat types ranging from coastal to alpine. While the original design is still largely followed, the plants in the alpine/sub-alpine portion of the garden failed to thrive and have been replanted with wet forest species. All told, the Tasmanian Native Garden holds about one fifth of Tasmania’s vascular flora (~300 species). Interpretation within the Tasmanian Native Garden focuses on the authors of the four Tasmanian ‘floras’ that have been written since settlement. Ronald Campbell Gunn, an important colonial Tasmanian plant collector is also featured on a panel and in a Plant Explorers brochure developed by the Gardens.

The Greater Hobart collection was planted in 1999 and consists of native species that grow in and around Hobart and its environs from Snug to New Norfolk and Richmond to South Arm. Most of the collection has been

8 Macquarie Island is a Tasmanian state reserve and Tasmania’s second World Heritage Area.

22 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

propagated by the RTBG from wild-sourced material. It contains around 80 species, some of which overlap with those in the Tasmanian section. This is the only native in-ground collection that has any interpretation of threatened species with about half a dozen species having small signs. The origin of the collection is also briefly interpreted.

The East Coast collection is wild-sourced. Established in 2002. the collection contains species from the east coast of Tasmania and Flinders Island. It also includes about 80 species, again with some overlap with the Tasmanian and Greater Hobart collections. There is no interpretation.

The Foreshore was rehabilitated with locally collected native species in 2002 using a grant from the Australian Government Envirofund. The rehabilitation involved the mass planting of a small number of species found growing on the Derwent foreshore9. There are two small remnant pieces of partially degraded vegetation between the new plantings.

The remnant of grassland at the northern tip of the Gardens is a de facto collection remaining largely undeveloped since the earliest fencing of the site apart from some very limited over-planting of exotic trees. Nonetheless, the area has been disturbed leading to some weed infestation. Recent change to the mowing regime has, however, encouraged local grassland species to increase in number. This area is not well understood and needs to be properly surveyed to determine which species occur there.

Taxonomic Focus

The Fern House (built in 1964) was replanted in 2002 with wild collected Tasmanian fern species. About 40% (~40) of Tasmania’s fern species are represented. There is no interpretation.

The Epacridaceae collection, established in separate beds from the Tasmanian section in 1994, is heavily infected with Phytophthora. The disease has had a greater impact on this collection than any other and it is accepted that a cyclic replacement is needed for plants affected by the disease. The planting is broadly based on species from dolerite, sandstone and granite soil types, grouped together and generalists planted throughout. About 40% of Tasmania’s Epacridaceae species (~40) are represented. There is no interpretation of the collection.

9 In this light, the Foreshore could be considered a horticultural planting.

Chapter 3 The Living Collections Today 23

Heritage Focus

The French Fountain was redeveloped in 2004 using nursery-sourced stock to present the plant species collected in Tasmania by the French explorers of the early 19th century using Labillardiere’s notes and plant lists. There is a recently designed interpretation panel to this effect (as well as a second older panel).

Demonstration Focus

The WSUD Garden was largely planted with nursery-bought plants in 2005 and contains species which cope with periodic inundation. A fact sheet available on the WSUD Garden is available.

Horticultural Focus

The Visitor Centre beds are largely planted with nursery-bought Tasmanian species. These beds, planted in 1999, were initially intended to be comprised of horticultural selections of Tasmanian species but this has only been carried out to a limited extent in two beds.

3.2.2 Conservation and Research Collections

The Conservation and Research Collections are made up of two geographically focused collections: the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre and the group of potted conservation collections.

Both collections are held in collaboration with a diverse group of organisations. For instance, the RTBG has been listed as a participants in 9 of the 12 recovery plans prepared by the Threatened Species Section of DEPHA since 199610.

Both collections play an integrated role in this and other flora conservation programs.

Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre

The Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre (TSCC) is a joint effort of the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, the Biodiversity Conservation Branch (BCB) of DPEHA, the Tasmanian Herbarium (Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery) and the RTBG.

The TSCC currently forms part of a global program known as the Millennium Seed Bank Project, coordinated and funded in part by the Royal Botanical

10 Albeit, most recovery plans have not been implemented.

24 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Gardens Kew Millennium Seed Bank, and instigated in 2004 with funding until 2010. The aim of the project is to:

Collect and conserve seed from some 24,000 species, principally from drylands, by 2010; and

Develop relationships worldwide to facilitate research, training and capacity-building in order to support and advance the seed conservation effort11.

At a local level, the Seed Bank project aims to provide a means of conserving the biodiversity of Tasmania’s flora via:

Ex-situ support for plant conservation programs;

Seed material to assist in the scientific study of our native plants; and

LongÐterm preservation of plant biodiversity loss caused by environmental degradation12.

The Centre is managed by a coordinator, with seed collection undertaken by staff from the Resource Management and Conservation Unit (DEPHA), plus staff from the RTBG and volunteers. Volunteers also support staff in the laboratory.

Seed from viable in-situ specimens is collected, cleaned, dried and sealed in packages for storage at -20°C. Half of the seed is stored at the RTBG laboratory, the other half is sent to the Royal Botanical Gardens Kew for inclusion in the Millennium Seed Bank, providing a backup in the event that one collection is damaged or destroyed. Seeds are to be stored for 200 years or more.

The seed bank has set a date of 2010 to meet Target 8 of the Botanic Gardens Conservation International’s Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Target 8 : “60% of the threatened plant species in accessible ex-situ collections, preferably in the country of origin, and 10 per cent of them included in recovery and restoration programs.”

At the time of this writing, the TSCC had already collected 486 Tasmanian native taxa since its inception in August 2005 and holds seed of 92 species listed as threatened (21% of the total). Seed of some threatened species is notoriously difficult to collect due to a number of factors. These include the

11 MSB project aim sourced from the ‘Seed Safe Ð helping to Secure a Biodiverse Future’ brochure, produced by the RTBG. 12 The aim of the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre has been sourced from the RTBG website.

Chapter 3 The Living Collections Today 25

degree of rarity Ð some species have very small populations or are poor seed producers in the first place (e.g. Tetratheca gunnii) or often it is simply the logistics of getting to remote places when the seed is ripe.

To overcome these limiting factors, the RTBG has produced potted specimens of selected species to act as seed orchards (see Potted Conservation Collection).

Ultimately, the seed bank will be the RTBG’s most effective conservation instrument, although funding for the activities of the Centre is only secured up until 2010 after which time alternative sources of funding may need to be found.

The TSCC has only been interpreted by the RTBG through a single brochure that gives a background to the collection. The TSCC will shortly release a data base of its seed germination information via a website.

Potted Conservation Collections

The Potted Conservation Collection has been established in collaboration with the Threatened Species Section of DEPHA and others and acts both as an insurance against the loss of species in the wild and, in some cases, provides material for translocation back into the wild13.

The RTBG currently maintains six threatened species in potted collections. All of the species are at the highest level of risks on state (endangered under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) and/or federal (critically endangered under the environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999) registers.

Most of the potted collection has been propagated from cuttings and each is maintained on a cyclic program of re-propagation to ensure there is viable material for re-propagation. The maintenance of such collections requires a considerable degree of effort in terms of propagation and maintenance of the pots, as well as using up space on the Nursery benches.

An example of one species in the collection is the Davies Wax Flower, Phebalium daviesii, which was listed as extinct until about 40 plants were re- discovered growing near St Helens in 1990. The RTBG establishad an ex-situ collection in 1995 and now holds 26 genotypes. The wild population has since suffered losses and less than 20 genotypes now exist in the wild.

13 For instance, plants from the RTBG’s collection of Shy Susan (Tetratheca gunnii) have been returned to the wild in collaboration with the Threatened Species Section of DEPHA.

26 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

The seed dormancy of members of the plant family Rutaceae, to which Davies Wax Flower belongs, is often problematic, meaning that the original collection had to be established from cuttings. The advent of the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre and its associated research into the germination of Tasmanian native species could result in positive conservation outcomes for species such as this.

At the time of writing, eight threatened species were being maintained in pots for the purpose of creating seed orchards (see above). Six in the Nursery and two by volunteers from the Understorey Network.

King’s Lomatia, Lomatia tasmanica, by comparison, is a sterile clone that does not produce seed and it has proven particularly difficult to propagate using traditional vegetative means. The RTBG, therefore, uses its collection of this species to collaborate with the Plant Science Department of the University of Tasmania to secure its future through tissue culture propagation.

3.2.3 Southern Hemisphere Collections

The Southern Hemisphere Collections are made up of the Southern Hemisphere conifers (potted), the New Zealand collection and in-ground and potted Gondwanan plants.

Whilst the New Zealand collection has a considerable historic background14 and is a major component of the Southern Hemisphere collections, the emphasis on Southern Hemisphere and Gondwana species collections more generally is a more recent development in the Gardens.

For instance, a conscious effort was made to build up a Southern Hemisphere Conifer Collection in the late 1990s with donations from researchers at the University of Tasmania. The collection is largely in pots and, therefore, nursery based due to a lack of in-ground space15.

In recent years, the Gardens has received further donations of other conifers and associated Gondwana species, the potted Southern Hemisphere conifer collection now comprising over 60 species of the 160 species which are restricted to the Southern Hemisphere. Half of these are listed as rare and threatened under the IUCN red list and many are extremely rare in cultivation. New Caledonia, the hot spot for southern conifers has 43 species, and the RTBG holds roughly 50% of these.

14 First displayed under Newman the mid 19th century, and extolled in the early 20th century in a proposed Gardens’ walk by Superintendent John Wardman) (see Section 2.1). 15 A proposal to house the collection at the nearby Beaumaris Zoo site in 2003 which would have overcome this lack of space was not accepted (see Section 4 Issues for further discussions about the lack of space for expansion of collections within the Gardens). Note also, that a replicate set of these plants is held by the Tasmanian Arboretum.

Chapter 3 The Living Collections Today 27

The in-ground Gondwana collection has utilised the Gondwana Terraces (north of the Anniversary Arch and below the Lily Pond). In recent years, selections in this area have been supplemented by plantings of provenanced Nothofagus species but much of the earlier planting in the terrace has been poorly maintained and is in a substandard condition. Gondwanan species are also held in pots augmenting the Southern Hemisphere conifer collection.

3.2.4 Cultural and Ornamental Collections

The diversity of the Cultural and Ornamental Collections reflects the varied historical development of the Gardens and the eclectic botanical interests of its employees and include groupings across all foci of collecting.

Geographical Focus

The major geographically focused collections are the Japanese Garden and the Chinese Collection.

Although the Japanese Garden has some elements of a traditional Japanese garden such as water features, bridges and a small-scale model of Mt Fuji, it has never been maintained using conventional Japanese horticultural techniques.

The Chinese plant section is a fully provenanced collection. To ensure the focus is on the plant collection, the setting incorporates traditional garden elements (stone lions, paving and balustrades) but has not been specifically designed to represent a Chinese style of gardening.

Taxonomic Focus

C O N I F E R C OLLECTION

The cultivation of conifers has been a strong focus throughout the history of the RTBG. The early lithograph from Dumont D’Urville’s 1839-40 voyage seen on the cover of this report, for instance, shows a Norfolk Island Pine in the foreground and by the 1857 catalogue there were 135 conifer species listed as growing in the Gardens16.

Today the Conifer Collection is a composite of the Conifer Cultivars Collection and Southern Hemisphere Conifer collections and conifer species that do not fall into either of these collections. In toto the Conifer Collection includes 230 species of conifer including 60 of the 69 extant genera of conifers in the world and 60 of the 160 conifer species restricted to the Southern Hemisphere.

16 The 1857 catalogue was compiled by Newman courtesy of the Royal Society and is likely to be quite accurate.

28 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

There are also 230 horticultural selections of conifers in the Conifer Cultivar Collection.

Amongst the species represented, some are extremely rare in cultivation. The RTBG specimens of Chilgoza Pine and Pinus gerardiana are purported to be 3 of only 6 growing in Australia17. As noted, half of the species held in the potted Southern Hemisphere Collection are listed as rare or threatened on the IUCN red list and are extremely rare in cultivation.

The importance of the Conifer Collection is further highlighted by the inclusion of 35 trees in the Significant Trees Collection (see below).

The extent and diversity of the collections and the rarity of some of the species within it, then, makes the Conifer Collection one of the most significant collections of conifers in the southern hemisphere18.

In addition to its botanical and conservation values, the Conifer Collection contributes to the strong Gardenesque character of parts of the Gardens. Indeed, conifers, particularly the Norfolk Island Pine, figure prominently in the record of images of the Gardens as a strong and defining element of the place. The conifer collection more generally forms a visual break between the Gardens and the more natural areas of the Domain.

Historically, the RTBG also has a prominent history in the worldwide distribution of the Norfolk Island Pine, much of the world’s early stock in cultivation having been sourced from propagules from the Gardens in the 19th century.

Within Australia, Tasmania is the state climatically best suited for conifer cultivation but in terms of longevity of species, the RTBG collection is relatively young with the oldest specimens being less than 200 years old. For example the Big Tree, Sequoiadendron giganteum, is estimated to have a lifespan of up to 4000 years and the tallest recorded stands at 83.8m. In comparison, the RTBG’s largest specimen, planted in the 1880s, is 36m. Sequoiadendron giganteum was a popular planting in Australian parks in the1860s and 1870s but many specimens interstate are now suffering crown dieback probably from adverse environmental conditions.

The lifespan of mature specimens in the Conifer Species collection is difficult to predict, in part due to the lack of prior experience in the cultivation of these

17 Note, these trees do not seem to produce viable seed and if it was decided the trees should be replaced at the end of their lives, the lack of viable seed could be problematical. 18 In reality, there are few conifer collections in the Southern Hemisphere including a few in New Zealand, some relatively small collections in South Africa, Argentina and Uruguay. So there is little competition to this claim.

Chapter 3 The Living Collections Today 29

species under local Tasmanian conditions. Four of the larger specimens have required cabling, and limb drop has been a problem in some species during strong winds or after hot weather.

