Table 2: Available science and risks association with application of science Biophysical design principle Strength of evidence Relative risk Locate along gradient for climate change adaptation Small number of individual studies, supported by general ecological principles moderate At least 10% remnant native vegetation, preferably 30% Small number of individual studies moderate Enough protected area to support >4000 individuals of most species (>20,000ha?) Meta-analysis across many studies (worldwide), plus small number of individual studies of area requirements of native species low Actively manage protected areas Many studies and reports low Buffer with lower intensity land use, manage threats & retain/restore some elements of native communities—width based on width of edge effects No specific studies in buffering in Australia, though some edge effects well established as a problem high Manage landuse matrix like buffer areas but can allow higher intensity land use and fewer native elements Small number of individual studies moderate Short, narrow corridors or stepping stones (to prevent population sinks) with gaps <100m, or, longer but very wide landscape corridors Meta-analysis across many studies (one Australia-specific and one worldwide), plus small number of individual studies on corridors as sinks low Use local-scale buffering and connectivity across large areas to support large-scale processes No specific studies on landscape structure required for large-scale processes high Source: Compiled by Veronica Doerr.
Table 3: Key governance attributes of Australian wildlife corridors Governance Attribute GER (NSW) S2S Habitat 141 G’Link E-W Nature Links Wild Eyre Bunya Biolink K2CCCC Initiated (NGO, government, indigenous) Govt Govt NGO NGO Govt NGO NGO Joint Indig. Inclusion model (partnership, government) P-ship P-ship P-ship P-ship Govt P-ship Greening Australia P-ship P-ship Membership (formal partners only, NGOs includes community groups) NGOs Govt NFP Govt (state) NGOs Govt NFP Research Govt (state) NRM NGOs Govt NFP Govt (state) NRM Philanthrop NGOs Govt NRM boards NRM Govt NGOs No formal members as yet NGOs Govt Indig. NGOs Governance (Incorporated, MOU, Govt) MOU Working group1 MOU Inc. Inc. Govt MOU Greening Australia Inc. Indig. Lead organisation or structure (Board, NGO, Govt, Indigenous) Steering committee Working group Council and executive Board Govt Working group? Greening Australia Board Indig. Hosting arrangements NGO Govt NFP in Uni campus NGO Own office Govt. (DENR SA) Govt. DENR Sa NGO NGO Indig. In Uni Campus. Decision model Consensus Consensus Consensus Director and Board Govt with consultation Consensus N/A Consensus Consensus Hierarchy? Yes – focus regions Yes – within GER Yes - zones Yes - zones Yes Yes – within EmW Yes - proposed No Likely Acronyms: GER (Great Eastern Ranges), S2S (Slopes to Summit, component of GER), G’Link (Gondwana Link). Source and caveats: Whitten et al. (2011) Table 4: Implementation and funding arrangements of Australian wildlife corridor initiatives Attribute GER (NSW) S2S Habitat 141 G’Link E-W Nature Links Wild Eyre Bunya Biolink Business plan Yes Yes (GER) Yes Yes No Yes? No Yes Delivery model
Payments may overcome larger costs Immediate impact on behaviour Only some will change management Required actions (primarily regulations) Minimum performance Mandatory compliance Implies polluter pays Capable of near universal change May be cheap for government Faster impact on behaviour Often inflexible for targeted stakeholders Incentives to avoid penalty not improve outcomes Usually input or processed-based Costly to enforce / requires enforcement Often opposed by industry Imposes costs on participants Mixed mechanisms Can overcome multiple impediments Can appeal to broad constituencies Additional complexity, cost and potential for unexpected interactions Source: Whitten and Coggan (2010)
Tools for implementing the adaptive co-management approach Tool Description How it is used Collaborative focal species Framework for identifying species that encapsulate three values in the landscape: social significance to local community, cultural significance to local Indigenous communities and an ecologically significant species who can act as an indicator of healthy biodiversity. Chosen species is used as a symbol to engage community with positive images of biodiversity protection. Assists in identifying knowledge uncertainty in the community and by scientists – for example, community survey” reveal lack of general understanding between cassowary survival and habitat protection. Scenario analysis for community visioning Process for identifying “future states” using the following steps: 1. Identification of the focal issues 2. Assessment of the current system, key drivers of change/uncertainties, measures of effectiveness, potential thresholds for regime shifts; 3. Identification of possible alternatives; 4. Building of spatially-explicit scenarios; and 5. Analysis of scenarios and recommended policy choices. Facilitates development of shared vision and therefore overcoming conflicting community perceptions, goals and aspirations. Encourages participants to evaluate values and assumptions about the state of future. Effectiveness of scenarios promoted through focus on three factors in scenario stories: (1) the focus on threat; (2) biodiversity science integration; and (3) simplicity in presentation. Institutional brokering tool (brokering scientific partnerships and joint development of research outputs – for example, joint mapping exercises) A range of activities to bridge the gap between scientists and practitioners for the purpose of over coming barriers to uptake by conservation practitioners of the scientific research. The focus of is the development of the collaborative habitat investment atlas (CHIA). The CHIA is a compendium of information that incorporates “biodiversity value, costs of land for acquisitions, costs of incentives, protection available through land-use planning, land-owner willingness to be involved, levels of entrepreneurship, social capital and burnout in rural communities” The CHIA information is converted into visual tools based on three criteria and weightings: biodiversity sensitivity, level of protection and threat. The CHIA is used to integrate social and ecological data to support prioritisation of investments by stakeholders. Visual presentation, and the ability to alter weightings between values and options translates scientific knowledge into language lay people can understand and facilitates discussion about investment options. Source: Hill et al. (2010, 2011b).