National Forum

The challenge we face in developing sustainable landscapes - how do we make production and biodiversity compatible?

Dr Jan Williams

Introduction
Native vegetation provides many benefits and services from both a production and conservation perspective - helping to maintain the health of land and water and providing a home for Australia's unique biodiversity (Williams 2000). Recognising this, there is an increasing trend to try and integrate the management of native vegetation and agricultural production systems (Anderson et al. 2001). This goal is reflected in policies and programs across a range of jurisdictions, but putting it into practice has many challenges.

The purpose of this paper is to address the question in the title - how to make production and biodiversity compatible - from the perspective of the Native Vegetation Research and Development (R&D) Program. The expression 'native vegetation' is generally used as a point of reference for the different elements of biodiversity - from genes to ecosystems. So when this term is used it tends to include the fauna at a site and services provided by native vegetation such as the production of clean water. The Program is national in scope and the first phase ran from 1994- 2000 and was a partnership between EA and the Land and Water Resources R&D Corporation. Williams (2000) provides an overview of the key findings from the first phase of the Program, which spanned ecological, social, economic and planning projects.

In the second, five-year phase of the Program that is currently being established, a major aim is to strengthen the links between planning for native vegetation retention and management at a catchment or landscape scale, and the property planning and management activities of individual landholders. This is a real gap in Australia at present. Catchment plans will be of little benefit unless landholders and industry groups are closely involved, accept and own the outputs, and are able to put them into effect. This work has special urgency, given the intention of many State governments to set biodiversity and vegetation retention targets at a catchment or sub-catchment scale.

Balancing multiple objectives
One of the biggest challenges that private land managers have to address is how to manage the landscape the landscape in a way that ensures satisfactory performance for all management objectives, and still make a living. When you consider the range of objectives that land managers have to consider, the magnitude of this challenge is not surprising. They can range from re-introducing endangered animal species such as on Mike Sutherland's property near Parkes NSW (Williams and Sutherland 2000) to returning a profit and ensuring the long term health of the farm and business. This overarching objective is the preferred future outlined in the Action Plan for Australian Agriculture and requires a broad range of business, technical and social skills to help implement it.

Some barriers to making biodiversity and production compatible
The first step in addressing how to make biodiversity and production compatible is to examine some of the barriers to achieving this goal. Research undertaken in Phase 1 of the Native Vegetation R&D Program identified a number of reasons why relatively few landholders had incorporated management of native vegetation, fauna and natural systems into their property plan, cropping or grazing strategies or management activities - particularly in an integrated manner. These barriers cover a range of issues such as gaining greater acceptance of the value of the bush, having greater access to information, the lack of incentives for managing native vegetation (and the presence of perverse incentives in some cases) and limited human and financial resources. Some examples of these barriers are listed below.

The barriers to better management have been clear for some time, and in each jurisdiction there are policies and projects underway to trial and/or promote various approaches to overcoming them. These include incentive, research and extension programs, regulations and legislation, natural resource management and biodiversity/native vegetation management policies, property management planning and increasingly environment management systems (Anderson et al. 2001). On their own, none of these will achieve the goal of integrating biodiversity and production goals. A combination of approaches for particular situations is required.

A selection of the reasons why relatively few landholders incorporate management of native vegetation, fauna and natural systems into property plans, cropping or grazing strategies or management activities - especially in an integrated manner.

There is little obvious financial or other reward for doing so, nor are there significant disincentives for poor management of native vegetation.
Society's economic and financial systems primarily value physical outputs. Services such as clean air and water, control of groundwater, pleasing aesthetics or existence values are not quantified and incorporated in economic decision-making or national accounts.
Even where native vegetation can be shown to have a significant market value, this is often much lower than the value of adjacent or alternative land uses and/or is not recognised by landholders.
There is a large gap between the attitudes and understanding of many rural landholders and those of urban populations and scientists - most technical knowledge is not available in the form that landholders can use readily.
Even where technical knowledge is available, many landholders lack the confidence to apply it and are uncertain whether resources applied to managing native vegetation will result in any worthwhile outcome.
Finally, even if there is a will and knowledge to act, many landholders do not have the resources required for effective management.
The scale may not be appropriate. ie. some actions are better done at a higher scale or will be potentially rendered useless by the action or lack of action of others.
Appropriate group mechanisms to address scale issues are not well-defined.

Property Management Planning
At the national level Property Management Planning is being promoted by government, and relatively speaking is widely used on the ground. This is only one model for incorporating biodiversity and agriculture, but with the major injection of funds that has gone into Farmbi$ for training it is an important one to be aware of and influence. A nation-wide strategy that integrates biodiversity and property management planning is also being developed. At the State and Territory level, there are a number of programs underway. For example, in Victoria the Living Systems project is an integral part of Farm$mart and the Land for Wildlife Programs. This project started in 1999 and aims to help farm families integrate biodiversity into their future plans for themselves, their property and their business. In South Australia, there has been a native vegetation component of Property Management Planning for several years and several other States already have, or are developing modules that address native vegetation and/or biodiversity management. By working with a system that farmers are already familiar with, the opportunities for linking biodiversity and production values may be enhanced.

