Role of bioregionalism in Bookmark Biosphere Reserve, Australia

Abstract

SUMMARYBioregionalism claims that interaction between the biophysical and human components of a region generates place-based environmental and social understanding and concern, which lead to locally shared power and responsibility in cooperative land management and governance. The Man and the Biosphere Programme's Seville Strategy calls for local community participation in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem-based approach to conservation, but it is unclear if tenets of bioregionalism play a role in its implementation. Bookmark Biosphere Reserve (BBR) in Australia has substantially succeeded in scientific research and monitoring, conservation, environmental education and sustainable land-use initiatives. Aspects of bioregionalism (for example recognition of the region's unique identity, local community sense of responsibility, integration of local knowledge, presence of motivated local leaders and cooperative community-based management through a network of groups) have contributed to success. Other crucial factors were funding, technical and scientific information and support from government agencies, leadership from members of state and federal government and from private philanthropic foundations, community capacity-building for sustainable land management and availability of volunteers from outside the region. Nevertheless, conflict arose in relation to governance, originating from the recognized difficulties of reconciling a diversity of allegiances, motivations, management styles and personalities, and resulted in division of BBR into two, one section being managed largely through the private sector and community volunteers, the other (renamed Riverland Biosphere Reserve) coordinated by a committee with more diverse affiliations. Bioregionalism can play a role in biosphere reserves but motivations and resources of external public and private organizations are also vital. Avoiding weaknesses of bioregional approaches requires greater attention to social aspects of environmental management. Governance structures and processes need to be inclusive, flexible and equitable in decision making and access to funds. They should support both agency and community-initiated activities and include conflict resolution mechanisms.

A Theory of Transformative Agency in Linked Social-Ecological Systems

“…The importance of individual agency has been highlighted in several evaluations of the factors leading to shifts to ecosystem-based and adaptive management (Low and Randhir 2005, Pagdee et al 2006, Fabricius et al 2007, Pfueller 2008, Kenward et al 2011). However, a coherent theory of the role of agents in these transformations, and the strategic actions they employ, is still lacking.…”

How should rural policy be evaluated if it aims to foster community involvement in environmental management?

“…Pfueller, 2008). A policy will have limited effect if awareness of a policy is lacking, as was the case in Australia, with little public understanding or appreciation of the concepts and the opportunities offered by biosphere reserves (Buckley, 2007).…”

Defining Spaces of Resilience within the Neoliberal Paradigm: Could French Land Use Classifications Guide Support for Risk Management Within an Australian Regional Context?

“…While management approaches currently classify and more formally regulate the environmental systems of the AMLR (SA Government 2004), farmers are rarely able to benefit formally and explicitly from the state for their stewardship of environmental assets in a manner unaligned with the direct demands of the market (AMLR NRM Board 2008a; b). Some alternative land use classifications are applied in the Australian context that incorporate agroecosystems, including formalised green belts (see Garnaut 2008), United Nations (UN) World Heritage sites (Attwater and Merson 2007) or Man and Biosphere (MAB) reserves (Pfueller 2008). However, with rare exceptions (see Jones and Shaw 2007), these classifications have not incorporated agroecosystems as their major focus in Australia, targeting biodiversity, indigenous and/or urban heritage rather than farming systems (Fitzsimons and Wescott 2004).…”