Despite the world importance of the Conifer Collection there is no in-ground interpretation to this effect.

Demonstration

The demonstration collections include Pete’s Patch and the Easy Access Garden.

Pete’s Patch has been the centerpiece used by ABC Television’s Gardening Australia presenter, Peter Cundall, to demonstrate the workings of a backyard organic vegetable garden. The program has been a drawcard for visitors with many specifically asking where Pete’s Patch is on arrival. Peter’s recent retirement from the show will likely result in a shift in priorities for the ABC and how it makes use of the RTBG as a backdrop to its various set pieces.

The Community Garden program is based in the Easy Access Garden with its raised beds, but the program utilizes a number of other collections including the Herb Garden. Whilst use of the Easy Access Gardens is high, it is seldom used for the purposes which it was originally intended (i.e. for gardening by disabled people in wheelchairs).

Heritage Focus

The principle collection with a heritage focus is the Significant Tree Collection. Other groups with a similar focus include the Cottage Garden and the Heritage Apples Collections.

S IGNIFICANT T RE E S C OLLECTION

The RTBG currently has 63 living entries on the National Trust of Tasmania’s Register of Significant Trees. This includes 61 individual trees and 2 collections (the Oaks and Palms) totalling 105 specimens in all19.

The National Trust’s Register records trees of special significance within the state. To qualify for inclusion, trees must fall into one of at least 10 categories. This includes trees of outstanding aesthetic significance, trees that commemorate particular individuals or events, trees that are rare in cultivation and trees that are old or of venerable age. Category 6 refers to tree(s) that

19 Like the Conifer Collection, individual trees may be included in more than one collection. For instance, the conifers listed as significant trees are also included in the Conifer Collection, the oaks as part of the Deciduous Tree Collection, the palms and part of the Palm Collection, etc.

30 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

are an important part of an historic site or garden, or a park or town, and in theory all the ~2500 plants in the Gardens over 3m tall fall into this category. Nonetheless, those on the Register warrant special mention, particularly for their contribution to the historic Gardensque qualities of the RTBG landscape.

Placement on the Register does not impose any legal requirement to preserve the tree but the RTBG is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register (Identifier No. 2927). The Tasmanian Heritage Register does impose statutory requirements with regard to historic plantings. Practice Notes 13 ÐThe Approval Process for Historic Plantings states that approval must be sought for substantial works that may shorten the life of a tree or for removals. Practice Note 14 Ð The Long Term Maintenance of Historic Plantings discusses factors to be assessed when making replacement plantings.

The diversity of the Significant Tree Collection is evident in the range of specimens on the Register. These range from the 3m tall Anchor Plant, Colletia paradoxa, which has been listed due to its rarity in cultivation, to the Big Tree, Sequoiadendron giganteum which has been listed for its size, age and aesthetic beauty.

The Significant Tree Collection has been valued using the Thyer Tree Valuation Method, based on factors such as the age, size and condition of the tree and the significance of the tree in the landscape. The 105 specimens that make up the collection were valued at over $4,800,00020. Individual valuations range from around $4000 for the Anchor Plant to $152,000 for the Big Tree.

Each tree in the Significant Tree Collection has a special label identifying that it is on the Register. A brochure for a Significant Trees Walk is also available.

Horticultural Focus

Collections with a horticultural focus typically hold a high amenity value and include the Conservatory and Bedding plants and the recently refurbished Friends Mixed Border. The Rhododendron and Camellia Collection provides mass colour in late winter and spring, and like a number of other collections is dispersed across the Gardens, rather than restricted to a single area. The Salvia Collection flowers from spring through to autumn and is optimally placed to be seen at its best advantage from the Restaurant above..

20 Note, the Thyer valuation method was extrapolated across the whole of the tree collection in the Gardens of 1400 specimens, with the total worth of the tree collection being $27.5 million dollars. A calculation of tree losses between 1996 and 2006 (about 200 trees including the Armillaria eradication) indicated that trees to the value of $3.8 million were lost from the collection at the time. More recently the blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) removed from the lower Gardens was valued at $105,000.

Chapter 3 The Living Collections Today 31

The Deciduous Tree Collection is likewise dispersed throughout the Gardens. The Oak Woodland is a major focus, particularly in autumn.

4 . T H E V ALUE OF THE L IVING C OLLECTIONS

4 . 1 T H E C ONTRIBUTION OF THE L I V I N G C OLLECTIONS TO

T H E V ALUES OF THE RTBG

At the broadest over-arching level, the living collections form the raison d’etre for the Gardens. The values of the Gardens in toto, including the living collections, have been described in detail in the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-202821 (SMP) and include:

remnant natural biological values;

cultural values including Aboriginal heritage values, historic heritage values, landscape values and sense of place values;

recreation, tourism and education values; and

conservation and research values.

The living collections as a whole, contribute to each of these values in a variety of ways. For instance, the Gardens include areas of remnant native vegetation (albeit extremely limited in extent) and elsewhere holds plants that were once used by Aboriginal people for a variety of purposes. These areas and plants are, therefore, important to the contemporary Aboriginal community for the linkages they provide to their rich culture.

The living collections also contribute to the heritage values of the RTBG as artifacts of the historic development of the site from its earliest beginnings as a subsistence colony to its contemporary role in global conservation and the exchange of scientific knowledge.

At a regional level, the living collections are readily identifiable in the landscape of the City as an “oasis of green” in the local population’s perception of the image of their city and a “lush” relief from the dry continent for interstate and international visitors. At a detailed level, the living collections are the basis for the beauty of the Gardens. The Gardens also give visual delight to all who come and form a refuge where some seek peace with themselves and the world. The vegetation of the Gardens also frames views from the RTBG to the wider landscape, creating scenes of great beauty.

21 Inspiring Place 2008. ibid. 34 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Importantly, the living collections contribute to the uniqueness of living in Hobart and Tasmania: to its sense of place. That is, the living collections can help people define the uniqueness of this place, which in turn contributes to their self-definition as Hobartians, Tasmanians or citizens of the world.

The living collections as a whole also have considerable value for their recreation, tourism and educational values that act as a backdrop of great beauty or as point of difference to encourage visitation. The living collections also provide open learning opportunities and act as a focus for specific educational programs.

The conservation and research value of the living collections is evidenced by the high degree of technical achievement in the establishment of over 6000 species, varieties and cultivars of plants, held in 45 identifiable collections amongst which are:

collections of international significance including the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre, the Conifer Collection and the potted Southern Hemisphere Collection;

collections of 12 species of exceptional significance for their rarity as recognised by the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

individual specimens of over 100 of the 400 threatened species listed under the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and others of internationally rare and/or endangered species:

~30 species listed as threatened under the IUCN Red List; and

105 trees listed on the National Trust Register of Significant Trees.

Chapter 4 The Value of the Living Collections 35

4 . 2 T H E V A L U E O F I N D I V I D U A L C OLLECTIONS

Whilst an understanding of the value of the living collections as a whole is illuminating, a more detailed consideration of the individual collections is required if the Gardens is to achieve its greatest value.

4.2.1 Method of Assessing Individual Collections

As noted, there are 45 individual living collections within the Gardens each with varying degrees of importance to its value.

To understand the value of the 45 collections in the Gardens, a unique method of assessing them was developed as part of the planning for the master planning project22 and refined during the preparation of the RTBG Living Collections Plan.

This section describes the methods used in determining the value of the individual Living Collections.

Note that the assessment reflects the views of the RTBG Living Collections Working Group of the value of the collections at February 2008 and does not take into account any latent potential. Some of the collections with low scores have the potential for development against one or more of the attributes and in some cases minimal change could add significant value to a collection. On the other hand, a low score may indicate that a collection is not relevant to the future directions of the RTBG.

Attribute Classes

Living collections have a range of attributes that can be used to distinguish one collection from another. These attributes can be clustered into three principle attribute classes:

Defining attributes or those that define what it means to be the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens [consultant’s emphasis] (i.e. the relevance to the region’s flora and those collections with historical significance to the Gardens) or those attributes that more generally define a botanic garden including plants having conservation or botanical attributes of interest.

22 See Strategic Master Plan Request for Tender Ð Stage 2 Version 5, 05.10.05.

36 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Use attributes or those that relate to the ways that a collection is interpreted and used by both the public and the RTBG itself. These are seen to include interpretive, educational, tourism, commercial and spiritual considerations.

Managerial attributes or those that relate to the amenity aspects of a collection and the suitability of local conditions for the collection. These are seen to include horticultural and site suitability considerations.

Attribute Rating Criteria

Each of the three attribute classes was then further distinguished by a range of specific considerations against which they were assessed for their value.

Table 4.1 shows each of the attribute classes, their distinguishing attributes and the assessment criteria for each of these.

Scoring Against Attributes

Each attribute was then scored on a scale from 1 to 5 against the criteria with a score of 1 representing collections that did not meet or poorly met the listed criteria for that attribute and 5 for those that met the criteria well. The scores were then weighted by multiplying the Defining Attributes x 3, Use Attributes x 1.5 and managerial Attributes x 1.

The weighting gives:

an emphasis to the defining values as these represent the principle reason for the continued existence of the Gardens (as opposed to say, converting the area to a park);

a lesser emphasis to the use benefits, in part to balance the effect of the total tally of benefits, given the number of attributes grouped in this class; and

a base rating to the managerial attributes as these are a fundamental to any botanic garden.

Chapter 4 The Value of the Living Collections 37

Class of Attribute Assessment Criteria Attributes Defining Regional collections with valid connections to our region; collections that are Tasmanian in origin (including Macquarie island); collections that are Australian in origin; collections that have a southern hemisphere distribution; and collections with Gondwana origins. Conservation viable potted and seed ex-situ collections; collections of Tasmanian species that are listed on the IUCN Red List and/or under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1955 and/or the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999; ex-situ potted and seed collections with a representative number of genotypes from within or between population/s; and collections of listed species in DPWI Threatened Species Recovery Plans. Botanical collections with scientific integrity; collections of known wild provenance; collections with detailed field collection records; collections with herbarium voucher specimens; and collections based on taxonomic principles with a comprehensive representation of taxa. Historical collections originating from or representing the heritage fabric of the Gardens or elements of Tasmania’s botanical history; the mature canopy of trees originating from Victorian plantings; the Gardenesque Victorian elements in the landscape such as the palms; plantings based on records of early plant lists from the RTBG; and collections relating to Tasmania’s botanical history. Use Interpretive collections currently covered by interpretive media other than plant labels; collections with in-ground interpretive signage; collections with associated pamphlets; collections interpreted in RTBG displays; and collections interpreted on the RTBG web site. Educational collections currently used for education purposes; collections used for the schools program; collections used for the community garden program; and collections used for Green Thumbs and Explore programs. Tourism collections that specifically draw tourists to the RTBG; collections that are unique to the RTBG such as the Subantarctic Plant House and Tasmanian collections; collections of high ornamental value such as the Conservatory; and collections centred on events such as the Tulip Festival. Commercial income generating collections; collections used as sites to for income generating activities such as weddings, naming ceremonies and memorials and other functions; and collections providing material for income generating activities such as plant sales. Spiritual collections that have spiritual associations (Note: this attribute was not assessed due to the difficulty and costs of gaining information about reliable indicators). Managerial Horticultural collections with high amenity value; collections with strong visual appeal; collections displaying a range of horticultural selections; and collections that display current trends in horticulture.

38 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Class of Attribute Assessment Criteria Attributes Site local environmental and artificial factors which influence the cultivation of collections; 23 Suitability soil type and drainage; water availability and type of irrigation; slope and aspect; local climate; adjacent plants; and adjoining infrastructure.

Table 4.1 Attribute Classes, Attributes and Assessment Criteria

4.2.2 The Results - The Values of Individual Living Collections

Table 4.2 shows the findings of the assessment process. Within the table attributes have been rated 1-5 and sub-totals have been provided for each attribute class and then a total score for each collection.

In terms of the attributes that were assessed, the table indicates that amongst:

all classes:

the Sub-Antarctic collection (68.5), the Tasmanian Native Garden (67.5), the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre (66), the Potted Conservation Collection (62.5) and the Conifer Species Collection (62) have the highest overall ratings followed by the plants of the Conservatory (57), Greater Hobart (55.5) and the Tasmanian Ferns (55);

the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre) (48) and the Potted Conservation Collections (48) , have the highest ratings in terms of defining the Gardens followed in order by more moderately rated collections including the Tasmanian Native Garden, the Greater Hobart Garden and the East Coast Garden (39) and the Sub-Antarctic, Tasmanian Ferns, Epacridacea and the Potted Southern Hemisphere Collections (36);

23 Poor site suitability is, in part, evidenced by negative factors such as the cost of maintaining a collection including the labour, energy or watering intensity required for its maintenance.

Chapter 4 The Value of the Living Collections 39

Use Classes

the plantings of the Conservatory (30) have the highest rating for its use attributes followed by Pete’s Patch and the Japanese Gardens (27); and

Managerial Classes

the Conservatory and the Mixed Border (9) have the highest rating for their managerial attributes followed by a large cluster of collections rated 8.

Looking at the attributes individually, the horticultural and site suitability attributes rate highest (122 and 128 respectively), reflecting the skill of the RTBG staff in establishing and maintaining the Gardens.

The table reveals that the RTBG’s regional (112) and botanical values (104) along with its educational values (87) and tourism values (84) achieved more modest ratings.

