Biodiversity on private land: Lessons from theMid‐MurrayValley in South‐eastern Australia

Abstract

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 humandominated 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.

Managing biodiversity on private land: Directions for collaboration through reconciliation ecology

“…In this context, four of eight current and past farmers from NAPREC were interviewed by the lead author to identify issues assisting or hindering research collaboration in the Mid-Murray Valley. This region is extensively cleared with agricultural enterprises, including extensive grazing, intensive irrigated rice and pasture production on flat riverine plains that include vulnerable and endangered native plants, animals and ecosystems in Wamba Wamba and Perrepa Perrepa Nation Countrysee Ward et al (2022).…”

“…The role of trust for landholders in individuals and agencies was highlighted by interviewees and in Ward et al (2022) David believes part of the solution to distrust is prior communication, which Durant and Knight (2019) believed could be addressed through early face-to-face interactions.…”

“…Respect and inclusiveness have not always characterised such collaborations at local and regional levels (Wyborn 2015;Pfeiffer et al 2017). For example, Ward et al (2022) highlighted positive collaborations around NRM and biodiversity conservation research in the New South Wales (NSW) Mid-Murray Valley through the stories and reflections of farmers regarding fencing programmes and the Bittern in Rice project, and conflicts during the early stages of the Plains-wanderer conservation programme. The authors emphasised the need for novel approaches to engage communities and landholders in the socio-ecological research that informs NRM and impacts Australian rural communities.…”

“…Allan et al (2020) contended that the co-design of NRM policy, programmes and associated research on which it is based is likely to be more effective if supported by local stakeholders (Mackay et al 2014;Robinson et al 2015;Durant & Knight 2019). Co-design can reduce conflict between stakeholders (Mitchell et al 2014) and increase the likelihood of ongoing commitment to agreed NRM outcomes (Durant & Knight 2019;Ward et al 2022). Toomey et al (2017) highlighted growing recognition of the need for co-created knowledge that acknowledges that while knowledge is developed in a particular socio-ecological context by various actors, including scientists and farmers, there continues to be a "space" between the knowledge of researchers and resource managers, while other stakeholders, such as farmers, are sometimes excluded.…”

“…We contend that the concept of Reconciliation Ecology (RE -Rosenzweig 2003), which studies ways of promoting biodiversity in human-dominated ecosystems, provides a useful foundation for these approaches. traditional protected areas in conservation efforts (Ward et al 2022).…”