Insert cartoon of property management planning here (if possible)

Native Vegetation R&D Program - phase 1
In terms of research to address these barriers, a number of innovative projects in Phase 1 of the Native Vegetation R&D Program examined these issues. For example, projects were funded to extend the range of incentive structures available, develop management guidelines and to integrate ecological and economic aspects of native vegetation management into farm planning and operations. The following section will briefly describe each area to identify some of the lessons learnt.

A major and influential project on the opportunities for the use of incentive payments to conserve remnant vegetation was funded through the Program. This explored the role of management agreements (Binning and Young 1997), local government (Binning and Young 1999, Binning et al. 1999a) the taxation system (Binning and Young 1999b) and philanthropists in native vegetation management. Binning and Young (1997) undertook a comprehensive review of the range of incentives for managing native vegetation on private land. They concluded that incentives can be small or large, varying from the provision of management advice, to funding for fencing remnant vegetation, to the payment of annual stewardship fees for conservation management. However, these authors considered that the size of the incentive payment should depend on the landholder's commitment to conservation and their willingness to enter into a binding management agreement that secures public investment in on-ground conservation works. Because of the different needs and aspirations of landholders, a choice of the type of management agreement entered into should be available, with landowners potentially making greater commitments as they become more comfortable with the process. The lessons learnt from the other work undertaken by Binning and Young are summarised in Williams (2000).

Elix and Lambert (1997), in a project also funded through the Program, recommended a package of measures for remnants on private and public land which included provision of technical information and advice, financial incentives, property based incentives (for example, provision of fencing subsidies contingent on entering into management agreements), legislative protection, development of a 'stewardship' scheme and importantly, working in the local community. Ross (1999) also indicated that a similar 'toolkit' of incentives was required for best practice in grassland conservation, so there appears to be increasing agreement about what steps are required.

A number of management guidelines were produced to better manage biodiversity component on farms (eg. Goldney and Wakefield 1997; Clarke 1998). These were generally considered to be a useful addition to a manager's tool-kit. However, while printed/electronic information is a necessary component for any extension program, it must be promoted and interpreted to the particular situation of the landholder if it is to be effective. In the end, the personal approach to extension services - face to face communication and discussion - is the most effective approach (Morton 1999, Williams 2000). Written material alone will not be sufficient to change attitudes and behaviours. Incorporating sound management principles for remnant native vegetation into extension materials and processes, including those of agribusiness, will be a priority if native vegetation is not to disappear from large tracts of Australia.

As noted at the start of this paper, one of the big challenges is addressing the economic impacts of different management scenarios. Two projects from the first phase of the Program explicitly examined the incorporation of biodiversity management into whole property planning. The first project examined the net benefits of different farm management options in properties in Victoria and Southern NSW (Crosthwaite and Malcolm 2000). These authors undertook a series of case studies on farms with native grasslands on the Riverine Plain between Bendigo and Hay and another set of studies in the hills and tablelands of north-eastern Victoria and southern NSW. For each case study, the key technical and economic aspects of farm operations were outlined taking farmer goals, pasture types, livestock utilisation of pasture and the current financial position of the farm into account. Alternative farm management options were then specified and their expected profitability evaluated (Crosthwaite and Malcolm 2000). By developing a better understanding of farming and management processes it was found that people were better equipped to ask the right questions about native grasslands. In their report, the authors stressed that future conservation and land management are closely linked to prospects for the future of the farm and that this should be reflected in public policy programs.

The second project funded through the first phase of the Native Vegetation R&D Program was undertaken in close association with four beef cattle grazing properties in south-east Queensland. The aim of the project was to develop a series of thresholds and principles for sustainable land management (McIntyre et al. 2000), which addressed both conservation and production aspects of managing the landscape. These were compared with current management practices, including an analysis of the economic implications of applying the principles and thresholds. The analyses showed that implementing the proposed changes without external resources could have major implications for farm profits. Many of the principles were considered to provide non-compensated public benefits, which raised the question of what should be sacrificed for the public good.

These and other studies raise the complex issues of the duty of care of private land managers, what are the public benefits of their actions, and ultimately, who pays. These questions are still being debated. A strong message that comes through is that the future of biodiversity is tied up in the future of the farm itself, particularly where farming provides the sole source of income. Another strong message is the importance of partnerships between a number of stakeholders in land management, including bankers, agricultural advisers, industry, non-government organisations and farmers.

Native Vegetation R&D Program - phase 2
The second phase of the Native Vegetation R&D Program began in mid 2000. It is building on the results of phase I and one of the projects currently being developed will focus on the integration of native vegetation management and agricultural production systems. While the project is in its early stages, it aims to further develop, test and promote options for the incorporation of vegetation, fauna and ecosystem management in farm, landscape and regional planning across Australia. The objectives of this project are to identify and analyse the wide range of programs and methods that have been developed to promote integrated management of native vegetation by landholders and their relative effectiveness and benefits for use in particular situations and to use a small number of carefully targeted case study projects to further refine and demonstrate effective methods.

