Regional planning approaches

The Australian Governments agreed through the signing of the National Forest Policy Statement in 1992 to establish a comprehensive forest assessment and planning process known as Comprehensive Regional Assessment (CRA). Under the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) that followed from CRA, areas of forests were set aside in formal or informal conservation reserves or otherwise protected through prescriptions to help ensure the maintenance of forest biodiversity and other natural and cultural values. There are now 10 RFAs in four States: Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales. The Agreements are designed to provide certainty for forest-based industries, forest-dependent communities and conservation. The RFA website 379 contains many historical documents that show the detailed scientific, economic and social processes which underpinned the development of each RFA.

Regional plans that specifically relate to native vegetation have been developed in Victoria 380, with similar initiatives in Queensland 381 and NSW overtaken by recent native vegetation reforms (Table 15). This reflects an increasing trend towards integrating or merging these plans with Regional NRM plans, as discussed in a recent report from northern Australia 382. This report identifies a number of important parts or products from regional vegetation management plans that should be considered as inputs into a Regional NRM Plan. For example, areas that have been identified of High Nature Conservation Value, as regional corridors or locations at risk of land degradation, can be used as inputs to help identify regional priority areas for voluntary action and investment. In SA, a recent comprehensive review of strategies for vegetation management focuses on opportunities to effectively prioritise the location of vegetation at the regional level for NRM outcomes 383.  Table 15 provides examples of regional plans in different States that have specifically focused on native vegetation or used vegetation as a surrogate for biodiversity.

Table 15: Examples of regional plans that have specifically focused on native vegetation and biodiversity management.

Tasmania  384

	Action: 4.15
	To help improve the integration of native vegetation and biodiversity into regional planning processes, read the case studies – which cover all of Australia – and consider the findings in the report Integration of Biodiversity Conservation into Regional NRM Planning.
	COST
	TIME
	COMPLEXITY

A recent review, Integration of Biodiversity Conservation into Regional NRM Planning 385 is of relevance to native vegetation management. The project scanned 154 projects and conducted semi-structured interviews with States/Territory organisations and 15 NRM regions. The information from the projects and interviews was used to identify 16 case studies and to determine critical success factors. The case studies covered all States
and Territories and included a range of regional structures.

A set of principles to guide integration of biodiversity conservation within regional NRM planning was identified:

1. Identify and sustain distinctive regional difference. Processes that homogenise NRM effort across regions will restrict motivation for biodiversity conservation.

2. Management decisions occur according to prevailing ‘world view’ values. A change in ‘world view’ values is required to achieve a change in management.

3. Efficient and effective decision-making processes for biodiversity conservation through regional NRM planning require clear roles and responsibilities for the range of decision-makers involved.

4. Development of effective partnerships in regional NRM planning should be encouraged to form with consideration of the clear roles and responsibilities of partners for biodiversity conservation.

5. The use of science-based information is important in successful biodiversity conservation projects. Ensure that this information and the associated skills for its use are available and are applied to areas according to regional priority for biodiversity conservation.

6. Private interest and investment for biodiversity conservation will increase with better understanding and tangible evidence of biodiversity values and ecosystem services.

7. Allocate resources for projects and capacity building in relative proportion to the priority for biodiversity conservation.

8. Outcome-based program and project performance measures should prevail over time-based performance measures.

9. Investment in integrated NRM projects with biodiversity components should be contingent upon expectations of ‘net biodiversity gain’ for regional biodiversity conservation priorities.

Local government

Local governments, regional organisations and State Governments have various roles and responsibilities related to native vegetation management, many of which are related to planning requirements. Individual land managers are also encouraged to develop property management plans to help them systematically plan and manage for a range of NRM outcomes. Native Vegetation and Property Management deals with this level of planning, whereas this report will focus on planning by local and regional organisations.

In the late 1990s, a series of landmark reports were published on the opportunities for local government to conserve native vegetation, their legislative ability to conserve native vegetation and the impact of local government rates and State land taxes 386,  387,  388. These reports highlighted the critical role of local government in native vegetation management. The authors argued that local governments could have a major impact on conserving native vegetation through schemes such as rate rebates and reductions, and revolving funds for buying high conservation value, vegetation remnants. They also argued that local governments should be allowed to impose environmental levies to help pay for their expanded role, and called for changes in legislation in most States to give them the necessary powers. The local government reports continued with the theme of ‘duty of care’ that had been developed in preceding reports. When interviewed several years later the authors said that despite some pathfinding work by some councils, there were still many opportunities identified that local governments could adopt 389.

	Action: 4.16
	Read the landmark publication series on Local Government to understand the important role that local councils play in the management of native vegetation.
	COST
	TIME
	COMPLEXITY

Local councils in urban areas, especially the more highly populated capital cities, have their own set of management issues to deal with. Most capital cities have major programs related to the management of native vegetation and biodiversity, which are summarised in Table 16. A Database of References on the Ecology and Natural Resources of Greater Melbourne 390 is available, which builds on an earlier report 391. The database is fully searchable and regularly updated and attempts to list all books, scientific journal articles, conference proceedings, consultant and organisational reports, and articles in the popular scientific media that relate both directly and indirectly to biodiversity within the Melbourne-Geelong Metropolitan area. A similar resource, only available in hard copy, has been designed for the Adelaide region. More recently, a Centre for Urban Habitats 392 has been created in Adelaide that acts as a focal point for those interested in maintaining native plant and animals in the urban environment. In south-east Queensland, the aim of the Urban Biodiversity Advisory Consortium 393 is to gather and disseminate information, conduct research and build experience in order to protect, enhance and manage biodiversity in settled areas in that region.

