Suchergebnisse

The Australian Government's 'Caring for our Country' program has undermined Australia's 'regional model' for natural resource management, and eroded gains made under the precursor Natural Heritage Trust and related programs, in eight significant ways. Contrary to expectations that Caring for our Country, established in 2008, would build on the foundations established by the Natural Heritage Trust, it has adopted a narrower agenda, increased central government control, and compromised buy-in by state and territory governments. In reaction to the difficulty of assessing the cost-effectiveness of natural resource management program investments, priority has been given to discrete projects capable of demonstrating short-term, measurable outputs. Implementation of Caring for our Country has failed to realise the aspirations of regional organisations for core funding, substantially increased transaction costs and diminished success rates under competitive funding arrangements, and prejudiced the goodwill of many in the natural resource management community. Commitment to local community natural resource management movements like Landcare has been inconsistent, and largely unsuccessful. Retracting investment in relevant research and development, notably the termination of Land and Water Australia in 2009, has severely limited knowledge creation and sharing to inform and strengthen the regional model. We contend that the Australian Government should revisit its strategy for enabling and sustaining natural resource management investment, and that there is a substantial body of evidence in favour of approaches based on the regional model.

The Australian Government's 'Caring for our Country' program has undermined Australia's 'regional model' for natural resource management, and eroded gains made under the precursor Natural Heritage Trust and related programs, in eight significant ways. Contrary to expectations that Caring for our Country, established in 2008, would build on the foundations established by the Natural Heritage Trust, it has adopted a narrower agenda, increased central government control, and compromised buy-in by state and territory governments. In reaction to the difficulty of assessing the cost-effectiveness of natural resource management program investments, priority has been given to discrete projects capable of demonstrating short-term, measurable outputs. Implementation of Caring for our Country has failed to realise the aspirations of regional organisations for core funding, substantially increased transaction costs and diminished success rates under competitive funding arrangements, and prejudiced the goodwill of many in the natural resource management community. Commitment to local community natural resource management movements like Landcare has been inconsistent, and largely unsuccessful. Retracting investment in relevant research and development, notably the termination of Land and Water Australia in 2009, has severely limited knowledge creation and sharing to inform and strengthen the regional model. We contend that the Australian Government should revisit its strategy for enabling and sustaining natural resource management investment, and that there is a substantial body of evidence in favour of approaches based on the regional model.

Reduced access to publicly-owned native forests for timber harvesting affects businesses and workers whose livelihoods depend on this timber. We explored the social impacts experienced by members of the forest industry, defined here to encompass businesses and individuals involved in native forest management and the harvesting, hauling, sawmilling and processing of timber from publicly-owned native forests. The study focused on one region in Australia, upper north-eastern New South Wales, where policy and management changes both preceded and followed a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) signed by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments in 2000. The process of developing the RFA was protracted and signified the culmination of some 20 years of activism by the conservation movement which had progressively restricted the forest industry's access to public native forest resources. The area of publicly-owned native forest in reserve increased by about 190%, and further restrictions were placed on the harvesting of the remaining area, thus requiring reductions in timber harvesting so as to maintain a sustained yield. The RFA process included ex-ante social impact assessments, and a Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package to assist members of the forest industry to mitigate negative impacts and take advantage of new opportunities. Since the agreement was concluded, little follow-up (ex-post facto) social impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the negative and positive social impacts experienced by members of the forest industry, the ways in which businesses and individuals responded, or the effectiveness of government mitigation measures to assist them. Our study investigated each of these topics. Our results suggest that members of the forest industry experienced multiple negative and positive impacts over four stages: the anticipatory, initial-response, longer-term and subsequent-change stages. Participants' experiences of change and of positive and negative social impacts were influenced by their individual motivations, fears, skills and responses. These factors were influenced by the extent to which participants were able to respond proactively, the changes and impacts they anticipated they would experience, and their access to information and support via mitigation measures.