The first part of the project will include a national review of policies, programs and specific projects aimed at encouraging integrated management of native vegetation by landholders on both private and leasehold land. The methods and approaches considered may include State and local regulation, incentive structures, codes of practice, property planning, provision of technical advice, covenants or community consultation. These will be grouped into broad categories and their relative effectiveness, cost and the outcomes achieved identified. Particular attention will be paid to identifying the beneficiaries of improved management of native vegetation and establishing appropriate cost-sharing arrangements, and to market mechanisms such as rate relief, stewardship payments or use of auctions to buy services sought by the community such as being piloted in Victoria. Ultimately the aim is to develop guidelines for which of these tools may be appropriate in particular circumstances.

The aim of the case studies is to demonstrate economic and other benefits to landholders and the community of including native vegetation as an integral part of agricultural productions systems. As an example, a project is currently being developed in Western Australia which will use information from precision agriculture and biodiversity surveys to identify parts of the landscape where the costs of managing for conservation purposes would be minimised.

Conclusions
So what is the answer to the question posed in the title of this paper? There are many elements, which span the social, economic and ecological arenas. This paper only gives a snapshot of some of the initiatives at the national level, but the level of interest in the integration of biodiversity and production systems has increased markedly in the last few years (for example, see Dorricott et al. 1998). There is a pressing need to build on existing knowledge and address key issues such as cost sharing, what constitutes public and private good and the appropriate scale for management decisions. By learning from recent and current programs and policies, there is an opportunity to target the limit financial and human resources available.

References
Anderson, S., Lowe, K., Preece, K. and Crouch, A. (2001) Incorporating biodiversity into Environmental Management Systems for Victorian Agriculture. Parks, Flora and Fauna Division, Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria.

Binning, C. and Young, M. (1997) Motivating People. Using management agreements to conserve remnant vegetation. Research Report 1/97. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Binning, C. and Young, M. (1999a) Conservation Hindered. The impact of local government rates and state land taxes on the conservation of native vegetation. Research Report 3/99. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Binning, C. and Young, M. (1999b) Talking to the Taxman about Nature Conservation. Research Report 4/99. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Binning, C., Young, M., and Cripps, E. (1999) Beyond Roads, Rates and Rubbish. Opportunities for local government to conserve native vegetation. Research Report 1/99. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Clarke, P. (1998) Your Bushland: Tips for Managing Native Bush Plants in the New England Region. University of New England, Armidale.

Crosthwaite, J. and Malcolm, B. (2000) Looking to the farm business: Approaches to managing native grassland in south-eastern Australia. Research Report 5/00. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Land and Water Resources R&D Corporation, Canberra.

Dorricott, K.E., Voller, P.J. and Lawrie, B.C. (1998) Balancing Production with Nature Conservation. Case studies from southern inland Queensland. Department of the Environment, Queensland.

Elix, J. and Lambert, J. (1997) More than just the odd tree. Report on Incentives and Barriers to Rural Woodlands Conservation, using Grassy Whitebox Woodlands as a Model. Research Report 1/98. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Goldney, D. and Wakefield, S. (1997) Save the Bush Toolkit. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst.

McIntyre, S. and Hobbs, R (1999) A framework for conceptualising human impacts on landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conservation Biology 13, 1282-1292.

McIntyre, S., McIvor, J.G. and MacLeod, N.D. (2000) Principles for sustainable grazing in eucalypt woodlands: landscape-scale indicators and the search for thresholds. in Hale P, Petrie A, Moloney D and Sattler P (eds) Management for Sustainable Ecosystems. pp. 92-100. Centre for Conservation Biology, University of Queensland.

Morton, S. (1999) Questions and answers relevant to emerging strategies. in Exploring the Future Requirements for Managing Australia's Remnant Vegetation. Pp. 52-57. LWRRDC, Canberra.

Ross, J. (1999) Guide to Best Practice Conservation of Temperate Native Grasslands. World Wide Fund for Nature, Australia.

Williams, C. and Sutherland, M. (2000) Farmers, biodiversity and Landcare landscapes: the case of the Genaren Hill Landcare Group, NSW. in Changing Landscapes - Shaping Futures. Proceedings of International Landcare 2000, Melbourne. pp. 255- 263.

Williams, J.E. (2000) Managing the Bush: recent research findings from the EA/LWRRDC National Remnant Vegetation R&D Program. Research Report 4/00. National Research and Development Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation. Land and Water Resources R&D Corporation, Canberra.

Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the National Trust of Western Australia for inviting me to give a presentation at their conference on nature conservation on private land. The meeting was stimulating, very well organised and the speakers were looked after particularly well. It was a model of how these events should be run.