Table 16: Examples of programs in capital cities designed to manage urban native vegetation and biodiversity.

Perth  394^,  395, Adelaide  396, Sydney  397
Brisbane  368, Hobart  399

Two recent reports on Planning Provisions, and how local government implements them, have identified a number of limitations to the current system for biodiversity in Victoria 400,  401. The authors believe that a major overhaul is needed before effective biodiversity conservation measures can be delivered by local authorities. Some of the issues that local governments in Victoria are currently facing in administering the native vegetation retention components of the planning scheme are addressed in Native Vegetation Management and Local Government 402 on the financial costs to local government. A related report uses case studies to demonstrate some of the innovative practices that local governments are taking towards native vegetation management 403 (Box: 4). The case studies illustrate that councils are not just restricted to statutory approaches such as land use planning or native vegetation retention controls. Of equal importance are other management approaches such as supporting community leadership, education, on-ground works, environmental advocacy and provision of financial incentives.

Box 4: An example of some innovative approaches to native vegetation management taken by the City of Ballarat.



Source: Municipal Association of Victoria (2004) ‘Native Vegetation Management and Local Government: Case Studies.’ Municipal Association of Victoria, Melbourne Vic

The Biodiversity Toolbox for Local Government 404 is designed to provide councils with the tools, resources and contacts to integrate biodiversity conservation into all aspects of council operations. The Benchmarking Biodiversity Conservation Framework is central to the toolbox. It is a five-step benchmarking system that allows councils to track performance towards conserving local biodiversity. Completing the Self-Assessment Checklist helps determine where a council should begin this process.

	Action: 4.17
	Access the Biodiversity Toolbox for local government to see where councils can track performance towards conserving and managing local biodiversity.
	COST
	TIME
	COMPLEXITY

Linking between different scales

The ecological reasons for managing native vegetation and its associated biodiversity at different scales is outlined in Box 5. The site level relates to individual managers of public or private land; landscape level can relate to individual property managers (depending on the size of their property) and regional scale is generally the responsibility of regional organisations. Linking between these scales, and the different individuals and authorities that have responsibility for them, is a challenge. This is demonstrated, for example, by the large number of vegetation related plans that need to be considered in the Queensland context. The list of plans on the website includes four plans at National level, seven at State level, six at the region/basin level and three at property level 405.

Box 5: Rationale for managing native vegetation and its associated biodiversity at the site,landscape and regional scale based on research in the box-ironbark woodlands of Victoria.



Source: Williams JE, Read C, Norton T, Dovers S, Burgman M, Proctor W, Anderson H (2001) ‘Biodiversity, Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report).’ Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra ACT

Over the last few years at least two States have undertaken projects that examine the links between local government planning and regional management strategies. In Queensland, good practice guidelines have been developed that identify the role of local governments in integrated catchment planning and management 406. These guidelines are intended to provide further understanding of local government’s policy responses to catchment planning and management issues. They cover four main themes: statutory planning powers, incentives and support arrangements, coordination and consultation, and four case studies from Noosa, Hinchinbrook, Warwick and Bulloo that illustrate planning scheme responses to catchment management issues in the late 1990s.

	Action: 4.18
	To understand how local and regional planning schemes can be better integrated read the report on regional catchment strategies.
	COST
	TIME
	COMPLEXITY

In Victoria, a major study has been undertaken on Integrating Local Land Use Planning & Regional Catchment Planning 407. These recent approaches to developing links between the local and regional structures are a possible model for other regions facing the same challenge. The overall aim was to achieve greater integration of regional catchment management planning and local land use planning by consistent interpretation of regional catchment strategies (RCSs) in municipal planning schemes across Victoria. Several reports are associated with the project including: desk top reviews of five municipal strategic statements (MSS) and accompanying local planning policies to identify whether natural resource management issues were identified within the relevant regional catchment strategy in 2002–03; as well as model frameworks for MSS and regional catchment strategies.

Biodiversity Action Planning 408 is a structured approach to identifying priorities and mapping significant areas for native biodiversity conservation at the landscape and bioregional scales. It includes specific information on regional biodiversity assets and appropriate actions to conserve them. The incorporation of local knowledge is critical as local people help identify assets on their own properties. While it has been developed in the Victorian context, the principles can be applied more broadly as it sets out the steps, information and tools needed to develop the biodiversity plans and how to build community support.

Potential links between regional and property management can be demonstrated by the approach taken in NSW. Property Vegetation Plans 409 are a legal agreement that aims to clarify how native vegetation can be managed on a property. These plans have been introduced as part of the recent native vegetation reforms. Once the plan is finalised, the agreement will continue for the period of the plan. Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) will assist landholders with preparation of PVPs. An officer from the local CMA will help prepare vegetation plans on site by providing base maps, information about natural resources on each property as well as advice and assessment. Landholders need to accompany the CMA officer on their property so that the PVP plan can be prepared together. The BioMetric Decision Support Tool 410, a biodiversity assessment tool which uses native vegetation as a surrogate, has been developed to support the ‘Property Vegetation Plan Developer’. While this is not a regional planning tool, the vegetation assessment of each property includes a landscape and regional component. The Biodiversity Benefits Index, which was developed in NSW also has a regional component.