The management of landscapes for biological conservation and ecologically sustainable natural resource use are crucial global issues. Research for over two decades has resulted in a large literature, yet there is little consensus on the applicability or even the existence of general principles or broad considerations that could guide landscape conservation. We assess six major themes in the ecology and conservation of landscapes. We identify 13 important issues that need to be considered in developing approaches to landscape conservation. They include recognizing the importance of landscape mosaics (including the integration of terrestrial and aquatic areas), recognizing interactions between vegetation cover and vegetation configuration, using an appropriate landscape conceptual model, maintaining the capacity to recover from disturbance and managing landscapes in an adaptive framework. These considerations are influenced by landscape context, species assemblages and management goals and do not translate directly into on-the-ground management guidelines but they should be recognized by researchers and resource managers when developing guidelines for specific cases. Two crucial overarching issues are: (i) a clearly articulated vision for landscape conservation and (ii) quantifiable objectives that offer unambiguous signposts for measuring progress.

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.

The Anthropocene imposes new challenges for governments, demanding capabilities for dealing with complexity and uncertainty. In this paper we examine how effective governing of social-biophysical dynamics is constrained by current processes and systems of government. Framing choices and structural determinants combine to create governance deficits in multiple domains, particularly in relation to the governing of complex larger-scale social–biophysical systems. Attempts to build capability for governing ‘wicked problems’ are relevant to sustainability science and Anthropocene governance, but these have mostly failed to become institutionalised. Two cases studies are reported to elucidate how the systemic dynamics of governing operate and fail in relation to espoused purpose. In the UK attempts to enact ‘joined-up’ government’ during the years of New Labour government reveal systemic flaws and consistent praxis failures. From Australia we report on water governance reforms with implications for a wide range of complex policy issues. We conclude that innovations are needed to build capacity for governing the unfolding surprises and inherent uncertainties of the Anthropocene. These include institutionalising, or structural incorporation, of cyber-systemic thinking/practices that can also enhance empowerment and creativity that underpins sustainability science.Graphical abstract

No abstract

This paper explores the ways water governance adapts to changing social values and political imperatives by examining the case of water policy reforms in Australia's Murray Darling Basin. Over more than two decades, Australia's water reforms have explicitly aimed to promote ecological sustainability and economic efficiency, attempting to balance pro-market, micro-economic reforms with broader social and sustainability goals. Despite the formality of Australia's intergovernmental agreements, water reforms have been expensive and heavily contested, experiencing many implementation challenges. However, water market reforms have generally been regarded as successful, enabling the reallocation of water for environmental and extractive uses, contributing to flexibility and adaptive capacity. Recognising that discursive contestation is central to policy development, the paper documents the way the reform processes have attempted to broker compromises between three competing policy paradigms-national development, economic rationalism and environmentalism. These inherent tensions resulted in prolonged contests for influence over policy directions long after formal statements of policy intent by Governments. Given that climate change is driving the need for water governance reforms, the paper looks to what lessons can be learnt about the redesigns of meta-governance arrangements, including through structured commitments to independent audits and evaluations that can provide the feedback needed for adaptive governance and policy learning.