land for wildlife : triggering nature conservation in rural victoria

12
Initial work to support Victorian landholders genuinely interested in nature conservation has evolved into a wider scheme designed to assist more mainstream landholders. Is ongoing extension and its visible on- ground results triggering a turnaround for declining rural wildlife habitats in Victoria? T M: ‘Land for Wildlife’ in Victoria now has over 5000 registered prop- erties involved in at least some form of nature conservation and similar Land for Wildlife extension schemes have commenced in a number of Aus- tralian states now. How did the Victo- rian programme start? SP: There has been interest in nature conservation by private landholders over many years, but the current level of inter- est really seemed to kick off in the late 1970s when there was a general burgeon- ing of interest in nature conservation. The turning point came in 1981 at a meeting between the Bird Observers Club of Aus- tralia and the then Fisheries and Wildlife Division of the Department [of Natural Resources and Environment; NRE]. It was suggested that Victorian landholders who were looking after wildlife on their own properties should get some form of recog- nition and support. So that’s how Land for Wildlife started off. TM: So the impetus came from the community but it was a government response that made the difference? SP:Yes,and from 1981 to 1990 a scheme operated that was basically serving the needs of these people who had a genuine interest in conservation, but services were minimal. Landholders received a sign and a property visit but there was no ongoing system of contact. So, in 1990, the scheme was reviewed to upgrade the services to this group as well as doing something for people who currently didn’t have a com- mitment to nature conservation. That was largely the argument for the appointment of Land for Wildlife extension officers; we wanted to offer assistance to other ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001 5 Land for Wildlife Triggering nature conservation in rural Victoria Interview with Stephen Platt by Tein McDonald INTERVIEW Stephen Platt was the inaugural statewide Coor- dinator for Land for Wildlife from 1990 to 1999. He continues to work to identify future strategic directions for Land for Wildlife and other land- based community service programmes run by the Department of Natural Resources and Environ- ment (4/250 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne, Vic. 3002, Australia. Email: [email protected]). The 1992 team of Land for Wildlife extension officers, many of whom are recruited from the local community. Each extension officer undertakes property visits and conducts field days and workshops in their regions. (Photo: Land for Wildlife)

Upload: tein-mcdonald

Post on 06-Jul-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

TRANSCRIPT

Initial work to support

Victorian landholders

genuinely interested in

nature conservation has

evolved into a wider

scheme designed to assist

more mainstream

landholders. Is ongoing

extension and its visible on-

ground results triggering a

turnaround for declining

rural wildlife habitats in

Victoria?

TM: ‘Land for Wildlife’ in Victorianow has over 5000 registered prop-

erties involved in at least some formof nature conservation and similarLand for Wildlife extension schemeshave commenced in a number of Aus-tralian states now. How did the Victo-rian programme start?

SP: There has been interest in natureconservation by private landholders overmany years, but the current level of inter-est really seemed to kick off in the late1970s when there was a general burgeon-ing of interest in nature conservation. Theturning point came in 1981 at a meetingbetween the Bird Observers Club of Aus-tralia and the then Fisheries and WildlifeDivision of the Department [of NaturalResources and Environment; NRE]. It wassuggested that Victorian landholders whowere looking after wildlife on their own

properties should get some form of recog-nition and support. So that’s how Land forWildlife started off.

TM: So the impetus came from thecommunity but it was a governmentresponse that made the difference?

SP:Yes,and from 1981 to 1990 a schemeoperated that was basically serving theneeds of these people who had a genuineinterest in conservation, but services wereminimal. Landholders received a sign anda property visit but there was no ongoingsystem of contact. So, in 1990, the schemewas reviewed to upgrade the services tothis group as well as doing something forpeople who currently didn’t have a com-mitment to nature conservation. That waslargely the argument for the appointmentof Land for Wildlife extension officers;we wanted to offer assistance to other

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001 5

Land for WildlifeTriggering nature conservation in rural Victoria

Interview with Stephen Platt by Tein McDonald

I N T E R V I E W

Stephen Platt was the inaugural statewide Coor-

dinator for Land for Wildlife from 1990 to 1999.

He continues to work to identify future strategic

directions for Land for Wildlife and other land-

based community service programmes run by the

Department of Natural Resources and Environ-

ment (4/250 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne,

Vic. 3002, Australia.

Email: [email protected]).

The 1992 team of Land for Wildlife extension officers, many of whom are recruited from the localcommunity. Each extension officer undertakes property visits and conducts field days andworkshops in their regions. (Photo: Land for Wildlife)

landholders and look at ways that biodiver-sity could help them. Quite early on, wemade a decision to employ people on a half-time basis as extension officers. This waslargely to allow us to tap into both localcommunities (where people already hadanother role such as running their farms)and to recruit people who might have beenquite highly skilled and who weren’t look-ing for a full-time job. As well, this allowedthe knowledge gained by extension officersto remain in the community.

TM: And how many of those exten-sion officers are there now?