Definining Attributes Use Attributes Managerial Attributes

Collection 10) 107.5) Tourism Tourism Spiritual Regional Botanical Historical score 60) score 37.5) Educational Commercial Horticultural Recreational Management Conservation Interpretation Site Suitability 3, highest possible 1.5, highest possible Overall Scores (out of highest possible score Sub-Total (weighted by Sub-Total (weighted by Sub-Total Sub-Total (unweighted, Sub-Total

TASMANIAN Geographical Focus Subantarctic 5 1 5 1 36 5 5 5 1 1 25.5 4 3 7 68.5 Tasmanian Native Garden 5 1 5 2 39 3 5 5 1 1 22.5 3 3 6 67.5 Greater Hobart 5 2 5 1 39 3 1 1 1 1 10.5 3 3 6 55.5 East Coast 5 2 5 1 39 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 52.5 Foreshore 5 2 3 1 33 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 4 5 45.5 Remnant Grassland 3 2 3 1 27 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 4 5 39.5 Taxonomic Focus Tasmanian Ferns 5 1 5 1 36 1 3 2 1 1 12 4 3 7 55 Epacridaceae 5 1 5 1 36 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 1 3 46.5 Demonstration Focus WSUD Garden 5 1 1 1 24 3 2 1 1 1 12 2 1 3 39 Heritage Focus French Memorial 4 1 3 3 33 3 1 1 2 1 12 3 3 6 51 Horticultural Focus Visitor Centre Beds 5 1 3 1 30 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 43.5 CONSERVATION & RESEARCH Geographical Focus Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre 5 5 5 1 48 2 3 1 1 1 12 1 5 6 66 Conservation Collections (Potted) 5 5 5 1 48 1 2 2 1 1 10.5 1 3 4 62.5 SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE Geographical Focus Southern Hemisphere (Potted) 4 3 4 1 36 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 1 3 46.5 New Zealand 4 1 1 4 30 1 2 1 1 1 9 2 3 5 44 Gondwana Terraces 4 1 3 1 27 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 40.5 Taxonomic Focus Southern Hemisphere Conifers (Potted) 4 3 3 1 33 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 1 3 43.5 Horticultural Focus Protea 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 3 4 23.5 CULTURAL & ORNAMENTAL Geographical Focus Japanese Garden 1 1 1 1 12 2 3 5 4 4 27 4 3 7 46 Chinese 1 1 4 1 21 2 2 3 2 1 15 4 4 8 44 Australian 4 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 1 2 3 31.5 Taxonomic Focus Conifer Species 1 1 4 5 33 1 4 3 3 3 21 4 4 8 62 Eucalypt Lawn 5 1 1 1 24 1 1 1 3 1 10.5 3 3 6 40.5 Demonstration Focus Pete's Patch/Economic 1 1 1 1 12 3 5 5 2 3 27 4 4 8 47 Easy Access Garden 1 1 1 1 12 1 5 1 4 5 24 2 2 4 40 Herb Garden 1 1 1 1 12 3 3 3 2 1 18 3 4 7 37 Cacti & Succulents 1 1 3 1 18 2 5 1 1 1 15 3 1 4 37 Heritage Focus Significant Trees 1 1 1 3 18 3 3 2 3 1 18 4 4 8 44 Cottage Garden 1 1 1 5 24 2 1 1 1 1 9 4 4 8 41 Heritage Apples 3 1 1 1 18 1 2 1 1 1 9 2 2 4 31 Horticultural Focus Conservatory 1 1 1 3 18 2 3 5 5 5 30 5 4 9 57 Bedding plants - including Floral Clock 1 1 1 4 21 1 1 5 1 5 19.5 5 3 8 48.5 Deciduous Trees Ð (elms and oaks) 1 1 1 2 15 1 3 4 3 3 21 3 3 6 42 Palm collection 1 1 2 4 24 1 1 1 2 1 9 3 4 7 40 Fuchsia House 1 1 3 2 21 1 1 3 1 1 10.5 3 4 7 38.5 Mixed Border (Friends Border,Rills, Lily 1 1 1 1 12 3 2 3 2 1 16.5 5 4 9 37.5 Pond, Iris) Salvia Collection 1 1 3 1 18 1 2 2 1 1 10.5 4 4 8 36.5 Magnoliaceae 1 1 2 1 15 1 1 1 1 3 10.5 3 3 6 31.5 Rhododendrons & Camellias 1 1 2 1 15 1 1 2 1 1 9 3 2 5 29 Grey Foliage plants 1 1 1 1 12 1 2 1 1 1 9 4 4 8 29 Asian Woodland 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 3 3 6 25.5 Conifer Cultivars 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 7.5 2 3 5 24.5 Sub-Total 112 58 104 68 68 87 84 66 65 122 128 Possible Total 210 210 210 210 60 210 210 210 210 210 37.5 210 210 10 107.5

Table 4.2 Assessment of the Living Collections 5 ISSUES ARISING FO R T H E MANAGEMENT OF THE LI V I N G COLLECTIONS

Previous sections highlighted:

the importance of the living collections as the core business of the RTBG, around which most all other roles and functions, including interpretation, education and marketing are based; and

the diversity of the collections, ranging from those of historical significance, to contemporary collections emphasising Tasmanian species, cool climate Southern Hemisphere species and species of conservation significance; and

the values which arise from the living collections and the strengths of particular collections across a range of attributes.

Prior discussion also indicated the lack of a clear direction for the development of the collections in the absence of an agreed strategic framework for the Gardens.

This section, then, addresses how the management of the collections into the future will achieve the vision, mission, goals, policy framework and interpretive themes of the Gardens (the strategic framework) as set out in the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-2028.

Three clusters of issues will need to be addressed including those:

arising from the adoption of the vision, mission, goals, policy framework and interpretive themes adopted by the Strategic Master Plan (Section 5.1);

identified by the analysis of the collections against their various attributes (Section 5.2); and

concerning matters of day to day operations and the management of flora and plant collections (Section 5.3). 42 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

5 . 1 I S S U E S I N R ELATION TO THE V ISION , M ISSION ,

G O A L S A N D P O L I C Y F RAMEWORK OF THE SMP

The living collections are the principle means through which the vision, mission, goals and interpretive themes of the Strategic Master Plan will be expressed (see Attachment A). The issues arising from the adoption of this strategic direction include:

Issue 1 Focus of the Collections

Analysis of the collections indicates there is a disconnection between many of the existing collections and the mission, objectives, goals and interpretation themes that are stated in the SMP.

There is a need, then, to focus collections on Tasmanian species, related cool climate species from the Southern Hemisphere and/or species of conservation significance whilst continuing to manage some areas of the Gardens for their heritage values (including setting).

The assessment of the living collections (described in Section 4.2) shows the strengths and weaknesses of each collection in relation this new strategic focus (see Section 5.2). By contrast the assessment also shows the great benefits to be gained by bringing the collections into alignment with the strategic direction of the SMP. For instance, the Sub-Antarctic collection and the Tasmanian Native Garden rate highly as regional and botanical collections and in turn draw high ratings against their interpretation, education and tourism attributes indicating the degree to which the Gardens has capitalised on the unique attributes of these collections.

Issue 2 Lack of Clear Policies Ð Establishing New Collections

There is a lack of a clear policy position relating to the establishment of new collections and/or the renewal or removal of existing collections. As noted above, collections have been largely developed in an ad hoc or opportunistic manner. The development of clearer policies herein (Section 6) will provide greater direction and certainty to decision makers about where and how to develop the collections more in line with the strategic directions of the SMP (Section 7).

Chapter 5 Management Issues 43

Issue 3 Lack of Clear Policies Ð De-Accession

The lack of clear policies has also resulted in uncertainty about the de- accession of plants and collections.

At the broad level, it is recognised that whole collections and/or individual plants may have little value to the vision, mission, goals or interpretive themes and take up valuable space that might be put to better use.

At the specific level, there is a great deal of uncertainty about how to manage mature tree senescence. This is particularly important given there is a large number of mature trees in the Significant Trees and Conifer collections that are within the same age cohort and have heritage significance. Furthermore, many of these could reach the end of their life span within a similar time frame, and leave large open spaces, changing the historical landscape of the Garden, and potentially having an impact on the perceptions of visitors and the reputation of the RTBG24.

It is important, therefore, to have guidance as to which species, or plantings should replace these trees when the decision is made that they should be removed and more broadly how irrelevant collections might be removed or renewed to bring greater benefit to the Gardens .

Issue 4 Lack of Botanical Integrity

As mentioned, the often serendipitous manner in which specimens have been chosen or collections developed means that few of the existing collections are of a known provenance. Known provenance is scientifically and historically important and critical to gardens that seek to meet high conservation standards such as the RTBG. Consideration will need to be given, then, to developing collections or replacing collections with materials that are accurately sourced.

In saying this, it is important to note that there are difficulties surrounding the importation of living materials that will make achievement of this aim more problematic in the future than it might once have been (see Section 5.3, Quarantine).

24 N.B. The time frame in which various tree species will senesce is uncertain, as there is not enough available data about the lifespan of trees in cultivation relative to those in their natural setting. In some cases, the time periods could be 50+ years or more.

44 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Issue 5 Lack of Space

As mentioned the Gardens has a finite area in which to express its vision. At present there is little space that can be readily be used to develop new collections or to expand collections that meet the strategic framework for the Gardens.

For instance, the Southern Hemisphere Collection has been held in pots since 1998. Ideally the collection would be planted as a whole in a single location. However, if there is no opportunity to secure ground to plant the whole collection, it may be necessary to split the collection into related parts and plant them in several locations or to consider using the individual species as replacement plantings for mature conifers as they die.

The Tasmanian category of collections is a good example where the lack of space limits the capacity of these collections to grow. For instance, in an ideal situation, the Gardens would hold a representative sample of all of the eucalypts found in Tasmania (30 species), instead only seven are held as in ground specimens.

Presently, the Tasmanian category collections range in area from 100m2 for the Water Sensitive Urban Design Garden (WSUD) to 750m2 for the Tasmanian Native Garden and with the other collections in this category occupy only 2.5% of the Gardens proper.

Efforts to find space are hampered by existing collections about which there is no clear policy or rationale for removal (see above) and/or the extent of area occupied by collections of known significance. It will be important, therefore, to identify those areas within the Gardens where new collections might be developed, where existing collections might be renewed and/or where collections might be wholly removed to better address the strategic directions of the SMP.

Chapter 5 Management Issues 45

5 . 2 I S S U E S I DENTIFIED BY THE E VALUAT ION OF THE

C OLLECTIONS

At the broad level, the analysis of the collections shows the relatively low total scores achieved by any one collection, the highest rating collections amassing only slightly more than half of the available score Ð this suggests room for across the board improvement in even the most highly valued of the collections.

More specifically there is a need to:

strengthen the defining attributes in each of the collections if the Gardens is to clearly differentiate itself from other botanic gardens (Issue 6);

gain greater return from the collections in terms of their use benefits (Issue 7); and

better interpret the collections as the principle means of deriving greater benefit from them (Issue 8).

Issue 6 Strengthening the Defining Attributes Ð Making the Most of the Points of Difference

In looking at the attribute classes, the analysis revealed relatively low scores for the definitional attributes against their total possible scores with none of the attribute sets reaching 50% of their possible score. These low results indicate great scope to do better in matching the collections to the strategic direction for the Gardens.

In particular, the collections scored:

only moderately well against the regional and botanical attributes suggesting the need to strengthen the representation of Tasmanian species and associated cool climate Southern Hemisphere plants in the Gardens and the botanical integrity of collections, particularly in the Cultural and Ornamental collections category;

very low against the conservation attribute (the lowest score of any attribute) indicating the degree to which much greater conservation value needs to be injected into the collections as whole if the Gardens is to meet its mission; and

46 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

the relatively low score against the heritage attribute overall and the concentration of higher scores against a few key collections which indicates that the heritage values of the Gardens are located in specific collections and areas rather than being a feature of the Gardens as a whole.

Issue 7 Limited Return from Collections

The relatively low scores across all of the use attributes suggest that the Gardens is not getting enough ‘return’ on its investment. At a broad level, the Tasmanian, Conservation and Research and Southern Hemisphere categories of collections scored lowly against use attributes. In particular, there are no use benefits derived from these collections suggesting a potentially untapped resource for garnering additional value from the Gardens.

The scores also show that there is no direct correlation between high scores for definitional attributes and high returns in terms of use. For instance, there is a strong disconnection between the high definitional scores of the Conservation and Research Collections and their low scores against their use attributes. The same is true for the Tasmanian Ferns and the Epacridaceae. Together, this suggests that many ‘point of difference’ collections are not being ‘used’ in any significant way resulting in a loss of benefits to the Gardens. By comparison great benefits are derived from the Sub-Antarctic and Tasmanian collections, albeit these could generate greater value if approached differently.

Alternatively, strong scores against use attributes do not necessarily correlate with strong definitional values. Here, the Cultural and Ornamental category of collections is a good example, scoring much more highly against use attributes than definitional ones. This situation is particularly evident in cultural and ornamental collections with a demonstration focus (such as the Cacti and Succulent collection and the Easy Access Garden). These collections bring a range of benefits across a number of attributes but have almost no relationship to the key defining attributes of the Gardens. This suggests that these collections could be adapted to better represent the mission of the Gardens if this did not result in a loss of return or reduced in scale to allow other more appropriate development to occur.

The scores also show some interesting results including:

the low ranking of the recreational attributes of the Gardens which suggests that the recreational benefits are not derived so much from the collections themselves but from the spatial qualities they produce as a setting for recreation;

Chapter 5 Management Issues 47

the correlation between the collections that produced low or moderate scores and those that the staff of the RTBG thought could be most readily replaced including the collections of conifer cultivars (low), the Asian woodlands (moderate) and the Protea and Erica collections (low) (albeit staff recognised that these collections could be redeveloped to achieve higher definitional values and therefore higher scores);

the disjunction between the high score for the definitional attributes of the WSUD garden and against its low horticultural score which suggests the need to improve its appearance if the community is to be encouraged to take up WSUD techniques;

the disparity between the exceptional historic value of the Gardens and the limited number of collections that contribute to this value albeit the significant heritage trees that have a high historic significance are widely spread through more collections than the table would lead one to believe Ð this ranking also possibly suggests that the historic values of the Gardens are more in the built fabric, the arrangement and design of the place or the combination of effects that these contribute to the setting;

the limited commercial return from the economic garden and veggie patch Ð this is surprising considering the popularity of Pete’s Patch and the wide potential for merchandising that it presents;

the moderate (New Zealand and Gondwana collections) or low (Proteas and Ericas) rating of collections which are of a southern hemisphere origin or affinity and have the potential to more strongly contribute to a collection featuring such plants; and

the limited use benefits derived from the foreshore and the remnant bushland at the north of the Gardens.

