No abstract

No abstract

Traditional (big C) communications in large organizations usually serve to ensure consistent over-arching messaging internally, and to the public at large. To deliver on their public-good mandate, science-based governmental institutions must do more than broadcast the department's position. They must communicate not only broad policy directions, but also raw data, leading-edge science, general and informed layperson interpretations, and advice for action and behaviour change. Different sectors prefer to receive information and use knowledge in different ways. Science departments must engage with diverse audiences-for example, science users and decision makers, the scientific community, public organizations, and individual citizens-in ways tailored for each audience. This means paying greater attention to the changing contexts in which information is received and used, and consequently the mechanisms and relationships required to produce and transfer scientific information. For policy audiences in particular, the relevance of the science to the issues of the day, and the crucial importance of timing, underline the need for interactive knowledge brokering approaches that can deliver synergistic combinations of 'science push' and 'policy pull'. The authors draw on examples from Environment Canada, as well as from the UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Land & Water Australia, to show how dedicated (little c) science and technology communications and knowledge brokering activities are growing in importance. The need for investment in specialized approaches, mechaa S&T Branch,

No abstract

Mission statements by themselves are of very little value. Some companies have good mission statements, but their management teams often lack a sense of purpose. In other companies, management teams have a clarity of vision and enthusiasm that is awe‐inspiring, without having a mission statement. Mission statements in and of themselves are not important — creating a management team with a sense of mission is crucial.

No abstract

No abstract

The past four decades have seen a transformative process in Australian agriculture – the gradual incorporation of conservation practices such as ecological restoration, revegetation and agroforestry as a response to land degradation. Although actions have been impressive they remain fragmented, are confined to particular districts or properties and run the risk of not being built upon in the future. This paper traces the history of this movement and draws out lessons and implications for future policy development and research. Landscape-scale restoration and the integration of conservation into farming landscapes have been recognised as a global imperative for decades, for which Australia has generated many innovations – in the technical, social and policy domains. Scanning the ‘big picture’, we identify many pixels of best practice in policy, incentives, planning, regulation and on-ground practice. We wonder why we have not pulled these together, to work in concert over time. If we had, Australia would have a world’s best natural resource management framework. However, we have neither integrated these elements at multiple scales nor sustained them. Unfortunately, although we are excellent at innovating, we have been equally good at forgetting. Progress remains partial, patchy and slow. Too often, we have made gains then gone backwards, reflecting a tendency towards policy adhockery and amnesia. With Australia’s continuing depreciation of institutional memory, we risk losing critical capabilities for making sound policy decisions. Australian expertise in revegetation, restoration and regeneration of landscapes remains formidable however, with an enormous amount to offer the world. We are still learning to live and farm more sustainably, but we have made big strides over the last four decades. The challenge will be to maintain the momentum and provide adequate succession so future generations continue the work.