SP: There are approximately 12 half-time people throughout Victoria. From1990, we gained a Coordinator and acentralized database that allowed us tomake regular contact with landholders.We expanded our services to include adetailed property visit and assessment,field days, workshops and so on, and wewere able to provide a quarterly news-letter and the technical note series.

Our emphasis in the newsletter andtechnical notes series has been to provideinformation valuable to the person whoreceives it rather than including a lot ofpromotional information as some news-

letters do. We seek to provide the most up-to-date information, based on soundscience. During the early days of the pro-gramme we were housed in the majorflora and fauna institute in the state, theArthur Rylah Institute, so we had directlinks with the key people actually doingthat research, both formally and sittingaround the tea table.

TM: I believe that the Land for Wildlifescheme has proved to be extremelypopular, with about 600 propertiesregistering per year. Your recordsshow that about half of the 12 000people currently involved in theprogramme are registered primaryproducers. Why; why do you think somany farmers have adopted Land forWildlife? What are the main ingredi-ents that strike a chord with farmers?

SP: I think that perhaps farmers see it asimportant because it has responded tosome of their needs and to what theyvalue. I think they have responded to thefact that it is voluntary, that it’s very posi-tive in its outlook in terms of trying tosolve the problems, and it is flexible. Weget out there and listen to them and we’requite practical about understanding the

different circumstances that they face. Soit’s not just a formula we apply. The pro-gramme is very interactive.

TM: Does the focus on fauna make adifference, compared to, say, a pro-gramme focusing on revegetation?

SP: Compared to revegetation, yes, it’scertainly a factor. There are lots of thingsthat landholders find valuable and findinteresting in the natural environment andfauna is one of the factors. But farmers arealso interested in their long-term historicalassociations with the land; relationshipsthey have built up with it through theirown experiences. Also, they do appreciatethe contribution the environment makesto their own welfare in terms of sustain-ability, lifestyle and so on. But I do believethat people have a deep-seated interest infauna,so it is a critical factor.That probablycomes from the earliest humans’ associa-tion with fauna for food and as a threat andas a guide to water and so on.

Fauna adds generally to the interest wecan have in the world. Because farmersare in direct contact with that world, theirlife would be much poorer without faunabeing around. Even landholders whomight experience pest problems withsome native fauna can still tell you whichbirds arrive when and what is going on interms of fauna movements. So, for many ofthem, I think it is about finding a balancebetween being able to deal with the prob-lems and then being able to enjoy some ofthe benefits.

TM: Is the idea that some species arein decline an important factor, or is itjust fauna in general that they areinterested in protecting?

SP: I think it’s fauna in general. Declineof species certainly helps motivate peopleto do more. There has been a lot of infor-mation published recently on species indecline which is certainly having animpact within the flora and fauna commu-nity, including Land for Wildlife — butthere is a interest in fauna in generalamong landholders.

We also need to keep in mind,though, that there are lots of triggers tomotivating people to do more for natureconservation.There is no ‘single issue’ thatis the key. I think Land for Wildlife has

6 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001

I N T E R V I E W

Victorian NRE regional boundaries and centres of the Land for Wildlife extension officers andcontact persons. ( ) extension officer; ( ) contact person. (Source: Department of NaturalResources and Environment)

demonstrated that there is a huge interestin wildlife conservation out there. Somepeople are motivated by economic issues,others by social issues, and yet others byenvironmental concerns. So while faunacertainly is an important issue, there areother factors that are just as important. Forus to achieve some sort of landscape-level

nature conservation, we need to includeall those different landholders, whatevertheir trigger might be. It is critical that wetry and relate nature conservation to what-ever their needs are.

TM: And what do you see as the majorobstacles in our finding a balance

between production and nature con-servation?

SP:Nature conservation and productionaren’t intrinsically incompatible.We knowthat nature has coexisted with agriculturefor many generations. But if we are goingto progress from where we are, we aregoing to have to do a lot of listening towhat our environment and successful cul-tures have got to teach us about how tobecome sustainable, because we certainlyaren’t sustainable at the present time. Wecan see that in the decline of some tradi-tional forms of agriculture and the difficul-ties some regional communities are facing.Many of the techniques we use today weredeveloped in far–away lands with com-pletely different value systems and goals inmind. I think we need to revisit a lot ofthose ideas and look for alternatives.Thereare a few innovative people in the agricul-ture sector who are doing that, or proposeto do that.

We also need to examine why manylandholders do not make the rapidchanges that are needed. It is often notthat they haven’t got the desire to makechange, but there are many things affect-ing them that make change difficult. So toachieve the kind of outcomes we want,weneed to have a good look at what barriersexist for people and try and remove them.For some people that will mean leavingagriculture; for others it will mean adopt-ing new means of production and changesin the landscape.

TM: So what are the main issues withregard to fauna conservation in Vic-toria from your viewpoint? In the bigpicture sense, are we looking at keyspecies missing, or are we looking atstructural problems in terms of con-figuration of landscape habitats?