Importantly, the findings suggest that without reinvigoration of the collections, there is the potential that the Gardens will appear out of date to or out of touch with the daily lives of visitors.

48 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Issue 8 Limited Interpretation

The analysis of the collections herein highlights the current limited use of interpretation to tell the stories of the Gardens. The low scores for the collections interpretation attributes suggests the under-realised potential of interpretation to benefit the Gardens and its many visitors.

The low scores against interpretation when seen in conjunction with the only moderate score against tourism values also suggests considerable opportunities to improve the experience of the Gardens for tourists in particular.

The lack of interpretation of the collections is compounded by the fragmented way in which it is presented, mostly in the passive form.

These issues have long been recognised by the Gardens and are reflected in the fact that the preparation of the RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-2013 and the RTBG Conservation Management Plan 2008-2013 were prerequisite plans accompanying the preparation of the SMP.

5 . 3 I S S U E S I DENTIFIED WITH THE E STABLISHMENT AND

C ARE OF THE L I V I N G C OLLECTIONS

The work on the Living Collections Plan identified a further suite of management concerns that relate to the establishment and care of the living collections.

Issue 9 Obtaining Plants and Plant Materials

The establishment of new collections is potentially affected by issues surrounding quarantine requirements regarding the importation of plants25 to the State, and the lack of an adequately isolated quarantine facility at the RTBG for plants that do come in. Quarantine requirements particularly affect the procurement of some cool climate species that have slow growth rates (plants are required to exhibit a certain level of vegetative growth for quarantine assessment before they are released).

The issues around quarantine require long-term planning in the development of collections and have implications for the types of collections that can be established.

Obtaining plants and plant materials from the wild is also difficult. Expeditions to gather materials are expensive and costly of staff time. Beyond cost and

25 Note that quarantine does not apply to the importation of seed or in vitro materials.

Chapter 5 Management Issues 49

time interstate and/or international collecting trips are made more problematic by the quarantine issues raised above.

Issue 10 Pests and Disease

The RTBG living collection is impacted on by the presence of both disease pathogens and pest organisms. The issues arising point to the need for clear procedures to limit prevent, mitigate and/or eliminate their presence in the Gardens.

P ATHOGENS

Issues associated with pathogens in the Gardens are considered to be relatively well documented, with the soil borne diseases Phytophthora and Armillaria comprising the most significant risks.

In recent years, major disease problems have been caused by the root rot pathogens Armillaria luteobubalina and Phytophthora cinnamomi and by Conifer (Cypress) Canker (Seiridium unicorne). Armillaria and Phytophthora are both opportunistic diseases becoming significantly more prevalent and active when other contributing factors allow for their establishment, including excavation works and general soil disturbance.

Almost 200 plants and 2500m3 of soil containing infected material were removed from 1996-1998 in an effort to control Armillaria. The disease has largely been controlled except for one small area that has had recurrent outbreaks and now contains an infected olive tree. This tree and its surrounding root mass and soil has been programmed for removal and annual monitoring for the disease continues each autumn. Elsewhere, Armillaria likely remains present in a dormant state in some limited areas of the Gardens.

Phytophthora cinnamomi was introduced to or invaded the Gardens either through cultivation or through the importation of garden materials and has been present for some time. The distribution of Phytophthora has been mapped in the Gardens and it still continues to kill plants by root rot in infected areas. Apart from phosphonate application, there is no treatment, so this disease is contained (i.e. not extended to uninfected areas) by following designated hygiene procedures.

Although Phytophthora presently poses more of a problem for the Gardens than Armillaria, a cure for either of the diseases is unlikely and the control measures now in place are the best means of preventing further infection.

50 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Conifer (Cypress) Canker (Seiridium unicorne) is also present and has been identified and documented as a significant disease in the garden. It is a disfiguring disease affecting plants within the family Cupressaceae (e.g. the family of conifers with shortened and compressed needles). Monitoring the disease, removing infected material where appropriate and taking action to reduce the spread of the disease has some effectiveness in limiting the impact of this disease.

A range of other plant diseases of localised distribution are also encountered from time to time as many of these lie dormant until conditions become favourable for their establishment. Amongst these are Sclerotinia spp. and Botrytis spp., both soil-dwelling fungi that have long-lived spore forms. These disease outbreaks are precipitated by high humidity and plant density, aggravated in some of the older beds by the fact that they have been in continuous display use for over 30 years. The probability that the soil is heavily and permanently contaminated is high. Recent changes should improve the situation Ð the older beds have been de-commissioned and new ones developed.

Sclerotinia (white rot) is a particular problem for summer annuals affecting pithy-stemmed annuals including marigolds, dahlias, salvias, petunias, lobelias, ageratum, zinnias and rudbeckia. Efforts to control the disease have been to use more resistant species, crop rotation and a routine spray program but the reality is the disease will continue to appear because the soil is, to all intents, permanently infected.

More recently, impatiens have been affected by a fungal disease (Impatiens Downy Mildew) originating in plugs supplied by an interstate company. Again, being a fungal disease, the bed that the infected plants grew in will now be contaminated by fungal spores and impatiens will no longer be able to be planted in the ground, only in the Conservatory.

Other diseases have been known to enter the Gardens via insect vectors, pruning tools, garden machinery and/or imported garden and construction materials (particularly sandy loam soils).

The Nursery has sporadic outbreaks of fungal diseases such as powdery mildew and fusarium wilt and these are treated as they arise. One disease which poses a significant problem for the nursery-based Conservatory displays is Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus. The virus infects over 900 species, many of which are used as display plants by the RTBG. The vector for spread in Tasmania is onion thrip. Control of the thrip and the disposal of infected material are the two main mechanisms for stopping the spread of the virus.

Chapter 5 Management Issues 51

Control in the Gardens is, in part, contingent on control in the Government House gardens where the thrip is also present.

P ESTS

The in-ground collection and the nursery suffer attack from the obvious range of pests such as aphids, thrips, white fly and various beetles and their larvae. These are controlled on a needs be basis as they arise.

Two pests that have had a more significant effect on the collections are green spruce aphid and possums.

Green spruce aphid destroyed much of the lower foliage on the blue spruce (Picea pungens) in the Gardens in 2003 but since that time early diagnosis and appropriate treatment have resulted in control.

Throughout the Gardens, these and other pests, are being addressed through Integrated Pest Management practices and constantly improving on-ground horticulture.

Although subject to control measures, possums remain a periodic problem to a whole range of tree species from natives to exotics. They tend to attack new growth or trees under stress. Partial defoliation and disfiguration can result.

Issue 11 Weeds

Weeds pose problems to the living collection both in terms of routine maintenance and the potential for the plants themselves to become weeds. The reality is that many of the plants that have been and still are displayed in botanic gardens throughout Australia can be considered environmental weeds.

The Council of Heads of Botanic Gardens (CHABG) initiated an Australian Botanic Gardens Weeds Network in 2005. CHABG has formulated a policy, adopted by the RTBG, and procedures to ensure a uniform Australia-wide response to the weed problem by botanic gardens. Software for a Weed Risk Assessment and Weed Management Procedure (WRAP’M) has been developed as part of the process and this is now available to all members of the network.

Issue 12 Site Suitability and Horticulture

The assessment of the collections found an overall high value attributed to the core operations of the Gardens suggesting that staff are generally highly skilled at the care of plants and their selection for the conditions of the site.

52 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Nonetheless, there are inherent issues arising from the nature of the site (i.e. the effect of location and climate on the types of plants that can be grown) and the condition of the site and its infrastructure.

Some the more important issues in regards to the latter include:

watering Ð many staff hours are consumed by the need for manual application of water, particularly in summer, due to the absence of irrigation system or the decrepit state of the system where it does exist;

existing and potential impact of soil compaction resulting from trampling during events (e.g. some areas previously utilised for events and theatre productions have been impacted in this way); and

poor drainage and waterlogging in some sections of the gardens, resulting from leaking water features and irrigation elements combined with complex topography.

There are also operational issues that arise from the nature of particular collections. For instance, the Bedding Plants collection provides a great deal of interest and appeal to the public as evidenced by the high scores against the tourism and commercial attributes in the analysis of the collections. However, the Bedding Plants require many hours by horticultural teams to maintain them to a high standard. As well as the tasks of weeding and cultivating these beds there is the issue of pest and disease management of the selected species (see above). Depending on the species involved, the time spent dealing with pest and disease outbreaks can be high.

Maintenance of mature plantings is also a major issue in the Gardens given the age of some, their resultant scale and the degree of shade they cast. The age of some trees means they need a regular regimen of pruning and other care to maintain their structure, stability and health. In some locations, trees have reached a size where their canopies are intertwined with other specimens leading to crowding and loss of symmetry. The density of some crowns creates deep shade and prevents rainfall from reaching the ground limiting opportunities for growth in the understorey.

Chapter 5 Management Issues 53

Issue 13 Capacity to Manage

F UNDING AND S TAFF

Funding and staff numbers are the two principle constraints on the capacity to effectively manage and expand the Gardens.

Funding for effective management includes funding to:

maintain existing collections;

improve or rationalise existing plantings (which could potentially enable mre to be done with less staff);

plan for and develop new collections or initiatives; and

participate as a partner in various agreements or programs aimed at biodiversity conservation.

At the broadest level, the limited monies available to the Gardens severely restricts the potential to engage new staff and/or to plan, manage and make change within the Gardens.

More specifically, popular collections, such as the Japanese Garden and the Sub-Antarctic collection are labour-intensive and expensive to maintain. Other collections or areas (say for instance the Rills) are well past their useful life and require significant maintenance to achieve a reasonable level of presentation.

New collections have, nonetheless, been introduced with an inevitable increase on staff workloads to maintain collections and displays to a high standard. If staff numbers do not increase proportionally to the workload then this will have an obvious impact on the overall maintenance of collections wherein some collections and parts of collections will be given higher priority to maintain at a high standard and the areas of lower priority will receive less attention.

Even high value collections can be affected by a lack of funding. Notably the funding for the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre is only guaranteed to 2010. The inability to sustain this facility would be a serious blow to the credibility of the RTBG as a conservation organisation. Even if operational funding for the TSCC were guaranteed there are also opportunities being missed because of a lack of funds to purchase equipment that would enable broader programs to be develop.

54 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Time spent on the physical maintenance of living plant collections often leaves very little time to research and develop the contents of the collections. Many horticulturists are passionate about what they do and have ideas about how they would like to expand a collection through the sourcing of new plant material. However, due to the demands of the work required on the existing collections there is little time to do this within work hours and consequently some of the collections are relatively limited.

Even more basic than the lack of time available to do research is the backlog of day to day activities such as mapping, database entry, label and tag making that arise due to demands on staff to do other tasks (volunteers have helped with labeling in a minor way.

N URSERY AND O PERATIONAL A REAS

Further issue affecting the capacity to manage the living collections are the constraints on the functionality of the Nursery and its operational areas.

At the spatial level, the Nursery needs to be reorganised to better meet the dual use of the area for ornamental and conservation purposes.

At an operational level, vehicle access to the Gardens is through the Nursery across roads and pavements near where potting mix preparation takes place. This presents a serious threat to the hygiene of mixes and for the potential spread of disease into the Gardens.

Water management in the Nursery is another problem. Contaminants from fertilizer and pest and weed control run directly into ground water and, and as a result, there is no ability for water recycling.

There is also a lack of space generally in terms of glasshouses, shade and open areas in the Nursery and within all of these areas more benching is needed to keep plants off the ground to reduce pest, disease and weed problems.

The glasshouses pose another suite of problems including the need for active ventilation to create air movement and reduce the outbreak of disease and the requirement for mesh covers over openings to keep out insect pests.

Storage and handling of materials is also problematic in the tight space available for the Nursery. For these reasons the northern storage area has been increasingly used for bulk materials storage. This requires frequent vehicle use to move materials through and around the Gardens. Alternatives considered include the positioning of a small material (mulches) holding area

Chapter 5 Management Issues 55

at the eastern extremity of the Gardens and/or the possibility of holding some essential garden materials in the Nursery holding bays. Either option would reduce traveling and traffic through the Gardens and coupled with continued attention as to how and when materials are moved would reduce impacts on the visitor safety and experience.

The nursery may also need to be reorganised to allow visitor access in response to the interpretive directions that have been established in the RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-2013.

Issue 14 Big Picture Commitments and Issues (Climate Change)

The RTBG has significant nature conservation responsibilities in relation to the Tasmanian Nature Conservation Strategy and the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 1996. At an international level, the RTBG is a member of the Botanic Gardens Conservation International (the BGCI26), and supports the aims of the Botanic Gardens Conservation Strategy 1989 (as endorsed by IUCN, WWF, FAO, UNEP, and UNESCO), the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation 2000, and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation and Climate Change. The RTBG is also a member of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation.

An outcome of the 2nd World Botanic Gardens Congress in Barcelona, Spain 2004 was the development of a series of 20 targets (the 2010 Targets). The 2010 Targets are intended to aid in the achievement of the objectives within International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation, and to act as a contribution to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. As a signatory to the BGCI, the RTBG is making considerable progress in its contribution to the achievement of Target 8 of the 2010 Targets regarding conservation of threatened plants27, through the work of the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre and other collections involving the propagation of threatened and rare Tasmanian native species.

Nonetheless there is significant room for improvement in the collections to assist in meeting the objectives of the various agreements that have been made and specifically to the meeting of the BGCI targets.