In many countries, timber harvesting from natural forests is accompanied by social conflict that governments seek to mitigate, often through the introduction of policy changes that reduce the forest industry's access to natural forest wood. Forest policy

Reduced access to publicly-owned native forests for timber harvesting affects businesses and workers whose livelihoods depend on this timber. We explored the social impacts experienced by members of the forest industry, defined here to encompass businesses and individuals involved in native forest management and the harvesting, hauling, sawmilling and processing of timber from publicly-owned native forests. The study focused on one region in Australia, upper north-eastern New South Wales, where policy and management changes both preceded and followed a Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) signed by the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments in 2000. The process of developing the RFA was protracted and signified the culmination of some 20 years of activism by the conservation movement which had progressively restricted the forest industry's access to public native forest resources. The area of publicly-owned native forest in reserve increased by about 190%, and further restrictions were placed on the harvesting of the remaining area, thus requiring reductions in timber harvesting so as to maintain a sustained yield. The RFA process included ex-ante social impact assessments, and a Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package to assist members of the forest industry to mitigate negative impacts and take advantage of new opportunities. Since the agreement was concluded, little follow-up (ex-post facto) social impact assessment has been undertaken to assess the negative and positive social impacts experienced by members of the forest industry, the ways in which businesses and individuals responded, or the effectiveness of government mitigation measures to assist them. Our study investigated each of these topics. Our results suggest that members of the forest industry experienced multiple negative and positive impacts over four stages: the anticipatory, initial-response, longer-term and subsequent-change stages. Participants' experiences of change and of positive and negative social impacts were influenced by their individual motivations, fears, skills and responses. These factors were influenced by the extent to which participants were able to respond proactively, the changes and impacts they anticipated they would experience, and their access to information and support via mitigation measures.

In many countries, timber harvesting from natural forests is accompanied by social conflict that governments seek to mitigate, often through the introduction of policy changes that reduce the forest industry's access to natural forest wood. Forest policy

Tasmania's forest practices system, one of the most prescriptive globally and the most comprehensive in Australia, has evolved over the last 25. years in response to public demands for high standards of governance, accountability and transparency of forest regulation on both public and private lands. The system was developed in the context of strong contestation, in Tasmanian and Australian civil society and politics, about appropriate forest policies and practices in Tasmania. The system is governed by a Forest Practices Act, which provides for a co-regulatory approach administered by an independent statutory body, the Forest Practices Authority. All forest operations must be undertaken in accordance with a certified forest practices plan, prepared and certified by accredited Forest Practices Officers employed by forest managers. These co-regulatory components of the system are supported by independent monitoring and enforcement by the Forest Practices Authority. This paper describes the genesis and evolution of the Tasmanian forest practices system, and summarises the range of measures employed to foster high levels of compliance, with an emphasis on training and education, self-monitoring and reporting by the industry, independent monitoring by the Forest Practices Authority, and corrective actions, backed by enforcement provisions. Compliance monitoring over 27. years demonstrates rapid improvement in the decade following establishment of the system, with consistently high levels of achievement subsequently. However, larger corporate forest managers consistently achieve higher rates of compliance than do small-scale forest owners, and redressing this imbalance has been a recurrent theme in Tasmania's forest practices system. Experience of implementation of Tasmania's forest practices system suggests that well-designed and implemented co-regulatory approaches, with high levels of transparency, can be effective in delivery of good technical standards of forest practices and high levels of compliance. However, these will not in themselves mitigate public concern about forest management practices unless the policies governing those practices have broad support in civil society.

Tasmania's forest practices system, one of the most prescriptive globally and the most comprehensive in Australia, has evolved over the last 25. years in response to public demands for high standards of governance, accountability and transparency of forest regulation on both public and private lands. The system was developed in the context of strong contestation, in Tasmanian and Australian civil society and politics, about appropriate forest policies and practices in Tasmania. The system is governed by a Forest Practices Act, which provides for a co-regulatory approach administered by an independent statutory body, the Forest Practices Authority. All forest operations must be undertaken in accordance with a certified forest practices plan, prepared and certified by accredited Forest Practices Officers employed by forest managers. These co-regulatory components of the system are supported by independent monitoring and enforcement by the Forest Practices Authority. This paper describes the genesis and evolution of the Tasmanian forest practices system, and summarises the range of measures employed to foster high levels of compliance, with an emphasis on training and education, self-monitoring and reporting by the industry, independent monitoring by the Forest Practices Authority, and corrective actions, backed by enforcement provisions. Compliance monitoring over 27. years demonstrates rapid improvement in the decade following establishment of the system, with consistently high levels of achievement subsequently. However, larger corporate forest managers consistently achieve higher rates of compliance than do small-scale forest owners, and redressing this imbalance has been a recurrent theme in Tasmania's forest practices system. Experience of implementation of Tasmania's forest practices system suggests that well-designed and implemented co-regulatory approaches, with high levels of transparency, can be effective in delivery of good technical standards of forest practices and high levels of compliance. However, these will not in themselves mitigate public concern about forest management practices unless the policies governing those practices have broad support in civil society.