SP: I don’t think we can answer thatquestion absolutely yet. It is probably acombination of both.We don’t know whatspecies we can do without in terms of eco-logical function.We are only just starting toget a feel for how big patches need to beand what might be the long-term implica-tions of not connecting patches and soon. But the main issues are certainly lossand degradation of many habitats — andthreatening processes including the effects

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001 7

I N T E R V I E W

The Land for Wildlife sign is awarded where there is significant habitat on a property and wherethere is active conservation management input by landholders. (Photo: Stephen Platt)

of introduced competitors and predators.But there is a primary need to focus on themost important habitat areas and to con-tinue to retain those.We don’t even knowall the species that might be in a remnantpatch and it seems sensible to take theapproach of ‘let’s protect the habitat’ andprotect many species in the process, ratherthan waiting for research to find out all theanswers.

‘Some people are motivated

by economic issues; others

by social issues; and yet

others by environmental

concerns … For us to

achieve some sort of

landscape-level nature

conservation, we need to

include all those different

landholders, whatever their

trigger might be.’

TM: And many landholders havevoted with their feet, as it were. Theydon’t want to see certain species dis-appear. Whether or not they are eco-logically redundant, they are notredundant to them.

SP: Yes, species such as the SuperbParrot (Polytelis swainsonii), the Eastern-barred Bandicoot (Perameles gunnii), theStriped Legless Lizard (Delma impar) andeven species that are not necessarily clas-sified as Threatened.That is important.

Land for Wildlife actually takes a verypro-active role in linking the communityto the latest management reports forthreatened species so that communityactions can be based on appropriate eco-logical strategies.We track, for example, allthe Action Statements for threatenedspecies prepared by the Department andlook for our role in them. We can thensometimes work in close cooperation with

researchers and planners to develop apractical plan for landholders. In the caseof the threatened Superb Parrot, forexample, Land for Wildlife played animportant role in facilitating communityinput and committment to realise thespecies plan prepared for the Departmentby a consultant biologist. This became thetrigger that inspired a few key people toform a group and get on with the job (seeCase 1). Then Greening Australia played arole in assisting with finding sponsorshipso that the group could achieve their plansquicker. We’ve also done that in the caseof the Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyzaphrygia; see Case 2) and similar approach-es have been taken in the case of RufousBristlebirds (Dasyornis broadbenti),Striped Legless Lizards and other species.

We’ve also tried to target key areas ofhabitat. For instance, we went to an areasouth-east of Willaura where there’s a largenumber of wetlands formed in the BasaltPlain. While there were no immediatethreats to those shallow wetlands, we feltthat it was important to work with thoselandholders to try and build their interestand understanding so that the wetlandswould be protected in the long term. Wehave also targeted an area near CapeLiptrap where we identified that there wasa lot of important coastal habitat in privatehands and we were uncertain how thoselandholders felt about that habitat. Thesorts of activities we did with them wassimply to get them out into their bush todo a bit of small mammal trapping — andhopefully those experiences will helpthem to look after that habitat.

Our Land for Wildlife extension processinvolves making direct contact with thelandholders — after first becoming famil-iar with the area so that we come in withsome experience of their experience. Wemake direct contact with them and givethem the opportunity to say how theywould like to become involved. If theywant to be involved we just need to putthe options in front of them and let themhave their say and be very flexible and seewhat they are prepared to do. In the caseof Cape Liptrap it was simply a matter ofcontacting them and seeing if they wouldbe interested in doing a bit of explorationin their bush — and all of them were.Two

of the families were already in Land forWildlife, which certainly helps initiate theprocess.

TM: So what does membershipinvolve? Is it limited to individualproperties or can you have groupmembers?

SP: There are criteria for Land forWildlife registration based on whetherthere is significant habitat on the propertyand whether there is some actual manage-ment input rather than just a plan — so weexpect to see some things on the ground.Only when you are fully registered do youget the Land for Wildlife sign. We have acategory of ‘working towards registration’as we want people to come and seek ouradvice as early as possible.You can applyto join with a bare paddock and you’d bein this ‘working towards registration cate-gory’as long as your aims were in line withthose of the scheme and we’re both ‘onabout’ the same thing and are able to learnfrom each other.

As for whether groups of landholderscan become members; yes — there are anumber of Land for Wildlife groups. Thisoption helps landholders who want toachieve something across their landscapethat might not be achievable on a singleproperty. For example, if we are trying toconserve Brolgas (Grus rubicundus) intheir landscape, we know that shallowfreshwater wetlands are important andthat they will be scattered over quite con-siderable distances. So it is possible toform a group of landholders who arefocusing on that issue. Or there are groupsin peri-urban areas where an individuallandholder wouldn’t qualify for Land forWildlife status because the property isunable to support significant habitat. Butwhen people get together they have own-ership of a larger area of land and can dosomething that is very worthwhile and isworth expenditure of community funds.