26 The BGCI is a global cooperative botanic gardens organisation. 27 Target 8 Ð 60% of threatened plant species in accessible ex situ collections, preferably in the country of origin, and 10% of these species included in recovery and restoration programs (see http://www.bgci.org/index.php?id=74).

56 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

C L I M A T E C HANGE

Climate presents a range of potential issues for the management of the collections at the RTBG. On the ground within the Gardens are the potential effects of:

reduced or increased rainfall and temperatures;

rising sea level;

greater frequency of extreme weather events.

Each of these impacts will affect which plants can be grown in the Gardens, their requirements for on-going maintenance and their longevity. For instance reduced rainfall could lead to the need for increased irrigation and wind protection to reduce the effects of drying. Ultimately changes in climate may limit the opportunities to grow some plants at the RTBG, forcing the creation of off-site annexes in more conducive locations if affected plants are to remain in the overall collection and in particular, if threatened Tasmanian flora is to be protected (see below).

Climate change is also likely lead to an increase in the numbers of species that are rare and threatened. Therefore, at a global level, botanic gardens, including the RTBG, will have an increasingly important place in the ex situ conservation of species through the growing of plants and/or in the conduct of related research. This role has been recognised by the BGCI and in the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy adopted by CHABG that have established a suite of goals and committed to actions to prevent species loss. These in turn will require the RTBG to play an expanding role, through its living collections and the TSCC, if it is to meaningfully contribute to nature conservation and commitment as a member of the BGCI and CHABG28.

28 Note that such an expanding role is limited by available funding and further threatened by the lack of guaranteed funding for the TSCC beyond 2010.

6. POLICIES FOR LIVI NG COLLECTIONS

The discussion of issues in Section 5 pointed to the need for defined policies and procedures in relation to the living collections.

Policies provide principles, standards and guidelines and direct the creation of procedures that apply to the living collections. Policies have no statutory weight, but supply criteria and guidance in setting a course of action.

Procedures on the other hand are tools for the implementation of policies. Procedures are developed by the staff of the RTBG and detail the content or step by step processes that are undertaken in relation to the tasks of managing and maintaining the Gardens.

The focus of this section, then, is on policies that will guide managers in their decision making about the living collections over the coming 20 years. In particular, the policies have been developed for:

the living collections; and

biodiversity and conservation.

By necessity these policies are broad in scope and it is recognised that more specific sub-policies might need to be developed in relation to certain issues as part of procedural development. For instance, through its commitment to CHABG, the RTBG has adopted its policy on weed management that would be an ideal ‘front end’ to weed management procedures for the Gardens.

Nonetheless, the proposed policies give clear direction for decision making in critical areas surrounding;

the establishment, renewal and de-accession of collections and operational and procedural guidance on how this can be achieved; and

issues of biodiversity and conservation and how these activities are prioritised. 58 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Purposefully left blank.

Policies Guidelines

1.1 Living Collections Policy

Management of Collections Living Collections Working Group Living Collections will be developed and A Living Collections Working Group will be established consisting of: managed in accordance the RTBG vision, • Horticultural Botanist mission, goals, policies and interpretation • Nursery Manager themes and the policies and objectives of Horticultural Team Leaders (2) the Living Collections Plan. • • Team Leader (Arborist)

• Manager, Horticultural Assets • Horticultural Co-ordinator • (Interpretation officer / Education officer when required) The purpose of the Living Collections Working Group is to implement the Living Collections Plan including: • continuous review of the collections to ensure their content reflects the strategic framework of the RTBG; • participate in the preparation of 5 year strategic plans and annual business operations plans • formally assess the status of the collection including consideration of acquisitions and de-accessions forwarded to it by the Manager of Horticultural Assets for review by the Director; • establish appropriate procedures (maintenance plans) for the management of the collections; • annual review of the collections to that the desired management standards are being achieved and that the appropriate procedures are being applied to each collection; and • review the Living Collections Plan as set out below. Responsibility Final authority for all decisions regarding corrective, renewal and/or development initiatives and actions in relation to the collections and specimens rests with the Director or other delegated authority. Records A comprehensive plant data base will be maintained that records all existing plants, plant acquisitions and de-accessions as set out in the Plant Records Procedures.

Operational Procedures Scope The RTBG will establish a The Operational Procedures for the Living Collections will set out the scope of activities required to develop and manage the collections comprehensive suite of Operational and to achieve a high level of horticultural maintenance within the collections. Expectations for tasks will be clearly stated in a user-friendly Procedures (Maintenance Plans) for the format. Living Collections to guide the day-to-day Existing Procedures management of the Living Collections in Existing procedures and protocols of relevance to the Living Collections will be reviewed to ensure their compatibility with the vision, its pursuit of the highest standards of mission and objectives of the Gardens and the various policies herein. horticultural practice. Where necessary existing procedures will be rationalised to reinforce relationships between activities where they occur and/or to reduce

duplication between various procedures. New Procedures New procedures will be developed as required to achieve the vision, mission and objectives of the Gardens or in response to the various policies herein. Responsibility Horticultural or botanical staff with appropriate expertise will prepare procedures for final review and approval of the Living Collections Working Group.

Collections Establishment or Renewal Proposals and Assessment Ð Individual Species All new collections will support the Royal Proposals for acquisition of individual plants/species will be will be forwarded by horticultural or botanical staff to the Manager of Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Horticultural Assets for approval using the procedures set out in the Procedures for Evaluation and Acquisition/De-Accession. Collections Plan, the RTBG vision, Proposals and Assessment Ð Collections Establishment or Renewal mission, goals, policies and interpretation Proposals for new collections or for the substantive renewal of existing collections will be forwarded by horticultural or botanical staff to the themes. Manager of Horticultural Assets. Proposals will include a preliminary evaluation as set out in the Procedures for Evaluation for Acquisition/De-Accession. The Manager of Horticultural Assets will prepare an Issues Brief (as set out in the Issues Brief Procedures) for the approval of the Living Collections Working Group. The Living Collections Working Group will evaluate the Issues Brief against the following criteria for Species Selection, Source and Provenance and other matters as it deems important. The approval of the Director or a delegated authority is required on completion of the evaluation by the Living Collections Working Group. Species Selection Within all collections priority will be given to: ¥ the development and enrichment of all aspects of the Tasmanian Flora in existing collections and in the development of new collections; and ¥ the development and enrichment of existing collections and in the development of new collections of cool climate Southern Hemisphere plants. The exceptions to the above priorities are the acquisition of species which are required to support the maintenance of • identified heritage collections and their values; and • ornamental collections (albeit where possible these will favour Tasmanian or other cool climate Southern Hemisphere species where possible). In selecting Tasmanian species preference will be given to endemic species or sub-species over those with wider Australian distribution. In selecting from the species available in the above ranges: ¥ preference will be given to species that are threatened per the Biodiversity and Conservation Policy; ¥ preference will be given to species over hybrids or cultivars (see below).

In selecting from the species available in the above ranges consideration will be given to the: • species’ Managerial and Use Attributes; and • use of horticultural selections of Tasmanian species. Species that: • contravene the CITES (Control of Trade in Endangered Species) policy on plant collecting and trading • are prohibited imports • are declared noxious weeds • are likely or known environmental or agricultural weeds • are known to have or have the potential to facilitate the transmission of disease to commercial crops or other species of value held by the Gardens • are known to be or likely to be sources of introgression problems (genetic contamination); and/or • are known to cause or are likely to cause public health problems will not be acquired unless requested and authorised by a relevant authority for specific approved purposes. Source All plant materials will be legally sourced in accordance with all relevant laws regulating collection, importation, propagation, patent and ownership Plant material that meets the needs of the RTBG will be accepted from (in order of preference): • direct collection from the wild by RTBG staff • other botanic gardens or recognised collectors • purchase from a reputable nursery or collector • donations from reputable sources • collections from old gardens, nurseries etc Replacement of plants deemed to have ‘heritage’ value will consider use of stock propagated from the original source or from authenticated sources.

Provenance

Only those plants of known provenance (i.e. stock with full provenance details, verification of authenticity and herbarium vouchers) will be used. In selecting from plants of known provenance, preference will be given to (in order of preference): • plants sourced from the wild; • plants of known provenance obtained from another botanic garden or accredited collector, either as seed or offspring of plants collected in the wild, or grown from selections without demonstrated danger of hybridisation • cultivars or hybrids of wild origin; and • cultivars or hybrids that can be linked directly to their originator or source, and which reflect the development of plant breeding or selection. Supporting Documentation Consideration will need to be given to the design layout of all new collections including care in the: • organisation of spaces and plantings, allowing for innovative or creative horticultural displays where appropriate; • creation of path networks to allow for maintenance and universal access (as far as possible); and • selection of plants and their relationships to one another to account for their line, form, colour and texture. All new collections will require a horticultural management plan. Records All de-accessions will be recorded using the methods described in the RTBG’s Plant Records Procedures.

De-Accessions and Disposal of Plant Assessment and Authority Material - General Proposals for de-accession of a collection, or substantive part thereof, will be forwarded by horticultural or botanical staff to the Manager of Plant collections, or substantive parts Horticultural Assets. Proposals will include a preliminary evaluation as set out in the Procedures for Evaluation for Acquisition/De- thereof, may from time to time be Accession. removed from the Gardens (de- The Manager of Horticultural Assets will prepare an Issues Brief (as set out in the Issues Brief Procedures) for the approval of the Living accession) in response to the Royal Collections Working Group. Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Prior to de-accession the collection will be evaluated by the Living Collections Working Group against the following criteria for Species Collections Plan or the RTBG vision, Selection, Source and Provenance as above. mission, goals, policies and interpretation themes. Rationale for De-Accession

Priority for de-accession will be given to collections, or substantive portions thereof, that do not meet the requirements for Collection Establishment or Renewal as above. Preference will be given to the de-accession of plants or collections that: • create public safety concerns • exhibit disease or decline • whose Managerial Attributes are low (i.e. not suited to the site, require excessive maintenance not justified by the benefits of retention in the collection and/or detract from the visual values of the site) • are redundant (i.e. occur in other locations within the Gardens or are significantly represented in other regional collections, where there is surety of reservation). Consideration will be given to the removal of species that are common in general cultivation in the community. Consideration will be given to the de-accession of plants or collections in locations required by the RTBG for other purposes. Assessment for De-Accession Prior to de-accession, the affected plant, plants or collections will be evaluated by the Living Collections Working Group for: ¥ their importance to values of the Gardens (i.e. Definitional, Use and/or Managerial Attributes); ¥ the potential for impacts to arise within the Gardens from their removal (i.e. environmental or social impacts); and ¥ the potential for impacts to arise through their disposal (by whatever means) Disposal Disposal will be undertaken in accordance with regional, national and international legal requirements. Disposal may include: exchange, distribution to other institutions, plant sales or destruction Disposal of plant material will follow the RTBG’s Disposal Procedures Records All de-accessions will be recorded using the methods described in the RTBG’s Plant Records Procedures.

De-Accessions and Disposal of Plant Assessment and Authority Material Ð Mature Trees Proposals for de-accession of mature trees will be forwarded by horticultural or botanical staff to the Manager of Horticultural Assets and Mature trees may from time to time be the Team Leader Arboriculture. Proposals will include a preliminary evaluation as set out in the Procedures for Evaluation for removed from the Gardens (de- Acquisition/De-Accession.

accession) in response to the Royal The Manager of Horticultural Assets will prepare an Issues Brief in consultation with the Team Leader Arboriculture (as set out in the Issues Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Brief Procedures) for the approval of the Living Collections Working Group. Collections Plan, the RTBG vision, Prior to de-accession all plants will be evaluated by the Living Collections Working Group against the following criteria for Species mission, goals, policies and interpretation Selection, Source and Provenance as per the guidelines for acquisition. themes. Decisions by the Living Collections Working Group regarding mature trees in the Significant Tree Collection and/ or those with exceptional Heritage Value (as evaluated against the criteria for assessment of Heritage Values set out in the RTBG Conservation Management Plan) will accessed in consultation with the Tasmanian Heritage Council. De-accession of trees with Heritage Value shall be consistent with the statutory requirements of the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. The final authority for the de-accession of trees is with the Director of the RTBG. Rationale for Removal Priority for de-accession of mature trees will be given to specimens that do not meet the requirements for Plant Acquisition as above. Priority will be given to the de-accession of mature trees that inconsistent with the Strategic Master Plan. Consideration will be given to the de-accession of plants or collections in locations required by the RTBG for other purposes. Trees may also be removed that: ¥ do no meet public safety requirements; ¥ are diseased or infected by pests to the point where they cannot be rehabilitated to good health; ¥ have reached maturity and started to senesce; ¥ have low Managerial Attributes (i.e. not suited to the site, require excessive maintenance not justified by the benefits of retention in the collection and/or detract from the visual values of the site) and/or ¥ are redundant (i.e. occur in other locations within the Gardens or are significantly represented in other regional collections, where there is surety of reservation). Assessment for De-Accession Prior to de-accession, the affected tree will be evaluated by the Living Collections Working Group for: ¥ the possibility of conserving the tree including review of the mechanisms required for retention and the implications of such on operations and available funding; ¥ its importance to values of the Gardens (i.e. Definitional, Use and/or Managerial Values);

¥ the potential for impacts to arise within the Gardens from their removal (i.e. environmental or social impacts); and ¥ the potential for impacts to arise through their disposal (by whatever means). Replacement Where a tree is deemed to be of exceptional Heritage Value or Exceptional Horticultural Value, consideration will be given to its replacement with a plant of similar species provided that relevant Disease Control Policies and Procedures will not be contravened. Where the selection of species in not constricted by one of the above values, the guidelines for species acquisition (above) will apply. Communications Plan Where a tree is to be removed that has high-to exceptional Heritage Value or high to exceptional other values, a communications strategy will be developed in consideration of potential public relations concerns. Records All de-accessions will be recorded using the methods described in the RTBG’s Plant Records Procedures.

