CENTRAL VICTORIAN BIOLINKS
COMMENT ON DRAFT NATIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS PLAN
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan.
The Central Victorian Biolinks Project Advisory Group is strongly supportive of large
landscape scale projects having not long embarked on the Central Victorian Biolinks
project.
This is both for ecological connectivity reasons, and for the capacity of the vision to
motivate a wide range of stakeholders to contribute to achieving much better protection
and enhancement of our unique natural environment. An essential goal if we are to
address the threat of climate change and our extinction debt.
Background
In 2010 a number of local groups in central Victoria asked the Victoria Naturally
Alliance1 to run a workshop to test support for a Central Victorian landscape scale
project. The area being discussed is from the Grampians/Gariwerd in the west to the
foothills of the Victorian Alps in the east, north to the Murray and south of Ballarat.
The answer was a resounding yes from the workshop and a set of principles for operating
was agreed and issues identified that needed to be resolved including vision, boundaries,
governance, relationship with government agencies (report attached).
Funding was found for a part-time project officer for seven months. Dr Sophie Bickford
started in December 2011 and is responsible to an Advisory Group made up of
representatives of mainly local NGOs and two state NGOs.
The project is in a scoping phase and several Working Groups – science, stakeholder
engagement, governance - are exploring their particular issues the results of which will
feed into a draft Strategic Plan. Two workshops have also been held; one on ‘lessons
learnt’ from networks already working in the project area (see attached article on
workshop), and second one which was a briefing from Gary Howling of Great Eastern
Ranges (GER). Discussions are underway on affiliation with GER. All these issues are
expected to be resolved at a community workshop in June.
After the workshop in June a period of building relationships with governments
especially the CMAs and local governments will be on the agenda. In the mean time
some key people are being kept informed of progress.
An application was submitted to the Biodiversity Fund for a ‘clearing house’ and ‘peer to
peer learning’ service for the many groups and networks already working on the ground.
1
The alliance, formed in 2006, is led by the Victorian National Parks Association and includes the
Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society, Bush Heritage Australia, Trust for
Nature, Greening Australia Victoria, Invasive Species Council, Environment Victoria and Birdlife
Australia (Victoria).
CENTRAL VICTORIAN BIOLINKS
COMMENT ON DRAFT NATIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS PLAN
The Victoria Naturally Alliance, through the Victorian National Parks Association
(VNPA), is the legal entity for the project officer who is based in Castlemaine and who is
answerable to an Advisory Group made up of representatives of local organizations.
About the Central Victorian Biolinks
While the geographic scope of the Central Victorian Biolinks project remains to be fully
defined, it straddles the western end of The Great Divide: that part of Central Victoria
extending from The Grampians/Gariwerd in the west to Alexandra in the east and from
Ballarat in the south northward to the Murray River.
It includes all of two CMAs: Goulburn-Broken and North Central, and parts of five more:
eastern Wimmera, south-east Mallee, western North-East, and northern parts of
Corangamite and Port Phillip and Westernport CMA.
Ecologically the area is very rich, with box-ironbark woodlands and dry woodlands,
plains grassy woodlands, wet and damp forests, heathlands and herb-rich and grassy
woodlands, permanent and ephemeral wetlands, and hundreds of kilometers of
waterways.
Using IBRA the project area covers two parts of the Victorian Midlands (Goldfields and
Central Victorian Uplands) and the Victorian Riverina.
All of the bioregions within the project area have lost over 80% of their native vegetation
and so provide significant potential for carbon abatement through revegetation.
There are common social elements across the region in that commercial agriculture has
reduced extensively across the area except for the flat country in the northwest and to the
still well-watered country in parts of the east. The influx of tree changers and ‘boutique’
farming creates major opportunities for innovation and changed land management
practices.
Smaller landscape scale projects are already active in the region. Networks that are
engaged or expressed strong interest in the project include: Ballarat Environment
Network, Bendigo and District Environment Council, Connecting Country project across
the Mt Alexandra Shire area, the Stawell-based Project Platypus group (commercial
farming in the west), Strathbogie Ranges Conservation Management Network, Wombat
Forestcare, Northern Victorian Biolinks group (north of Bendigo to the Murray),
Northern United Forestry Group, Wedderburn Conservation Management Network, the
Kari Kari Conservation Management Network. The Slopes to Summit network (Albury to
Koscziuscko) though adjacent to Central Victorian Biolinks region has expressed strong
interest too. As well as local organizations, groups such as Bush Heritage Australia are
involved and are expanding their interest in the region.
Comments on Draft Plan
1.
The Advisory Group of the Central Victorian Biolinks project warmly
welcomes the idea of having a National Corridors Plan. It provides the very important
CENTRAL VICTORIAN BIOLINKS
COMMENT ON DRAFT NATIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS PLAN
recognition of the need for ecological connectivity and resilience in addressing
Australia’s nature conservation challenges.
2.