TM: So if an animal feeds on oneproperty and breeds on another, forinstance, this could engender a senseof it being ‘our’ process rather than‘mine and yours’ — extending theappreciation to more of a landscape-level view?

8 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001

I N T E R V I E W

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001 9

I N T E R V I E W

Victorian ‘on-ground’ efforts to recover Superb Parrot habitats — Case 1

The Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) currently only breeds in the South-west Slopes and Riverina of New South Wales,

and along a short section of the Murray River in central northern Victoria. Although the historical distribution of the Superb

Parrot has undergone little overall change within New South Wales, there has been a distinct contraction of the range in Vic-

toria during this century (Webster & Ahern 1992). Such concern is now held for the species that it is classified as Vulnerable

under both Victoria’s Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, 1988 and New South Wales’ Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995.

The main threat in Victoria is identified as the clearing of box woodland, which forms the major foraging habitat through-

out the breeding season and is an important habitat during the non-breeding season. Timber harvesting, altered flooding

regimes and public camping also present threats to nesting sites, which are in riverine forest and woodland generally within

9–13 km of suitable foraging habitat (Webster & Ahern 1992; R. Webster, pers. comm. 2000).

Nesting trees in the South-west Slopes of New South Wales include Apple Box (Eucalyptus bridgesiana), Grey Box

(E. microcarpa), White Box (E. albens), Red Box (E. polyanthemos) and Blakely’s Red Gum (E. blakelyi) — but in the

Murray / Riverina areas of New South Wales and Victoria, nesting mainly occurs in hollows of both dead and live specimens

of the River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis). Food items include mainly flowers, fruits and seeds, with about half the dietary

intake made while feeding on the ground (Webster & Ahern 1992). Sought-after understorey forage species include Common

Wallaby-grass (Danthonia caespitosa), numerous wattle species (e.g. Acacia acinacea, A. dealbata), the acacia parasite Grey

Mistletoe (Amyema quandang), Pale-fruit Ballart (Exocarpos strictus) and introduced plants including cereal grains (espe-

cially spilt grain), barley-grasses (Hordeum spp.) and Annual Veldt Grass (Ehrharta longifolia). Among the trees used for

forage are Black Box (E. largiflorens) and Yellow Box (E. melliodora). A common parasite of the box species, Box Mistletoe

(Amyema miquelii) and insect parasites such as lerps (Psyllidae) are also eaten.

Victorian efforts to break the cycle of degradation

In Victoria, the publicly owned Barmah Forest lining the Murray River in northern Victoria is the location of the state’s last

known nesting sites of the species. Much of the privately owned box woodland adjacent to Barmah Forest, upon which the

species depends for forage, has been cleared for agriculture, with small remnants on private land and along roadsides

providing the only links with riverine nesting habitat. As the parrot avoids open areas on foraging flights, fragmentation of

As well as requiring forage sites innearby box woodlands, the SuperbParrot requires nest hollows in maturetrees, including the River Red Gums thatline the banks of streams in theMurray / Riverina of Victoria and NewSouth Wales. (Photo: Stephen Platt)

10 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001

I N T E R V I E W

the habitat by such clearing can lead to the successive abandonment of traditional breeding areas. Breaking the cycle

of degradation needs to focus, therefore, on actions which both reduce ongoing clearing and which rehabilitate remnants

and reconstruct linkages between nesting and forage sites.

Forage habi tat re integrat ion in the Nathal ia area

In 1991, Rick Webster, wildlife consultant, assessed remnant vegetation in the Nathalia area in terms of its value as forag-

ing habitat. The assessment was carried out for the Department of NRE and included habitat along unused roads, on public

land and on private properties. As a result of the assessment, a regional vegetation management strategy (Davidson & Raven

1991) was developed after extensive consultation with the community, carried out by Liz Raven — the, then, Land for Wildlife

Extension Officer based in Benalla. The resultant strategy formed the framework for future habitat works and is now being

implemented in collaboration with Land for Wildlife and Save The Bush programmes.

An outstanding example of these projects is the Superb Parrot Project, now involving 30 farming families, which

focuses on reinstating understorey forage species in privately owned farmland adjacent to the Barmah Forest breeding areas.

Inspired by the vision of the late Peter Hawkey from the Nathalia tree project, the first linkage plantings were held in autumn

1993. Demand eventually grew so large that the Superb Parrot Project formed its own group and, to date, the group has pro-

tected 15 blocks of remnant vegetation, planted 110 000 plants and erected 80 km of fencing on 120 ha of land spread strate-

gically across more than 100 sites (Sue Logie, Superb Parrot Project Coordinator, pers. comm. 2000).