Review of the Living Collections Plan Annual Review The Living Collections Plan will be An annual review will be undertaken by the Living Collections Plan to ensure the recommendations of the Living Collections Plan are evaluated and reviewed on a regular and appropriately incorporated into the Annual Business Operational Plan. on-going basis to ensure that it supports 5-Year Review the vision, mission and objectives of the A 5-year review on the status of the living collections will be undertaken every 5 years to ensure that the Living Collections Plan is Gardens and the directions established in appropriately aligned with the 5 year Strategic Operational Plan. the Strategic Master Plan. 20-Year Review

A comprehensive review of the Living Collections Plan will be undertaken every 20 years. The purpose of the 20 year review will be to align with Living Collections Plan with the Strategic Master Plan and will include a comprehensive review of the collection based on its values; Responsibility Reviews will be undertaken by the Living Collections Working Group. Support for the Major Review process may be sought from outside consultants with experience relevant to the task.

1.2. Biodiversity and Conservation Policy

Conservation Collections Definition of Species of Conservation Significance The RTBG will address its role as a Species of conservation significance are those species listed as: conservation organisation through the • endangered, vulnerable or rare under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; and/or establishment and maintenance of ex situ • vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, extinct in the wild or extinct by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity collections of species of conservation Conservation Act 1999 or by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List (IUCN). significance. Priority for Conservation Collections: Priority for the collection of species of conservation significance will be given to those species that: • are listed as most at risk; • for Tasmanian species over those from other cool climate Southern Hemisphere locations; and • occur regionally (particularly those threatened species from the Queens Domain). Consideration will be given to species of conservation significance from Northern Hemisphere or other Southern Hemisphere climates. Nursery Collections Permanent nursery collections of threatened plants may be maintained where they meet the priorities for species of conservation significance as set out above. Nursery collections may include materials required for germination, traditional vegetative and tissue culture propagation and development. Experimental Collections The RTBG may maintain experimental collections compatible with its policy on Conservation Research (below). Temporary Collections The RTBG will, from time to time, hold temporary collections of threatened plants on behalf of other partner organisations (see Partnerships below) where they are compatible with the vision, mission and objectives of the Gardens. Particular attention should be given to: the risks of introducing disease or pathogens, availability of space and/ or the availability of staff. Procedures Conservation Collections will be established and managed in accordance with RTBG Operational Procedures for the Living Collections and particularly in line with the Conservation Collections Procedures. Where appropriate procedures do no exist, they will be developed. Plant Conservation Working Group

A Plant Conservation Working Group will be established consisting of: • RTBG Horticultural Botanist • RTBG Nursery Manager • TSCC Coordinator • RTBG Horticulturalist responsible for the Tasmanian Collection • RTBG Manager Horticultural Assets • RTBG Team Leader Arboriculture The Plant Conservation Working Group will responsible for the assessment of proposals, development and management of the Conservation Collections as per the management of Living Collections generally.

Remnant Vegetation Foreshore The RTBG will manage remnant native The foreshore area is to be managed as a ecological restoration project with the purposes of re-establishing self-managing natural vegetation within its boundaries seeking processes and native ecosystem values. to ensure the preservation of its native The foreshore area will be managed by the RTBG and where required in conjunction with the Hobart City Council as set out in its ecosystem values and its self-managing Management Partnerships Policy. capacities. Northern Extremity The northern extremity of the Gardens may be considered for de-accession as part of boundary negotiations or partnership arrangements with the Hobart City Council, provided its maintenance as a natural system is to be preserved. Queens Domain The RTBG will work in partnership with the Hobart City Council to maintain the natural values of the Queens Domain as set out in its Management Partnerships Policy.

Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre Purpose The RTBG will be a key partner in the The purpose of the TSCC is to ensure the long-term security and conservation of Tasmania’s unique native flora, as a contribution to the operation of the Tasmanian Seed conservation of global biodiversity. Conservation Centre (the TSCC) Role of the RTBG The RTBG will: • cooperate in germination research and other seed storage related research;

• provide support for the day-to day activities of the seed conservation centre; and in particular lend its expertise in the horticulture of threatened species; and • cooperate in the collection of seed from the field. Period of Involvement The RTBG will seek to ensure that the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre continues its operations beyond its current formal project time frame of 2010, through in-kind support of the centre and encouragement of support from existing and potential project partners including Government.

Conservation Research Priorities The RTBG will participate in research Priority will be given to the conduct of research regarding species of conservation significance that: related to threatened plants. • integrates with the activities of the TSCC including the germination and propagation research and other seed storage/management research; • is linked to a recovery plan as made or adopted under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and also the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; • facilitates the reestablishment of threatened plants in the wild or in restoration projects that seek to preserve the elements of native plant communities rather than individual plant specimens; and • facilitates the recovery of threatened species known from the Queens Domain. Consideration will be given to the facilitation of threatened research by others on species other than those listed above with a preference for work related to cool climate Southern Hemisphere and Sub-Antarctic species. Dissemination of Information The RTBG will contribute to the assembly and dissemination of information (e.g. biology, propagation, native habitat requirements) in support of: • its international obligations to Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) and Botanic Gardens Australia and New Zealand (BGANZ); • the Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre; • the development of recovery plans under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and also the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; • land managers with responsibility for the in situ conservation of native habitat and species; and

• post-graduate academic research in areas that are linked to the vision, mission and objectives for the RTBG.

Conservation Partnerships Existing Partnerships The RTBG will develop and participate in The RTBG will continue to work in partnership with existing conservation partners on projects that align with the vision, mission and conservation activities sharing its objectives of the RTBG and other aspects of this policy on Biodiversity and Conservation. knowledge and skills relating to plant Future Partnerships conservation with local, state, national Future partnerships may be developed with other organisations on a project by project basis, with consideration to the compatibility of the and international authorities and proposed project with the RTBG’s vision, mission and objectives. approved conservation groups as outlined in Policy 3: Partnerships. A MOU will be established with the Tasmanian Herbarium defining areas of mutual interest, potential support an the partnering of appropriate projects.

7. DIRECTIONS FORWA RD

A master plan (Attachment B) has been prepared indicating the recommended physical developments for the RTBG. The master plan represents how the Gardens might look in 20 years if all of the recommendations herein are implemented. The master plan also recognises that many of these proposed changes will fundamentally establish the look, feel and experience of the Gardens over a much longer time period.

The key physical elements illustrated on the master plan are:

the identification of areas that bound the Gardens in which the RTBG has an interest in cooperating with the relevant owners to achieve mutual benefits;

the evolution of the living collections, and the implementation of the Living Collections Plan, in particular changes and additions to the existing physical layout of collections;

improvements to the visitor facilities and services that will enhance accessibility, the quality of the visitor experience and interpretation of the RTBG; and

consolidation of administrative, operational and other site functions of the RTBG, to provide more efficient and effective management in the long term.

Of particular importance to the Living Collections Plan are the first two of the above elements, the areas adjacent to the RTBG within which living collections might be developed (Section 7.1) and the evolution of the living collections to better meet the strategic aims of the Gardens (Section 7.2). 74 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

7 . 1 S P H E R E O F I NVOLVEMENT : E XPANSION OF THE

RTBG’ S R OLE

The issues surrounding a lack of space within the Gardens to expand collections or activities were discussed in Section 5. The master plan addresses opportunities for the Gardens to grow its ‘sphere of involvement in the management of nearby areas whereon its collections might be extended and/or its core activities better supported. The recommendations of the master plan are supported by the various policies developed as part of the SMP process (Attachment 1).

The principle areas where the Gardens sphere of involvement could expand in cooperation with the Hobart City Council (Figure 7.1) are:

the Beaumaris Zoo Ð the zoo has previously been identified as an area where collections with Southern Hemisphere and Gondwanan associations could be developed;

the ‘golf course’ Ð this area is well located and topographically suited to car parking provided that the natural and cultural values of the site are appropriately considered including through improved access and interpretation; and

Grasslands Gully Ð this area presents significant potential to present the grassy woodland and related riparian flora of the Greater Hobart region29.

29 Note, there are a few conifers that may need to be retained if they are found to contribute to the significance of the Conifer Collection. Nonetheless, if found to have significance, the policies herein allow for their ultimate removal providing they can be replaced elsewhere in the Gardens or a nearby site.

76 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

7 . 2 E VOLUTION OF THE L I V I N G C OLLECTIONS

The analysis of the living collections (Section5) indicates the potential to develop new collections, renew existing, under-performing ones or to remove irrelevant collections to allow for other uses.

The analysis of the collections and consideration of the strategic framework suggests the identification of clear precincts within which to develop specific types of collections and changes to the collections themselves to enhance their value to the Gardens and its vision, mission, goals and interpretation themes.

7.2.1 Physical Layout - Precincts

In line with the extension of the Gardens beyond its boundaries is the opportunity to identify specific precincts in the Gardens within which to develop particular types of collections. The principle opportunities in this regard are shown on Figure 7.2-7.5 and include:

T ASMANIAN AND S O U T H E R N H E M I S P H E R E C OLLECTIONS P RECINCTS

The identification of existing areas of the Gardens for Tasmanian and Southern Hemisphere plant collections reflecting the diversity of vegetation types in the State and the extent of its related cool climate Southern Hemisphere genera (Figure 7.2) including:

the development of a Tasmanian forest eucalypt and related vegetation at the northern end of the Gardens with associated other Tasmanian collections developed underneath;

the development of an area to illustrate Tasmania’s drier and salt tolerant vegetation including heathland and woodland species;

the development of a Tasmanian wet forests area including an extended Tasmanian fern collection;

the redevelopment and expansion of the New Zealand Collection; and

the expansion of the Gondwana collection (as far as can be done within the limited confines of its existing location).

78 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

The master plan also identifies improvements to access across the Lower Domain Highway that would facilitate better use of the foreshore through:

the relocation of the Sub-Antarctic collection and the addition of alpine and sub-alpine collections within a purpose built visitor attraction at Pavilion Point30;

the development of a saltmarsh collection on the foreshore using a system of ‘floating beds’ as display areas (soil-filled structural geo-fabric suspended from floating or pile supported walkways could provide a suitable media/setting for growing such plants, similar to the way in which a sphagnum mat supports plant growth in a bog Ð use of such a system overcome the need for the filling of the river); and

the development of the foreshore as a ‘collection’ of typical Tasmanian foreshore species (as opposed to simply rehabilitating the area, this may involve introduction of coastal species from elsewhere in the State).

CULTURAL AND ORNAMEN TAL COLLECTI O N S P RECINCT

At the same time various areas of the Gardens are to be managed for their cultural and ornamental collections and heritage values (Figure 7.3) including:

the Significant Tree Collection (note this collection is spread throughout the Gardens);

Conifer Collection at the main entry and along the boundary with Lower Domain Road;

the Palm Collection;

the Deciduous Tree Collection;

the Japanese Garden;

the various other collections spread through the centre of the Gardens (i.e. Cottage Garden, Conservatory, Bedding Plants, Lily Pond, etc.); and

the upper and lower lawns.

30 Subject to a business case being prepared that supports such a venture.

80 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

E DUCATION AND E C O N O M I C C OLLECTIONS P RECINCTS

Figure 7.4 identifies the areas identified for further development of educational and economic collections (i.e. collections with a demonstration focus). The proposed area correlates strongly with the existing Easy Access Garden, the WSUD garden, the Education Pod and Pete’s Patch. These collections have strong affinities with the interpretation themes around sustainability and the early history of the Gardens as set out in the RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008- 2013. Economic collections also have a strong heritage link to Government House and the use of adjacent areas there (historically and into the present day).

The map shows the proposed area for the Education and Economic Collections Precincts. These areas are proposed to include:

purpose built facilities will be constructed in support of these collections including classrooms, purpose built beds, glasshouses, etc. targeted to use by visiting groups;

a children’s garden, specifically targeted to educational messages;

perennial and annual vegetable plots (Pete’s Patch) and other crop and vegetable plots (with an emphasis on food plants, the home vegetable garden, heirloom and heritage species);

the Herb Garden;

the heritage apple collection and possibly other orchard species (fruit and nut);

collections focused on sustainability (i.e. WSUD);

areas to demonstrate sustainable horticultural practices (i.e. composting, integrated pest management, etc.); and

some limited area for ‘community gardens’ (or some variant thereof).

Location of the education and economic collections in this area has strong heritage links to Government House and the use of adjacent areas there (historically and in the present day).

82 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

O P E R A T I O N S P RECINCTS

Figure 7.5 shows the operational areas of the Gardens being retained in their current locations until such time as space becomes available elsewhere. In the interim, rationalisation of the use of the Nursery area, the moving of potted to collections to in ground locations, the amalgamation of administrative functions and the removal of car parking from the area would result in better utilisation of the available space.

Figure 7.5 also shows the retention of the northern storage area for the bulk storage of garden and building materials. Whilst the northern storage area remains some distance from the nursery, there were no suitable options available for relocating these activities elsewhere in the grounds. Nor is there scope to shift the depot to the Nursery where similarly there are spatial constraints and the additional potential impacts of noise from the depot operations on residential areas on the Government House estate.

Figure 7.5 shows the introduction of an Eastern Storage area at the far extremity of the main east-west path. There is scope in this area for the development of a small, discrete area for the storage of topsoil, mulches and other soft materials. Access to the area would be limited to the smaller of the RTBG’s vehicles (golf carts). Development in this area could be visually sensitive if, in the future, access is developed along this path to the foreshore. In response, screening vegetation should be retained and/or intensified to ensure the visitor experience is not impacted on.

Some benefit will accrue to operations if Lower Domain Road is closed to through traffic, as the road could be used as an alternative route for service vehicles between the depot, the Nursery or other parts of the Gardens (see Figure 7.7 below). Native vegetation to the north of the depot provides some visual screening from the highway and the Eastern Shore31.

