TY - JOUR
T1 - Biodiversity on private land
T2 - Lessons from the Mid-Murray Valley in South-eastern Australia
AU - Ward, Wesley W.
AU - Bond, Jennifer
AU - Burge, Louise
AU - Conallin, John
AU - Finlayson, Colin (Max)
AU - Michael, Damian
AU - Scoullar, Shelley
AU - Vanderzee, Michael
AU - Wettenhall, Adam
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors Acknowledge the Wamba Wamba and Perrepa Perrepa Nations who are the traditional custodians of lands in which in this study was completed, and would also like to pay their respects to their Elders past, present and emerging. The authors also acknowledge the financial and logistical support of the Institute for Land, Water and Society and the Gulbali Institute at Charles Sturt University for this study. Open access publishing facilitated by Charles Sturt University, as part of the Wiley - Charles Sturt University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Funding Information:
With these initial successes, the Commonwealth government established a National Landcare Program in 1996 (Cary & Webb 2000 ), whereby government agencies centralised policy and programme development and imposed increasingly inflexible requirements on landholders to enable access to funding. There was an increasing focus on government‐developed criteria and priorities through competitive grant funding, rather than financially facilitating community‐initiated and developed priorities. These actions caused community disengagement and reduced local commitment essential to achieve sustained, on‐ground outcomes in biodiversity (Head . 2016 ). The shift from community‐based projects to government targeted, competitive project‐based grants further eroded landholder input and participation (Robins & Kanowski 2011 ); centralised and narrowed the scope of Landcare, reducing local ownership of regional projects (Paton . 2004 ); reduced community or stakeholder input and consultation on narrower, ‘top‐down’ targets (Vella . 2015 ); and increased competition for funding and conflict about priorities (Prager 2010 ). This shift in focus for Landcare groups to small, short‐term, easily measured projects also contributed to a decline in collaborative NRM research between landholders, universities and State agencies (Robins & Kanowski 2011 ). et al et al et al
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. Ecological Management & Restoration published by Ecological Society of Australia and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
The project arose from concerns in the NSW Mid-Murray region regarding declining input from the local community into NRM research and management in their region.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - In this article, we use an autoethnographic approach to explore relationships between landholders and government agencies and natural resource management projects. We use this exploration to argue for a holistic, collaborative approach to decision making around the implementation of biodiversity conservation on private and public land. This approach aligns with principles underpinning reconciliation ecology, which emphasises the inclusion of grass-roots communities for promoting biodiversity conservation in human-dominated landscapes where approaches to the management of natural resources may be contested. We present three projects (Environmental Champions; Fencing Incentive programmes; Plains-wanderer programme) and other research from the Mid-Murray Valley region of southern New South Wales to highlight the positive and negative aspects of relationships between landholders and others in natural resource management. We argue that for a more collaborative approach; we need to build relationships based on understanding, trust, respect, ownership and partnerships between rural communities, landholders, education and research institutions and government agencies as recognised in reconciliation ecology.
AB - In this article, we use an autoethnographic approach to explore relationships between landholders and government agencies and natural resource management projects. We use this exploration to argue for a holistic, collaborative approach to decision making around the implementation of biodiversity conservation on private and public land. This approach aligns with principles underpinning reconciliation ecology, which emphasises the inclusion of grass-roots communities for promoting biodiversity conservation in human-dominated landscapes where approaches to the management of natural resources may be contested. We present three projects (Environmental Champions; Fencing Incentive programmes; Plains-wanderer programme) and other research from the Mid-Murray Valley region of southern New South Wales to highlight the positive and negative aspects of relationships between landholders and others in natural resource management. We argue that for a more collaborative approach; we need to build relationships based on understanding, trust, respect, ownership and partnerships between rural communities, landholders, education and research institutions and government agencies as recognised in reconciliation ecology.
KW - landholder
KW - Research collaboration
KW - Murray Valley
KW - natural resource management
KW - reconciliation ecology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138419106&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85138419106&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/emr.12560
DO - 10.1111/emr.12560
M3 - Article
SN - 1442-7001
VL - 23
SP - 175
EP - 183
JO - Ecological Management and Restoration
JF - Ecological Management and Restoration
IS - 2
ER -