The Superb Parrot Project places highest priority on the protection of remnant vegetation, with the next priority given to

reconstructing links between remnants. A major focus is enhancing roadside vegetation that contains good foraging habitat

or which acts as flight paths for birds. Trees make up only 15% of the plantations, with the remaining 85% being understorey

species such as Gold Dust Wattle (Acacia acinacea), Western Black Wattle (A. hakeoides), Mallee Wattle (A. montana) and

other local acacias well known to be used as forage by the Superb Parrot. Other species not well represented in the land-

scape, such as Emu Bush (Eremophila longifolia), Silver Banksia (Banksia marginata), saltbushes and a range of ground-

covers are also planted back into the sites in an effort to rebuild functioning ecological communities and to provide habitats

for a wide range of species.

Superb Parrot Project area (shaded)centred on the box woodland sites onprivate lands adjacent to the publiclyowned Barmah Forest, the location ofVictoria’s last known nesting sites of thespecies. (Source: NRE, Tatura)

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001 11

I N T E R V I E W

Group cooperation skills are highly valued by the members of the project, who are committed to helping each other on

planting days. Techniques have evolved to a highly efficient level to optimize the effect of the landholders’ precious time and

resources. While planting was initially carried out with Hamilton tree planters, a mechanical planter designed and built by

project member Wayne Lindsay is now used — with the record for a day’s planting being 3000 plants. These are grown by

local nurseries from seed collected by the group from local sources.

In terms of results from the plantings to date, understorey shrubs are starting to out-compete the annual grass and other

ground-cover species, and a productive understorey is now well established on many sites. An annual census of a set number

of blocks (including plantations and non-plantations) has found that the Superb Parrot is certainly foraging on established

plantations, right across the project area. With the help of volunteers from all over Victoria, the 1999 census was the best

yet, with 410 birds counted and some larger flocks of up to 50 birds observed. This outcome is very encouraging and the

group is optimistic that their work is making a difference (Sue Logie, Superb Parrot Project Coordinator, pers. comm. 2000).

Protec t ing nes t s i tes and inter s tate cooperat ion

Timber harvesting in Barmah Forest is subject to the Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production, 1989, requiring coupe

plans for scheduled harvesting to be prepared up to 3 years in advance. Timber harvesting exclusion zones have been defined

to protect known nest trees in discrete colonies, on a year-round basis. These actions go some way towards detecting and

protecting nest trees, but are insufficient. Across the species’ full range, all known nest colonies need to be protected with

buffer zones; further nest surveys are required; and nest sites also need to be protected from disturbances, particularly

during the breeding season (Webster 1988).

Because the Superb Parrot moves across the border between New South Wales and Victoria, it is essential that a joint

approach to management is undertaken by the states. An inter-departmental steering committee was established in 1985 with

representation from the federal level and both states. This initiated a Superb Parrot study programme, and progress contin-

ues towards a single management plan for conservation of the Superb Parrot in New South Wales and Victoria (Webster &

Ahern 1992). With its own (draft) Recovery Plan and a recently formed Recovery Team, New South Wales is now on track to

supplement Victorian efforts (at both agency and community level) to aim for the consistent application of appropriate policy

and on-ground actions throughout the species’ range.

Case 1 was adapted by EMR from Action Statement No 33 Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii) (1992) Department of Natural Resources and Environ-ment, Victoria, Australia, with additional information provided by Rick Webster (Armata Environmental Consultants) and Sue Logie (Coordinator, SuperbParrot Project).

A mechanical planter was designed andbuilt by Wayne Lindsay, a Superb ParrotProject group member. This allows thegroup to plant up to 3000 plants per dayand achieve the revegetation of muchlarger areas. (Photo: Sue Logie)

SP:Yes. Through the Mollyullah–TatongLandcare group and later the RegentHoneyeater Project Inc., landholders in theLurg area have been looking at landscape-scale change and are fencing enormousareas and replanting understorey on a verylarge scale. A lot of the ‘flagship’ focus ofthat group is the Regent Honeyeater but Iam sure that they would agree that theyare doing it for all different species. It’s areally fantastic project. It is one of the fewareas where you can actually see quitelarge-scale changes on the ground (Box 2).

TM: And what about the longer-termsecurity of this work? Do membersfeel a need for some covenantingarrangement in order to ensure futureproperty owners don’t undo the workthey have done over the years anddecades?

SP: The issue of longer-term securitybecomes particularly important whenthere is a change of hands of the property.But Land for Wildlife membership doesn’tgo with property ownership. If the prop-erty is sold, it is automatically de-registeredand the next owner has to apply to join.We need to maintain the integrity of thesystem so that Land for Wildlife status islinked to the actions and attitude ofthe person. Land for Wildlife is also notdirectly linked to any financial incentive,though our members are kept wellinformed of what financial incentives andcovenanting options are available else-where.

While legal status of a covenant may bea filter, it is also possible to proceedwithout that filter and actively find theright people. So Land for Wildlife’s role hasincluded assisting people with finding anew, sympathetic, owner. All the news-letters have a ‘properties for sale’ section— and we are currently trying to talk the

major newspapers into the idea of listing a‘conservation properties’ section so thatpeople who are looking for this kind ofproperty and are trying to manage it, canfind it.

TM: In summary, what have youlearned over the years and where doyou see Land for Wildlife going in thefuture in Victoria?

