Beyond threat- and asset-based approaches to natural resource management in Australia

Abstract

This article examines the origins, strengths and weaknesses of these threat-based and asset-based approaches. A third approach is then proposed that c o m b i n e s t h e b e s t o f b o t h b y f o c u s i n g o n t h e maintenance and measurement of environmental condition at the most appropriate scales from local to national. It is suggested that such a hybrid 'conditionbased' approach would involve:1. setting realistic and achievable resource condition targets by acknowledging current and potential resource use patterns as well as reference historic states 2. assessing environmental value and condition in a representative and comprehensive manner 3. using an adaptive learning framework to accommodate the uncertainty and complexity inevitable in landscape management 4. including the following factors when prioritising investment of public funds:i. the relative value of environmental assets ii. their vulnerability to threats iii. the technical feasibility and adoptability of intervention iv. the social, economic, human and cultural capital available and needed to support improved management v. the ratio of public to private good per unit cost 5. a division of labour between national and state governments, regional organisations and community groups that supports local action and management; regionally appropriate targets and strategies; and national coordination of monitoring and data integration to produce State of the Environment reporting capable of assessing the effectiveness of interventions.We acknowledge that more thinking will be needed to refine these ideas into an effective framework. Our intention is to begin that discourse.

Learning from agri-environment schemes in Australia. Investing in biodiversity and other ecosystem services on farms

“…. Others are worried that the claims of efficacy and cost-effectiveness have not been substantiated, and that we don't yet have functioning markets for environmental services (Curtis and Lefroy 2010).…”

“…Some have suggested that our drive for efficiency may have come at the cost of effectiveness (Curtis and Lefroy 2010). Several audit reports on national NRM programs have pointed out that a lack of monitoring of outcomes and a focus on outputs rather than outcomes has made it impossible to determine whether this new approach is working (ANAO 2008(ANAO , 2014.…”

“…Which leads us to our final themecapacity. Capacity is not just about the skills and knowledge contained in the organisations running these schemes; it also relates to the human and social capital found in the regions where agri-environment schemes are being implemented (Curtis and Lefroy 2010).…”

Fit-for-Purpose Institutions? An Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation in the Agricultural Landscape of the Tasmanian Midlands, Australia

“…Institutional approaches to conserving biodiversity are diverse, but can be grouped into three broad categories: 1) protecting assets, 2) responding to threats, or 3) supporting the conditions of ecosystem processes (Curtis and Lefroy, 2010). Driven by legislative frameworks, many conservation initiatives tend to focus on the conservation of individual assets (e.g.…”

“…This means that in practice many countries, such as Australia, tend to focus time and investment on the first two categories. While efficient, this can be a source of institutional misfit, as it tends to neglect the broader social--ecological context and underlying causes of biodiversity decline (Clement et al, 2016;Curtis and Lefroy, 2010).…”