About Us What's On Join Make a Donation Places to Visit Online Shop Conferences and Forums Natural Environment Luisini' Winery Golden Pipeline
Back Environment
OVERVIEW
Local Government Conserving Native Vegetation
All local councils in Australia, irrespective of their size or location, can make a significant contribution to the conservation of native vegetation. 1 However, because of the differences in their size and location, the most effective way in which any individual local council can contribute to vegetation management varies enormously. Some councils are in a position to take the lead through the development of integrated regional natural resource management strategies. Others have little interest and are resisting any significant involvement.
These differences highlight both the importance and challenges inherent in undertaking an evaluation of the role of local government in managing native vegetation. This document reports on the principal findings of a study that has evaluated the role of local government in managing native vegetation.
It is clear that local governments are a key player in natural resource management, including native vegetation management, because:
Whilst strategic policies may be developed by higher levels of government, it is local government that must make detailed decisions that balance ongoing development with the need to protect natural resources. It may be argued that local government is the most significant sphere of government in regulating land use.
On the other hand, it is clear that the role local government can play in managing native vegetation is being neglected by many decision makers at not only at state and national scales, but also at a local scale both within local government and within regional structures, such as catchment management committees.
Fortunately, many local governments are actively involved managing natural resources. including native vegetation. Because they have diverse perspectives and face diverse circumstances. they have developed different ways of conserving native vegetation. These councils are highly innovative and provide the basis for understanding the potential of local governments in native vegetation management. Most of this potential has yet to he harnessed.
The purpose of this executive summary is to guide the reader to the relevant section of the report, where policy options and detailed actions for each sphere of government to improve native vegetation conservation and management are identified. The report does not have to be read in its entirety, rather, the reader can refer to their particular areas of interest, as identified through this executive summary.
(*As the focus of this report is on the role of local government it does not directly apply to the majority of the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory. However, may of principles discussed in this report will be relevant to the Territories. References to States government should be read as State and Territory governments throughout the report.)
Strategies for working with local government to conserve and manage native vegetation management
Local governments are as diverse as their number: about 750 across Australia. They range from large and complex organisations, such as Brisbane City Council with a population of 820,590, a budget of $1,157 million and covering the Brisbane metropolitan area of 1218 square kilometres, to small councils in remote and rural areas. such as Bulloo Shire in south-west Queensland with a population of 600, a budget of $5 million and covering an area of 73 620 square kilometres.
Because of this diversity, the degree of activity of local governments in managing native vegetation varies. Our analysis reveals that the factors determining the role that local governments play are:
Figure 1 summarises the range of circumstances in which local governments may find themselves at different times and the strategies for developing partnerships between local government and other spheres of government for native vegetation management.
Figure 1: Framework for building partnerships with local government
The framework presented in Figure 1 is used in the report to identify those policy tools and actions that are most relevant to different categories of local government (See Page 36).
In broad terms, it can be expected that urban and coastal councils are likely to have a greater capacity and interest in planning for and implementing programs for the conservation of native vegetation. This is because urban development, a process directly- regulated by local government, is the primary threat to conserving native vegetation. Nevertheless, rural councils are increasingly being engaged as it becomes apparent that integrated natural resource management is important for the sustainable development of Australia's rural sector.
Because the situations in which local government finds itself varies, so too must the expectation that can be placed on each local council. Successful approaches are not dependent on local governments playing a leading role, but in ensuring that they contribute in a way that is commensurate with their capacity and willingness to conserve native vegetation. Fundamentally, successful approaches to vegetation management are developed when all organisations with an interest in vegetation management work in an active partnership to build consensus in both the management objectives and the actions that can be taken to conserve native vegetation.
It is the development of successful regional partnerships that involve local government that lies at the heart of this report.
Key Issues for Local, State and Commonwealth Government Decision Makers
Background and context on both local government and native vegetation conservation are provided in the first two chapters of the report, followed by discussion key issues for decision makers in the final three chapters of the report. The structure of the report is summarised in figure 2.
Figure 2: Structure of the report
Prioritising the key issues and policy options summarised above is difficult. Priorities will inevitably vary depending on the category of local government being targeted. For example, greater benefit will be derived by targeting education and awareness programs in low capacity councils. Similarly, urban councils may give greater priority to planning and risk management tools relative to rural councils that may favour community facilitation and incentive programs.
The most important of the overarching policy option is the last of the report, Policy Option 22. It identifies an urgent need to facilitate and develop integrated regional natural resource management strategies that involve local government in the conservation of native vegetation. Provided institutional arrangements are clear and the full range of relevant policy tools and issues are addressed within a region, local government can work with its own capacities and strength in a regional partnership with other organisations.
To the maximum extent possible, the policy options identified in this report have been costed. This has proven difficult because the majority of recommendations relate to developing or adapting existing legislation, policies or programs. However, it can be stated with confidence that if the vision of increasing the role of local governments in the development and delivery of natural resource management strategies is to be realised, a significant increase in resources is required.
A minimum commitment of $100 million will need to be found in the next three to five years to adequately engage and build partnerships between Local, State and Commonwealth governments and other organisations with an interest in conserving native vegetation at a local scale. This level of funding is modest and translates to $200 000 per local government. The Commonwealth currently provides in excess of $2 billion dollars in grants to local governments. As a result any increase in funding will have to be carefully targeted and complement further resources derived from improved delivery of existing natural resource management programs by all spheres of government. Not all of the funding required will have to be supplied from Commonwealth sources. State, Territory and Local governments themselves all have the capacity to raise and to reallocate the monies available to them.
A more accurate estimate of costings would depend on a detailed review of all existing natural resource management programs in each State. This is an urgent and significant task in itself, although beyond the resources of this report.
Each of the policy options summarised here is supported in the body of the report by a range of specific actions for Local, State and Commonwealth governments respectively. These actions provide the detail of how each policy option could be successfully implemented. A small number of these actions have been given priority in this summary by highlighting them as "Priority new initiatives".
It is in this context that the policy options identified in the remainder of this summary should be considered.