SP: We have certainly learned that it’simportant to respond to the needs of land-holders. I have personally learnt that if wecan link our biodiversity message to whatpeople really value, then it is quite likelythat they will have a higher recognitionthat biodiversity is really important tothem (see Platt et al. 2001). We have alsolearnt we need to supply a very high levelof service that is consistent and includes alot of high-quality technical information.We have learnt that it is very important tobuild trust, to be coordinated and to builda strong team spirit that is positive andtaking people places. It is critical that thelandholders associated with the schemealways have a positive experience.

As for the future, I see us continuing todeliver the basic components of thescheme and enhancing some of our assis-tance to landholders, particularly throughthe Worldwide Web. We will continue totry to make information as accessible aspossible to as many people as possible. Inparticular, we will try to increase ourcapacity to target our extension services atsome of the key areas for biodiversity con-servation on private land — as we need toencourage and assist people to activelymanage these areas. We’ll also be lookingat the issues of how to get communities todevelop landscape-level plans for natureconservation in a bottom-up process tolink with some of the top-down processes,such as Catchment Plans, that are emerg-

ing. We will continue to interact withfarm families through our partnershipwith the Farm$mart (Property Manage-ment Planning) program (see Platt et al.2001).

In broader terms, I think that it is essen-tial that we agree as a community on whatwe want our landscapes to be like in thefuture and what values we want to retain.I think that this process of agreement canbe achieved — but it is up to the commu-nity what that vision will be. Hopefully, itwill include the protection of remnants;the restoration of important areas;and,par-ticularly, the conservation and reinstate-ment of ecosystem function. As this isgoing to have to occur in a way that is bal-anced with agricultural production, itneeds to be an integrated view of all thethings people think of as important.

References

Davidson I. and Raven L. (1991) Vegetation Man-agement for Superb Parrot Foraging Habitat inVictoria. Report to Department of NaturalResources and Environment, Benalla.

Mann S. and Davidson I. (1993) The Molyullah toGlenrowan District Regent HoneyeaterProject. Preliminary report for the Departmentof Conservation and Natural Resources andthe Molyullah–Tatong Tree and Land Protec-tion Group, Benalla.

Menkhorst P., Schedvin N. and Geering D. (1999)Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1999–2003. Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment, Melbourne.

Platt S., Richards P., MacLennan F. and Edwards J.(2001) Bridging social barriers: what turnspeople on to biodiversity? Ecological Manage-ment & Restoration 2, 71–72.

Webster R. (1988) The Superb Parrot — A Surveyof the Breeding Distribution and HabitatRequirements. Report Series No. 12, Aus-tralian National Parks and Wildlife Service,Canberra.

Webster R. and Ahern L. (1992) Management forConservation of the Superb Parrot (Polytelisswainsonii) in New South Wales and Victoria.Department of Conservation and NaturalResources, Melbourne.

12 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001

I N T E R V I E W

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001 13

I N T E R V I E W

Regent Honeyeater — Translating theory into on-ground action — Case 2

While the landscape-level movements of the boldly patterned Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phrygia) are still not fully

understood, researchers and government agencies know enough to have joined forces with rural communities in efforts to

conserve and rehabilitate known open-forest and woodland habitats of this endangered bird. Habitat reconstruction pro-

gresses alongside formal surveys, ecological studies and a concerted effort to collate details of all reported sightings of the

Regent Honeyeater.

The problem

The Regent Honeyeater is classified as Endangered under the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

Act, 1999, Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992 and New South Wales’ Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

In Victoria it is listed as a Threatened taxon in Schedule 2 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. Once occurring within

about 300 km of the Australian coast from south-east Queensland to Adelaide, surveys have found that Regent Honeyeater

populations have fallen to critically low levels, with current population estimates varying from 800 to 2000 individuals. The

species is no longer found in South Australia or western Victoria and records from Queensland are uncommon. Within this

reduced distribution, population dispersion is also extremely patchy, and little information is available on movement patterns

(particularly during summer) of this highly mobile species.

Population reduction is presumably due to large-scale clearing for agriculture across south-eastern Australia. The current

population appears to revisit a handful of particular sites rich in nectar-producing eucalypts, particularly Mugga Ironbark

(E. sideroxylon), White Box (E. albens), Yellow Box (E. melliodora), Yellow Gum (E. leucoxylon), Red Ironbark (E. tricarpa) —

as well as Needle-leaf Mistletoe (Amyema cambagei). Coastal sites also provide important nectar sources from Swamp

Mahogany (E. robusta) and Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata) when resources are less available on the inland slopes.

Insects and lerps are also important food sources and are essential during breeding when they form an important component

of the diet of nestlings and fledglings (Menkhorst et al. 1999).