31 Albeit this would be retained whether the land was managed by Council or the RTBG.

84 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

7.2.2 Changes to Collections

The need to manage and maintain the living collections as individual groupings of plants is also a critical issue to be addressed by the RTBG. Table 7.1 adapts the table used to analyse the collections and reflects the intended precinctual developments described above, showing for each collection:

future directions including whether or not the collection should be retained in size and location, retained and expanded in size, upgraded in content or retained but moved to a new location or de-accessed;

comments on the future directions expanding on the opportunities for each; and

the existing unweighted ratings for each attribute and current total scores, highlighting where the greatest benefits can be derived from upgrading the collections.

Note within the table, that upgrade refers to improvements that can be made within the collection to enhance its rating against a particular attribute. It is not practical to expect that all low scores can be raised. For instance, scores against the heritage attribute are inherently fixed, that is unless a particular bed was reconstructed using historic precedent.

Highlighted areas are, therefore, considered to be the priority areas where it would be most beneficial for the Gardens to target its efforts.

Chapter 7 Directions Forward 85

Table 7.1 Living Collections Directions (A3)

86 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

Table 7.1 Living Collections Directions (A3)

Chapter 7 Directions Forward 87

The principle recommendations from the analysis of the collections are to:

emphasise the introduction on species of conservation significance and of known provenance;

recognise the strong relationship of the Tasmanian and Southern Hemisphere collections to the vision and mission of the Gardens and the need to retain and expand these collections for their potential benefits;

de-access the Asian Woodland and Conifer Cultivars collections and replace them with other species or collections that support the vision, mission, goals, strategies and interpretation plan;

significantly redevelopment of the Sub-Antarctic (subject to a business case) and Tasmanian Ferns collections as major visitor attractions;

expand the opportunities for the development of economic plant collections; and

improve the presentation of WSUD garden and other native plant collections to encourage visitors that such collections have aesthetic value.

Importantly, the table also highlights the significant need for improved interpretation and those collections where greatest benefits might be gained in doing so. The RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-2013 identifies:

four primary interpretation themes that convey the what makes the RTBG distinctive and three secondary themes, that expand on these principle ideas adding depth and richness to the potential interpretive messages; and

a suite of media best targeted to the RTBG’s audiences and assessed against the themes they may best be used to illustrate.

Table 7.2, from the Interpretation Plan, highlights those collections and the principle and secondary interpretation themes with which they have the strongest correlation. The findings from the table suggest how each collection might be targeted to a theme for best effect in reaching the Gardens audiences.

Theme No. P1 P2 P3 P4 S1 S2 S3 Make a Convict Difference - Inspiration Horticultural Gardens as Theme Concept Biodiversity Full Circle Labour vs Environ- and Leader Family Now mental Sanctuary Change Tourism/ Attributes from Living Historical/ Recreational/ Spiritual/ Collections analysis Botanical/ Historical/ Regional/ Horticulture Regional/ Commercial/ Horticulture addressed by Theme (some Site Interpretation/ Conservation (includes Conservation Horticulture (includes attributes relate to multiple Suitability Education/ Aesthetics) (includes Aesthetics) themes) Aesthetics) CATEGORY FOCUS COLLECTION Tasmanian Geographical Focus Subantarctic Greater Hobart East Coast Tasmainan Remnant Grassland Taxonomic Focus Epacridaceae Tasmanian Ferns Demonstration Focus WSUD Garden Heritage Focus French Memorial Horticultural Focus Visitor Centre Beds Conservation and Research Geographical Focus Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre Conservation Collections (Potted) Foreshore Remnant Grassland Southern Hemisphere Geographical Focus New Zealand Gondwana Terraces Southern Hemisphere (Potted) Taxonomic Focus Southern Hemisphere Conifers (Potted) Horticultural Focus Protea Cultural and Ornamental Horticultural Focus Bedding plants - including Floral Clock Conservatory Deciduous Trees Ð (elms and oaks) Conifer Cultivars Mixed Border (Friends Border, Rills, Lily Rhododendrons & Camellias Fuchsia House Palm collection Asian Woodland Salvia Collection Magnoliaceae Grey Foliage plants Taxonomic Focus Eucalypt Lawn Conifer Species Demonstration Focus Herb Garden Pete's Patch/Economic Easy Access Garden Cacti & Succulents Heritage Focus Heritage Apples Significant Trees Cottage Garden Geographical Focus Japanese Garden Chinese Australian

Collections marked in yellow to be de-accessed or significantly re-focused

Table 7.2 Interpretation Themes Related to Living Collections Chapter 7 Directions Forward 89

Amongst its other recommendations, the RTBG Interpretation Plan 2008-2013 also identified the opportunity to develop a children’s garden to address opportunities to reach this important market segment.

90 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

In regards to the Sub-Antarctic House and the Fernery, the SMP proposes development of these into major visitor attractions as follows.

S UB - A N T A R C T I C C O O L T EMPERATURE C OLLECTIONS

The SMP proposes the idea of a major visitor attraction at Pavilion Point to house the Sub-Antarctic Collection and other Cool Temperature Collections (alpine and sub-alpine) subject to the development of a business case. The proposal builds on the popularity of the existing Sub-Antarctic Collection and addresses the issue of the lack of appropriate conditions in the Gardens for the growing of cool temperature species.

The attractiveness of the site lies in its riverside setting with outstanding views to the eastern shore, access to the water’s edge and potential access by boat from elsewhere in the estuary. Heating and cooling systems could benefit from the use of reverse cycle technology drawing on the cool river water nearby.

The development proposal would be made more attractive if the flora collections could be combined with fauna, particularly penguins native to the Sub-Antarctic collections represented in the building and/or other relevant fauna species (including other birds, insects, marine invertebrates, etc)32.

Whilst the site is difficult to access by car, this could be overcome by:

improving public transport to the site either by bus or by rail;

encouraging access via the inter-city cycleway;

linking the site to the Gardens proper by the proposed overpass (see Accessible Paths above);

increasing the size and configuration of the lower Gardens car park (see Arrival, Parking and Entry);

establishing the proposed car park on the golf course (in this scenario visitors would pass through the Gardens and cross the proposed footbridge to the development site; and

improvements to the road junction at the Domain Highway.

32 The Biodome in Montreal is a good example of the concept proposed here. The Biodome allows visitors to walk through replicas of four ecosystems found in the Americas. A variety of animals live in each simulated habitat.

Chapter 7 Directions Forward 91

T A S M A N I A N F E R N H OUSE

The SMP proposes that the Fernery could be significantly extended and upgraded to become a far more significant attraction within the Gardens along the lines of the Evolution House at the Kew Gardens. The upgraded fern house would involve replacement of the existing fernery with a new, architecturally designed building that extends the amount of covered area.

The bulk of the enclosed space would house extensive plantings of some of the earliest known plants: ferns and cycads, lichens, selaginellas, horsetails and mosses and other bryophytes. Tasmania is home to: nine aquatic Pteridophyte species (ferns and fern allies) that require permanent submersion or temporary inundation that could be accommodated in a new fernery. Other areas in an expanded could include related rainforest and wet forest plant species. In contrast to the emphasis on species requiring wet, moist conditions, Tasmania is also home to 15 species that are specially adapted to survive in seasonally dry habitats which could also be accommodated in part of an expanded fern house33.

All plants would of known provenance and feature species of conservation in line with the policies herein.

The whole of the new Fernery would be accessible via a network of paths linked by stairs and or inclinators or mini-lifts. Moisture soaked, stone walls could provide a rugged appearance and backdrop to the otherwise soft feel of the fern and moss beds.

Waterfalls, overhead sprinklers and misting devices would heighten the experience of the space.

Within the fern house spaces would be created where gatherings could occur with suitable backgrounds for photographs. Small shelters might also be created in which visitors could gather out of the mist. Temperature, humidity and soil moisture displays could aid understanding of the environment in which ferns live.

Interpretation would be linked to the themes identified in the Interpretation Plan, particularly around issues of biodiversity and the ancient quality of ferns and related non-vascular species.

33 Lang, C. 2005. “Proposal for the Development of an Expanded Fernery Display House Ð A Case Study Lead-In Document” unpublished proposal to the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens.

ATTACHMENT A THE MANAGEMENT FRAME W O R K F O R T H E R T B G

The Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Strategic Master Plan 2008-2013 defines the strategic framework within which the Gardens are to be managed including its vision, mission and goals as follows (Figure A1).

Stated in full here, much of the strategic framework has direct relevance to the development and on-going management of the living collections.

A.1 RTBG V I S I O N

The Vision of the RTBG is

“The Vision of the RTBG is to create and maintain an exceptional garden that enriches Tasmania’s social and cultural life, educates the community about the importance of plants and contributes to the conservation of the flora of Tasmania and the world.”

The vision

sets aspirational aims for a reputation of excellence within the international arena;

provides a focus on Tasmania as the locus for the operations and the identity of the Gardens (i.e. its sense of place but also as a focus for collections); and

specifies that the Gardens contribute to flora conservation initiatives. Vision

Mission Policies Interpretation Themes

Goals

Strategies

Action

Figure A.1 Strategic Management Framework Attachment A RTBG Strategic Framework A3

A.2 RTBG M ISSION

The transformation of vision into reality is an active process in which the organisation’s mission is a central guiding force, therefore,

In common with other botanical gardens, the RTBG will:

act as an ex situ repository for species of conservation significance and participate in other conservation programs aimed at preserving bio- diversity in the world; and

incorporate plants of an economic value to the community.

In achieving its mission, the RTBG will create and maintain core/priority plant collections based on Tasmania’s flora and associated cool climate flora from the southern hemisphere.

In respect to its history, the RTBG will maintain:

the Gardens in a manner that recognises and interprets the layered history of the site from Aboriginal times through to the present;

identified heritage collections of plants that are of State, national and international significance for their historic heritage values; and

the place in a manner that respects its important landscape and sense of place values.

The mission reiterates the aspiration to excellence, identifies the importance of the Gardens to the Tasmanian community, provides focus on the experience of the place through education, emphasises the role of the RTBG in conservation and identifies the core values that underpin the place as Tasmania’s botanic gardens i.e. Tasmanian endemic flora and associated cool climate plants from the southern hemisphere and the heritage values of the site.

A4 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

A.3 RTBG M A N A G E M E N T G O A L S A N D S TRATEGI ES

In the application of its values to the achievement of its vision and mission, three objectives are recognised. These goals and objectives describe the outcomes that the RTBG is trying to achieve and establish the key strategies arising .

Goal 1. To sustainably manage the core values of the RTBG as Tasmania’s botanical garden.

Strategy 1.1. Insure the RTBG is internationally recognised for its collections of southern hemisphere cool climate plants with a particular emphasis on Tasmania’s flora.

Strategy 1.2. Respect, conserve and interpret the cultural values of the site.

Strategy 1.3. Support and be involved in world conservation programs for the world’s flora.

Strategy 1.4. Be a community leader in sustainable environmental programs.

Strategy 1.5. Engage in appropriate research related to the conservation of species of conservation significance from southern hemisphere cool climate areas with a particular emphasis on Tasmania’s flora.

This goal addresses the definition of the RTBG as a ‘Tasmanian botanical garden’ (see Section 1) and recognises the significant values embodied in the Gardens and that these values must be managed in a sustainable manner if the SMP is to be considered successful.

This goal also addresses a principle requirement to maintain the integrity of the RTBG as a true botanical gardens through appropriate curation of living collections, involvement in the conservation of the world’s flora and the conduct of targeted research.

Goal 2. To promote and manage the Gardens to ensure its users have the opportunity to attain a quality experience of the place and its values.

Strategy 2.1 To achieve excellence in horticultural and botanical education, training and extension programs;

Attachment A RTBG Strategic Framework A5

Strategy 2.2 To communicate the relevance, importance and history of the RTBG, its programs, people and context through meaningful and valued interpretation;

Strategy 2.3 To be a recognised deliverer of quality programs, products and services;

Strategy 2.4 To position the RTBG as one of the top Tasmanian attractions in terms of number of visits and levels of awareness;

Strategy 2.5 To develop the built environment to facilitate the experience of the Gardens

Strategy 2.6 To maintain the built environment of the RTBG in a manner that addresses requirements for basic function, safety and public amenity.

This goal addresses the use value of the Garden and the benefits to be derived from the successful management of the RTBG as an education and training centre, a community asset and a tourism destination.

The management of the visitor experience is directly related to people’s expectations for the Gardens as a destination for daily life and/or for tourism.

Goal 3. To ensure there is sufficient capacity to sustainably manage34 the place.

Strategy 3.1 To ensure that the legislative requirements for the operations of the Gardens are effectively met.

Strategy 3.2 To ensure that the funding available to the Gardens is adequate to realise its vision and mission.

Strategy 3.3 To deliver innovative, proactive and sustainable business practices to support and enhance RTBG programs.

Strategy 3.4 To provide a safe and enriching work and social environment for staff, stakeholders and visitors.

This goal addresses the core operational activities of the Gardens and recognises that the RTBG has a responsibility to achieve a consistent and integrated approach to the management of the Gardens and that to achieve

34 Manage being defined as the day to day activities which serve to direct or control use so as to protect the values of the place, to ensure the safety of users and/or to improve their access to the area.

A6 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

this the RTBG must have the legislative power, the organisational and procedural capacities and the funding necessary to implement, monitor and evaluate the strategies set out in the SMP.

A . 4 T H E P O L I C Y F RAMEWORK

A range of policies, including those contained in the LCP (highlighted), assist in achievement of the RTBG’s goals as shown in Table A.1.

Policies provide principles, standards and guidelines and direct the creation of procedures that apply in the operations of the Gardens. Policies have no statutory weight, but supply criteria and guidance in setting a course of action. The policies may be added to as demand dictates or amended as ‘policy learning’ occurs.

Policies are different to ‘regulations’ that prohibit, control or allow activities within the Gardens. Regulations have legislative force arising from the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Act 2002. Part 3 of the Act establishes a range of regulations for the Care, Control and Management of the Gardens. Part 4, Section 29 allows for the establishment of new regulations for the purposes of the Act.