This paper reviews the design of the international forest governance and policy, and analyses its impacts in addressing deforestation and forest degradation as global sustainability issues. Informed by literatures on international relations, regulatory governance of global commodity production, and international pathways of domestic influence, key arrangements are aggregated into six types, and mapped in terms of their main aims, instruments, and implementation mechanisms. Key analytical dimensions, such as the actors involved (state–private–mixed), the character of legal authority (legally binding–non-legally binding), and the geopolitical scope (global–transnational) helped to identify the potential and limitations of arrangements. They were assessed and compared in terms of their main pathways of influence such as international hard-law rules, cross-sectoral policy integration, non-legally binding norms and discourses, global market mechanisms, and direct access through capacity building. Our results reveal important challenges in the design and implementation, and in the pathways of influence, of the forest governance arrangements, including major inconsistencies with forest-adverse economic sectors. We conclude about the need for coherent international forest-related policy cooperation and integrative actions in agriculture, bioenergy, and mining to enhance the prospects of achieving the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Aboriginal Australians have diverse interests in forest, encompassing cultural, economic, environmental and social values. Historically, the agencies and industries comprising the forest sector have engaged with only some of these interests, and have typically done so in a fragmented fashion. Our research with Aboriginal communities around Australia suggests a myriad of opportunities for a broadly defined forests sector, but this requires improved relationships between Aboriginal people and the dominant society and much deeper understanding of diverse Aboriginal aspirations at the local level. The National Indigenous Forestry Strategy promotes these aspirations, but requires a much stronger commitment from governments if it is to deliver them.

Australia has over 1.5 million ha of plantation forests. Governments and industry share a goal of doubling this area by 2020, with most new plantations to be established on previously-cleared agricultural land. Plantations currently supply over half of the raw material required by the forest products industry and also provide a range of environmental and social services. The ownership and management structure of Australian forest plantations and plantation-based forest industries has changed considerably over the past decade, and plantation growing, processing and marketing sectors are becoming increasingly globalised. This paper reviews the major forces driving development of forest plantations in Australia and the key policy and management issues to be considered if plantations are to meet varied expectations of the Australian community. Our assessment is based on papers and discussion at the 'Prospects for Australian Forest Plantations 2002' conference. The wide-ranging papers to the conference considered opportunities for Australia's forest plantations and plantation-based industries in changing global wood markets. They discussed alternative and emerging markets for wood and other plantation products and environmental services, the potential for plantations to provide environmental benefits such as salinity mitigation and biodiversity conservation, effects of plantations on water yield and quality, and the effects of plantation development on rural and regional communities. The role of plantations in providing a broader range of environmental and social benefits emerged as a major focus of discussion. Lessons learned from Australia's experience with plantation development are relevant in a wider global context where plantations will be expected to supply products for, and benefits to, society that historically have been supplied by native forest.

Aboriginal Australians have diverse interests in forest, encompassing cultural, economic, environmental and social values. Historically, the agencies and industries comprising the forest sector have engaged with only some of these interests, and have typically done so in a fragmented fashion. Our research with Aboriginal communities around Australia suggests a myriad of opportunities for a broadly defined forests sector, but this requires improved relationships between Aboriginal people and the dominant society and much deeper understanding of diverse Aboriginal aspirations at the local level. The National Indigenous Forestry Strategy promotes these aspirations, but requires a much stronger commitment from governments if it is to deliver them.