As well as reduction of habitat per se, there has been a reduction in the number of high-quality sites available to the

birds because these more fertile areas also tend to be preferred for agriculture and are therefore cleared. The Regent

Honeyeater’s apparent reliance on eucalypt nectar from a few key species also predisposes it to suffering competition from

other nectarivorous birds. Further, the communally aggressive Noisy Miner (Manorina melanophrys) now dominates a large

Community volunteers at the completionof a planting session at Grant and RoseLewis’s property ‘Callamondah’ in theLurg area, Victoria, 1997. Typically, 50–60volunteers participate in planting days.The shrubs planted on this site weregerminated from seed collected from10–20 parents and are now producinglarge quantities of genetically appropriateseed for use elsewhere in the project area.(Photo: Ray Thomas)

14 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001

I N T E R V I E W

proportion of White Box and Yellow Box woodlands in Victoria and southern New South Wales, reducing the Regent Hon-

eyeaters’ access to those habitats.

What actions are being taken?

There are no obvious, straightforward or quick solutions to the population decline, but it is clear that actions are needed at

both agency levels and landholder levels to maintain and expand Regent Honeyeater habitat. Agency actions in Victoria

include the exclusion of timber extraction, mining and grazing from areas identified as regularly used habitat sites. The major

agency focus, however, is on providing extension services to public and private landholders to convince them of the signifi-

cance of their land and its remnant eucalypts and the need for remnant vegetation protection and expansion. This is largely

achieved through a number of Operations Groups set up to implement the Recovery Plan.

Lurg area revegetat ion

One of the longest-established of the Operations Groups in Victoria is centred around the Lurg / Glenrowan area where

outstanding work has been carried out to protect and restore remnants containing the ‘key’ tree species. Initially under-

taken through the local Moyullah–Tatong Landcare group, the work is now being done by the same landholders through a

specifically dedicated group, Regent Honeyeater Project Inc. To date, an intensive planting effort of more than 100 000

indigenous trees, shrubs and ground-cover species has been realized — involving more than 75 properties, with more than

83 km of fencing installed to protect over 130 remnant sites and numerous linkages between remnant patches. Hundreds of

volunteers (including school groups, university groups and bicycling and bushwalking clubs) have undertaken the propaga-

tion and planting work over the past 5 years — which has resulted in visible changes at the landscape level. Emerging forests

are visible from kilometres away, although still only a few metres in height.

Fundamental to these on-ground actions are locally based surveys of existing habitats, translated into strategic plans. In

1989, Regent Honeyeaters were found by Ian Davidson [then of NRE] utilizing remnant Mugga Ironbark of the Lurg area. As

a result, detailed surveys were undertaken throughout the district in winter 1992, with over 70 birds recorded between Glen-

rowan and Lurg. A local botanist, Sally Mann, assessed the condition of remnant habitat with particular reference to high-

quality sites with good winter nectar sources. This formed the basis of a detailed map of habitat quality which, in turn,

informed the Molyullah to Glenrowan District Regent Honeyeater Project Report (Mann & Davidson 1993) which has been

Organization of the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Effort is multi-layered and informed by specialist ornithological advice. Opera-tions Groups are major contributors to habitat rehabilitation and, along with Birds Australia and the Threatened Species Network,contribute to community education and population monitoring. (Source: Peter Menkhorst and Natasha Schedvin, Department ofNatural Resources and Environment, Victoria)

ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001 15

I N T E R V I E W

used to guide revegetation priorities. Current efforts to increase widths of plantings are based on more recent observations

of Regent Honeyeaters and Noisy Miners at a major Mugga Ironbark flowering event, where patch widths of at least 40 m

corresponded with accessible habitat for Regent Honeyeaters (Mann & Davidson 1993). The need for plantings to take con-

nectivity into account has also been reinforced by comparisons of aerial photos from the 1970s with those from the 1990s

— which show that significant gaps have only recently formed between big remnants and major forest patches along the

roadsides in the area. While ground-level connectivity may not be highly important for the Regent Honeyeater because of its

ability to cross cleared areas, this active fragmentation demonstrates a need for reinstating links for a number of other

species including the Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa), the Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and the

Grey-crowned Babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis) that are all less capable of safely crossing cleared areas (Ray Thomas,

pers. comm. 2000).

The Regent Honeyeater Project Inc.’s planting focus is on reinstating understorey species — not only to provide habitat

for fauna, but also because a healthy fauna is needed to counter insect-induced dieback of mature trees, a primary remnant

decline problem that is not addressed by fencing alone. Reinstating this understorey habitat for the insect-eating birds,

wasps, spiders, mammals and lizards and other animal groups is thought to lead to increased predation upon the insect pests

causing decline of the mature trees, as well as helping to restore the natural controls of mistletoe. It is also likely that the

resulting dense habitat structure will ultimately break the dominance of Noisy Miners (Ray Thomas, pers. comm. 2000). In

addition, the group places emphasis on the species that have suffered most from overclearing. Ironbark, White Box and

Yellow Box, for instance, are assumed to have been more widely distributed because they were used extensively for fencing

and firewood, while Ironbark was also logged for use in the mines at Beechworth. Plants belonging to the family Fabaceae

are also a focus of the group’s planting efforts because, apart from the prickly and unpalatable Gorse Bitter-Pea (Daviesiaulicifolia) which is still well represented, other local Fabaceae taxa are likely to have been severely grazed, given that they

are high in protein and defenceless (Ray Thomas, pers. comm. 2000).