Policies are also different to ‘procedures’, the latter being developed as tools for the implementation of policies. Procedures are developed by the staff of the RTBG and detail the content or step by step processes that are undertaken in relation to the tasks of managing and maintaining the Gardens.

Attachment A RTBG Strategic Framework A7

Goals Policy Areas Policies 1. To sustainably manage Core Values Policy Living Collections the core values of the RTBG Biodiversity Conservation as Tasmania’s botanic (includes research) gardens. Education

Heritage Conservation 2. To promote and manage Visitor Experience Interpretation the RTBG to ensure its users Policy Visitor Survey have the opportunity to attain Visitor Facilities (includes a quality experience of the access and new development) place and its values. Events and Activities 3. To ensure there is Capacity to Manage Land Acquisition sufficient capacity to Policy Funding and Resources sustainably manage the Management Partnerships place. Future Use and Development Coordinated Planning Monitoring and Review of Plans and Policies and Procedures Operations and Asset Management (includes water use) Occupational Health and Safety and other Personnel Management and Employment Policies35

Table A.1. RTBG Policy Framework

35 The RTBG is subject to the Health and Safety Policies of the Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment. Policies include but are not limited to: Remote and Isolated Work Safety Policy, OHSMS Management and Coordination Policy, Incident Accident Reporting Policy, Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control Safety Policy, Dangerous Good and Hazardous Substances Safety Policy. The RTBG also works within Governmental policies related to personnel management and employment.

A8 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Living Collection Plan and Policy

A . 5 I NTERPRETATION T HEMES

Themes sit at the heart of the interpretive program. They form a set of ‘launching pads’ from which the entire program is developed and delivered.

They allow for considerable creativity in developing the program, providing for varying levels of layering and depth, while weaving together a range of topics Ð all geared to the delivery media, audience and location.

Themes are presented with a range of underpinning ideas for context. The diversity of these underpinning ideas indicates the considerable opportunity for rich layering of interpretive content.

A.5.1 Primary Themes

The following themes are considered primary because together they convey what makes RTBG distinctive in relation to other natural or cultural areas and other botanical gardens in Australia and overseas. In this way, they contribute to RTBG’s competitive advantage. They establish the key ideas about RTBG and what ‘makes it tick’ for the audience most interested in interpretation Ð International & National Visitors.

In addition, P1 and P2 communicate that RTBG is leading edge, has an incredibly valuable role that no-one else can replicate, and is sharing its knowledge and expertise with the local community and specialist ‘communities’ nationally and overseas.

A.5.2 Secondary Themes

Secondary themes are no less important, in their own right, than primary themes. However, they either put ‘flesh on the bones’ Ð communicating the depth and richness of the RTBG experience Ð or are less relevant to the main interpretive audience.

PRIMARY THEMES UNDERPINNING IDEAS RATIONALE

P1 Without the work of the RTBG is more than a beautiful park Ð because plants are critical to life, it’s helping preserve quality of life for Encompasses three levels Ð the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Tasmanians and others through protecting our native species. ‘big picture’ or generic Gardens, our biodiversity Its role in conserving Tasmanian and other cool climate Southern Hemisphere species is part of a major world importance of plants; point of would suffer Ð and so would force in conservation e.g. biology and propagation of selected rare and threatened species in conjunction with difference for RTBG; and scope we. the Department of Plant Science at the University of Tasmania; propagation of rare and threatened species for for a range of detailed content. revegetation of mine sites; part of the Millennium Seed Bank project, collecting seed from rare and protected Links to other local attractions Tasmanian flora. that feature Tasmanian/ It not only plays an active role in conservation of Tasmanian flora but contributes to the knowledge and skill Gondwanan plants, such as bank of other organisations and individuals. Mount Wellington. The experience world-wide shows that botanical gardens like the RTBG are pivotal in maintaining plant diversity at a time when we are seeing the greatest rate of species extinction in earth’s history. More than 2,500 botanical gardens globally have almost 30% of the world’s plant diversity. No plants, no people! Tasmania has iconic species that are vulnerable. RTBG is the last repository for some plants under threat. Tasmania’s flora is distinctive and has Gondwanan connections. RTBG is part of a global network and is working with partners locally. The Tasmanian Seed Conservation Centre is intrinsic to the ex-situ conservation of Tasmanian species. Biodiversity matters! All life depends on plants yet plants are an at-risk resource. Plants are also the basis for most eco-systems. Plants have played a key role in human history (food, art, bio-prospecting, trade, resources etc.). The gardens have played and continue to play an important role in the exchange of plants with other sites around Australia and the world and this continues today with the Seed Bank. We can learn about the purposes for plants e.g. medicinal, food, other economic purposes, etc. The collections of the RTBG illustrate the connections between Tasmania’s flora, other Southern Hemisphere flora and the ancient flora of Gondwana

P2 The Royal Botanical RTBG plays an important role in training the botanists and horticulturalists of the future, helping to ensure that Relates to sharing knowledge Gardens is a leader in excellence in Tasmanian horticultural practices and flora conservation is maintained. and expertise and in this way, Tasmanian horticultural It also excites, inspires and educates people about growing plants. being directly relevant to the practices, opening the world of local community. The RTBG horticultural practices are not just about edible plants e.g. it has cultivated some Tasmanian species plants for you. never cultivated before. It is the only place in the world growing Subantarctic flora in a controlled environment. Its horticultural therapy program was one of the first in Australia. From the early development of Van Diemen’s Land Ð particularly from the period when RTBG came under the auspices of the Royal Society of Van Diemen’s Land for Horticulture, Botany and the Advancement of Science Ð it has been a focus for the island’s horticultural research and practices (linking to early technology, such as Arthur Wall). The range of collections and plants reflects an immense world of plants e.g. at a recent World Harmony Day, at least one plant representing almost each of more than 80 migrant communities was identified.

P3 The story of the Gardens The site began with a focus on survival, through food gathering and food production for subsistence. This led to Cultural heritage, couched in a has gone full circle, from introduction of exotic plants for the colony and has now returned to a focus on more global survival Ð the message that relates to us survival on a local scale back conservation of Tasmanian plants as part of retaining the world’s biodiversity and ensuring the ongoing survival today, is the focus. This links to then to the survival of every and wellbeing of all of us. P1. one of us in the future. The history of human occupation of the Gardens goes back more than 35,000 years to the original Tasmanian Aboriginal inhabitants. The Mouheneenner people sourced shellfish from the Derwent River and foodstuffs from local plants on the site and gathered there to cook and eat it. The British then used the site in the early 1800s, in the fledgling colony of Van Diemen’s Land, as part of a farm. The then-Governor Sorell refused to recognise the title for the farm and part of it became a Government Garden. This initial phase was focused on subsistence in a new, remote settlement through production of edible plants. The next main phase was its development and expansion, under the authority of the Royal Society of Van

36 From Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Thematic History, prepared in 2007 by Historian Lindy Scripps as part of the RTBG Conservation Management Plan.

Diemen’s Land for Horticulture, Botany and the Advancement of Science, as part of a thirst for knowledge. The focus shifted to: sharing of specimens, science and research, cultivation of “useful plants”, and acclimatisation and supply of trees, fruits and plants introduced to the colony. Members of the society had privileged access for a number of years but by 1848 the Gardens were freely available to the public and became a popular place for recreation and education The Gardens fluctuated, with periods of being run down interspersed with periods of revitalisation. By the early 1900s, a focus was emerging on facilities for visitors such as “a retiring place for ladies and children” and “…tables provide, and a brick fireplace erected, with wood and water at hand. Visitors are now able to boil their kettles …”.36 Through the late 1800s, the Gardens provided thousands of plants for landscape development throughout Tasmania, including Franklin Square in Hobart, Cataract Gorge and Port Arthur. All of the built heritage has its own story to tell (e.g. Arthur Wall, Friends Cottage, Conservatory). And so has the built heritage that has disappeared or is out of sight (there are many layers here). The plants also have many stories to tell Ð not just botanical but also relating to social history. The Gardens are a product of a continually-evolving landscape. They have always been and are a ‘work in progress’, right back to the early days when they were used by Government House as a farm and including the reclamation of the bay as part of the Gardens site. They are one of only six ‘Royal’ botanical gardens in the world (along with Kew and Edinburgh in the U.K., Hamilton in Canada, Sydney and Melbourne).

P4 It took unskilled The Gardens were part of the Van Diemen’s Land convict system, with the labour force largely consisting of Enables RTBG to tap into convict labour to establish convicts until 1858. existing strength of tourist these gardens Ð and takes The gardens may ultimately be a product of genteel Victorian ideals and aspirations. Yet it was the lowest level interest in the convict story and specialist skills and knowledge of early society that brought the ideals to fruition. to build on experiences visitors to keep them thriving now. are likely to have had elsewhere. The availability of cheap, unskilled convict labour was the only means in the early days of preventing “the Gardens from falling into a state of decay”.37 (leads to the Royal Society’s role in introducing specialist skills Also is a legitimate way to and expertise). showcase, appropriately, RTBG as a centre of excellence. Today, RTBG staff are recognised for bringing a high level of expertise and specialist knowledge to the care and development of the Gardens and to vital conservation work. The Gardens are part of a wider Tasmanian convict story that can be experienced at other sites, including Hobart’s Cascades Female Factory, Port Arthur Historic Site, and Sarah Island.

37 From Thematic History prepared by historian, Lindy Scripps, in 2007 as part of RTBG Conservation Management Plan.

SECONDARY THEMES UNDERPINNING IDEAS RATIONALE

S1 The Royal Tasmanian RTBG is an historical record of climate change issues. Plant adaptations have occurred as a result of the Highlights the RTBG’s active Botanical Gardens shows you planet’s historical climate change. role in contributing to quality of how to make a difference when Through the Gardens, I can discover that I have an important part to play in the health and wellbeing of myself, life for locals and others. it comes to environmental others and the planet Ð through the Gardens’ waste management/recycling practices to the compost heap in change. Pete’s Veggie Patch and direct learning on-site. The environment is fragile, essential and susceptible and there are things you can do to work with this. RTBG is a centre for finding out information on environmental issues. It is a place where you can learn and get excited and it is an accessible source of environmental knowledge e.g. being water wise, learning about weeds and which plants shouldn’t be in your garden, discovering organic gardening. RTBG offers formal educational programs and informal learning.

For many locals, this place is Many locals consider the Gardens as a supportive ‘relative’, coming here for comfort in hard times, to slow Personalises the significance like a member of the family. down or cheer up, to enjoy the sense of safety, to have fun, or to feel a sense of belonging and place (e.g. of the Gardens to the local Antarctic expeditioners on return). community. The Gardens are a repository of local memories. They are a witness to the beginnings, endings and the cycles of our lives Ð visiting as children, courting, weddings, scattering the ashes of loved ones. Even when they don’t visit, locals feel good knowing that the Gardens are there when they want or need to experience them. The Gardens are an important part of local identity and the image of Hobart. These are Tasmania’s botanic gardens and we are proud of its history, its condition and the unique Tasmanian flora within it.

S3 The Royal Tasmanian The Gardens are a uniquely inspiring place for reinvigoration and reconnection Ð physically, Informs the way RTBG is Botanical Gardens have the emotionally and spiritually. “It gives us the chance to reconnect with ourselves, others and nature.” developed over time. S3 is power to inspire us and provide This is a place that nourishes our imagination. delivered largely through sanctuary in our busy lives. It is a powerful place because of its sensory richness. implicit rather than overt means e.g. the provision of It is a place of recreation and relaxation, with opportunities for individual and group intimate or social spaces; expression/experiences. opportunity/facilities for The gardens are freely accessible to all. contemplation. This is a place of life! We can listen to Ð and be refueled by Ð the story that nature tells us about the Also highlights the importance cycles of life. of sensory elements in the Among all the destruction and destructive processes on the planet, the RTBG shows us that interpretive program. humans can still create something beautiful. The Gardens shows that everyday effort (on the part of those who work here and are passionate about it) can create extraordinary outcomes. The Gardens are a rich and dynamic environment that is here for everyone. We can all share in the ownership of them and can be part of the Gardens community. They remind us that every day above the ground is a good day Ð they are a place of uncomplicated love (somehow life and what’s important all seems simpler, here). In exploring the themed Gardens, we are informed about our own identity and the different identities of other cultures.

ATTACHEMENT B THE MASTER PLAN

Key Facilities 1) New visitor hub and Administration 2) New and expanded Tasmanian Fern House 3) Sub-Antarctic/Alpine Centre 4) Superintendent’s cottage interpretation area 5) Teaching and Learning Centre 6) The Friend’s Cottage 7) Conservatory

Arrival, Parking and Paths 8) Terminate Lower Domain Road. Create turning, arrival, drop-off zone 9) Bus parking and lay-by 10) Stage 1 parking using Lower Domain Road alignment 11) Pedestrian link to Soldier’s Memorial Avenue via Powder Magazine 12) Pedestrian promenade to historic entry gate 13) Feature pedestrian bridge to foreshore 14) Future parking 15) New 1:20 return path from north of Gardens 16) Inclinator linking lower and upper Gardens 17) New pedestrian link to Cornelian Bay Walk

10 a New Feature Collections 18) Beaumaris Zoo – southern conifer and Gondwanan species 19) Tasmanian grasslands and woody grasslands 20) Tasmanian dry sclerophyll forest 21) Tasmanian wet sclerophyll forest 22) Tasmanian heathland and coastal species 23) Saltmarsh 24) Economic and education gardens 25) Children’s Garden

Utility Areas 15 a) Northern storage area b) Nursery c) Eastern storage area

20

17 3 23

13 21

2

16 c 22 10 24

1 25

6 7

24 10 5 12 4

b

19 8

9

11

14

LACE

18 P

N S P I R I N G I

May 2009

North 1:2000@A1 Inspiring Place

Environmental Planning, Landscape Architecture Tourism and Recreation Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Site Master Plan