Central Victorian Biolinks: an addition to the proposed National Corridors
(or a Victorian extension to GER)
The Great Eastern Ranges as described in Appendix B of the Draft Plan is confined to
NSW. However, their website states:
The GREAT EASTERN RANGES corridor stretches from the Grampians in Victoria
to far north Queensland.
That is, over 3600 km along the full length of the Great Divide including the western end
of the Divide which is the spine of the Central Victorian Biolinks project.
We would strongly urge that for the GER vision to be realized and that an additional
corridor that encompasses the Central Victorian Biolinks project area be added to the list
of proposed national corridors (or added as a Victorian extension to the Great Eastern
Ranges Initiative).
There is strong interest by many stakeholders in the Central Victorian Biolinks project in
being an affiliate of the Great Eastern Ranges Initiative and CEO, Rob Dunn, is touring
the area in late April at our invitation. This issue will be resolved at the community
workshop in June.
3.
The roles of NGOs and government agencies
Most, if not all, of the national wildlife corridors illustrated in the Draft were initiated by
community NGOs or individuals. This is true for the Central Victorian Biolinks Project
too.
For the Central Victorian Biolinks the community groups are first determining ways of
how they will work together, their vision and goals, and will then engage with
government agencies (7 CMAs, more local governments, and the state and federal
governments) in recognition that these projects require collaboration and effective
partnerships with all major stakeholders.
Table 1 on page 31 does not reflect the story behind the current national corridors nor our
own story and we would strongly oppose the notion that State and Territory governments
“initiate and lead corridor projects”.
The text says: “A partnership approach that includes collaborative governance
arrangements will assist in the implementation and governance of wildlife corridors” it
then goes on to outline the different roles and responsibilities to be held by participants in
Table 1. While ‘landholders’ come into the Table at the ‘regional’ level, it is not till the
‘local’ section of the table that we see ‘community-led initiatives’ and other local
activities.
CENTRAL VICTORIAN BIOLINKS
COMMENT ON DRAFT NATIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS PLAN
Clearly regional NRM planning is a key player in national wildlife corridors but
primarily at a smaller scale than national wildlife corridors. The Central Victorian
Biolinks Project is one example of being much larger than any one CMA in the region.
A partnership approach, with equity in decision making, maximising synergies of the
various stakeholders, developing and deciding priorities, informed by good science, is
vitally necessary. This Plan must withstand the changes in governments and boards of
CMAs at all levels and be strongly driven by community if it is to actually deliver on the
vision. Table 1 must be amended to reflect this.
4.
A core part of any wildlife corridor is the national reserve system currently
managed for conservation by state agencies or community based conservation groups
such as Bush Heritage Australia. How does the National Corridors Plan expect to deal
with these areas that are often the largest areas of intact native vegetation? Development
of a discrete national program that promotes building 'climate ready' parks, above and
beyond existing levels of state funding should be considered.
5.
The vision for large scale wildlife corridors across a broad landscape is a means
of integrating biodiversity outcomes, livelihoods and cultural values, this must not,
however, compromise what the connectivity science tells us is necessary for the survival
of species and ecological communities, functionality and processes. The goals for this
plan should be for ecological connectivity while referring to cultural and other priorities.
6.
Current landscape scale projects such as those in Appendix B should be supported
(with the addition of the Central Victorian Biolinks), however, they are clearly not
sufficient to ensure long term protection of our natural environment. An assessment
should be done of connectivity needs including connectivity into the marine systems, and,
it can be argued, taking account of international connectivity (eg migratory birds and
whales, and connectivity threats such as invasives).
7.
For the Plan to have substance, it needs clear goals, timeframes and
responsibilities. We urge that the final Plan provides a logical and outcome-oriented
framework for assessing and guiding the development of connectivity conservation
initiatives. The Plan should make clear the outcomes sought and criteria for Australian
Government investment in connectivity initiatives.
8.
The Plan requires recognition of the need for multi-year financial support for the
core support activities that make these projects happen efficiently and for the long term.
These roles can be summarised as facilitation and leadership: the building of relationships
with key individuals and of partnerships, aiding and abetting collaboration, leveraging
funds, investing in science and adaptive management, maximising learning on the job for
participants and many more. This role is recognized by the NSW state government in its
support for GER with four year commitment to funding.
This is a key category of support, needed from governments, for these projects to work.
In Australia unfortunately, it is very difficult to raise these sorts of funds from the
philanthropic sector and there is no obvious funding for this work from the Biodiversity
Fund, or CfoC.
CENTRAL VICTORIAN BIOLINKS
COMMENT ON DRAFT NATIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDORS PLAN
9.
Community knowledge and understanding: the member groups of the Advisory
Group for the Central Victorian Biolinks project have access to considerable expertise in
a wide range of areas ranging from collecting ecological data to planning, working with
landholders, and various accountabilities – financial, outomes and processes. This “on the
ground” expertise is essential for the implementation of any wildlife corridor and must be
acknowledged in the final Plan.