To date, reinstatement of understorey and less well-represented species has been mainly by planting, although natural

regeneration of some species occurs after ripping. Positive results from an accidental fire has inspired the group to conduct

trial control burns to trigger regeneration. However, some very real constraints exist which make applying fire difficult;

constraints including the difficulty of achieving a sufficiently hot burn, the risk of large mobs of kangaroos browsing the

regeneration; and, logistical concerns by road managers (Ray Thomas, pers. comm. 2000).

Landholders are increasingly dedicatingproductive sites to provide a viableframework of linkages between decliningremnant vegetation patches. Focus is onreinstating understoreys in areas con-taining already-mature, scattered Ironbarks;a favoured nectar-producing species of theRegent Honeyeater. (Photo: Ray Thomas)

16 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION VOL 2 NO 1 APRIL 2001

I N T E R V I E W

The planting at each site involves between 30 and 40 species of indigenous plants — including six or seven different euca-

lypts, a range of large and small shrubs, and on the better sites, lilies and daisies. Locally indigenous seed is collected from

a range of widely spaced parents, with supplementary collection taken from the closest source in cases of severely restricted

species (such as Bursaria spinosa where only two local bushes remain). Improved establishment rates are gained from

matching the individual species to the micro-changes in soil conditions within a planting site. In the Lurg area, planters have

grown accustomed to planting, say, a Yellow Box on loamy soils, with the Mugga Ironbark, Red Box and Stringybark (and cor-

responding shrubs) on the rocky slopes. Even local schoolchildren, for example, have been involved in correctly selecting

the appropriate tree or shrub for a ‘clayey spot’ or a ‘wet spot’.

An encouraging trend is that, while only a few years ago the initial work focused on the rockier sites higher in the catch-

ment because that was the only land that people thought they could give to conservation, landholders are becoming increas-

ingly willing to set aside areas of more fertile soils, lower in the catchment. This has allowed the group to more recently

prioritize remnant habitats containing large trees that are at a stage in their life cycle when they are producing optimal quan-

tities of nectar. Landholders are also contributing strips of land up to 60 m wide beside valuable roadside habitats where

Regent Honeyeaters, Squirrel Gliders and Grey-crowned Babblers are known to occur (Ray Thomas, pers. comm. 2000).

A nest-box programme for the Brush-tailed Phascogale and Squirrel Glider is well supported by the community with 105

boxes erected (most of them showing signs of usage); and another 80 boxes likely to be placed by the end of 2001. The usage

of these nest boxes not only provides ‘bridging’ habitat while the plantings are establishing but it also provides potential

opportunity for ecological research (not yet taken up) to determine whether lack of connectivity between isolated remnant

patches may explain why some nest boxes are not being utilized, despite the existence of good habitat nearby. The nest-box

programme also increases the potential for involvement of the community with the programme and is a powerful motivator

for conservation action, particularly given the Regent Honeyeater’s elusive behaviour and absence for much of the year.

Other operat ions groups

Because of the landscape-level movements of the Regent Honeyeater, its recovery depends upon works not only at the dis-

trict level but also across all potential habitat sites throughout south-eastern Australia. Other Operations Groups are focused

around Chiltern in Victoria and the Bundarra–Barraba, Capertee Valley and Central Coast districts of New South Wales. In

Victoria, the Friends of Chiltern National Park have undertaken habitat rehabilitation works and replanting at numerous sites

in and around the National Park. Near Bundarra, north-eastern New South Wales, the Northern New South Wales Group of

Birds Australia used funds from the Save the Bush Program to undertake public education and revegetation works in strate-

gic Travelling Stock Reserves and freehold land. They have also mapped remnant box / ironbark woodland and liaised with

landholders to improve management of these remnants. Similarly, the Southern New South Wales and Australian Capital Ter-

ritory Group of Birds Australia obtained funding from the New South Wales Environmental Trust Fund to undertake extensive

habitat enhancement and extension work in the Capertee Valley.

The NRE is making a concerted effort to raise awareness of the Regent Honeyeater among Landcare Groups throughout the

species’ range. In 1999, landholders in the Bobinawarrah district and at two other locations in north-east Victoria and Albury,

New South Wales recorded the Regent Honeyeater utilizing and breeding at planted sites after about 15 years. This result gives

rise to some hope that the Lurg and Chiltern plantings will make a real difference in the short rather than long term.

Case 2 has been adapted by EMR from the national Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1999–2003 (Menkhorst et al. 1999) with additional informationsupplied by David Geering (New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service), Ray Thomas (Coordinator, Regent Honeyeater Project Inc.) and PeterMenkhorst (Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Victoria).