Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan,
March 2012, prepared by the National Wildlife Corridors Plan Advisory Group.
We are very supportive of landscape/seascape conservation initiatives that integrate a variety
of land-tenures and provide the opportunity for multi-faceted stakeholder dialogues in the
context of natural resource management and conservation. We welcome this broader level
thinking and the work of the independent National Wildlife Corridors Plan Advisory Group.
Below are some comments that we hope will contribute to improving this draft document.
General Observations:
1) Implementation of any National Wildlife Corridors needs to address more than just
the challenges of tackling biodiversity and ecological connectivity and resilience. It
should also tackle the challenges of sustaining, enhancing and promoting social,
cultural and economic connectivity that exists in any landscape or corridor projects. It
should not be just about biodiversity and ecological resilience it should also be about
social and cultural resilience that supports such wildlife corridors.
2) The inter-connectedness between natural resource management, conservation and
sustainable livelihoods needs to be carefully understood in the implementation of
such corridors. The role of wildlife corridors in sustaining and enhancing
environmental services is also critical and should be equally emphasized.
3) Within the above, attention should be given to understand indigenous rights, current
access and use and future aspirations and particularly the role of indigenous people
in implementing such wildlife corridor initiatives. Addressing the capacity of
indigenous partners to effectively contribute to the design, implementation and
management of such initiatives would be essential as well as supporting their own
initiatives for new corridors.
4) Governance and partnership arrangements should be inclusive of all relevant groups,
organizations, individuals, communities, TOs, etc.. that can contribute to the design,
implementation and management of a corridor initiative. Such arrangements will no
doubt be tailored-made to a particular context and they should be “effective”.
Understanding what it takes to develop, maintain and nurture ‘effective governance
and partnership arrangements’ is an important part of designing, implementing and
managing wildlife corridors.
5) Adequate resources need to be allocated from the very outset to address points 2-4
above. That is, integrated work on the social, economic and cultural aspects of
wildlife corridor design, implementation and management needs to happen
simultaneously as other works related to ecological connectivity take place.
1
Specific comments on the Draft Document:
On section 1.3: The objectives of the National Wildlife Corridors
Plan
The last objective of the National wildlife plan stated in the draft (p 11) is: “Increase
community knowledge and understanding of wildlife corridors and connectivity
conservation”. This is the only objective (amongst 5) that specific addresses a social and
cultural dimension. Under this the text says “Good conservation calls for consistent and
sensitive land and resource management over the long-term. Individual and community
stewardship provides important and enduring insurance for our environment. Expanding the
community’s understanding of the concepts of landscape connectivity and what this means
for maintaining the health and productivity of local landscapes is an important objective of
the National Wildlife Corridors Plan.” This objective should be much more than “expanding
community’s understanding” (which could sound very patronizing as some communities and
TOs may themselves have far more knowledge and understanding already than other groups
or organizations.) It should be also about empowering communities and drawing upon their
own knowledge to participate in all stages of conceiving, implementing and managing
wildlife corridors.
A suggested change is: Involve and empower communities to be effective contributors
to wildlife corridors.
On Section 1.4: Guiding principles for wildlife corridor design and implementation
Enhance the resilience of Australia’s biodiversity and its adaptability
to climate change.
It is not just the resilience of “Australia’s biodiversity” and its adaptability. It should also be
about “ecosystem services “and “social resilience”. A suggested change is: Enhance the
resilience of Australia’s biodiversity, ecosystem services and the social capital to manage
those and their adaptability to climate change. The text underneath should accommodate
these changes and refer to the importance of resilience of ecosystems services to sustain
livelihoods and economies and resilience of the social capital to manage such biodiversity
and ecosystem services.
On Section 1.7: Who will be involved in building a national network of wildlife
corridors?
“The development of a national network of wildlife corridors calls for coordinated and
collaborative efforts between government agencies, regional bodies, non-government
organisations, industry, philanthropic, Indigenous and community groups, and individuals.
These participants bring the different scales of oversight, skills, knowledge and resources
needed to create and sustain a national network of wildlife corridors” (p. 20).
We fully support this call for coordinated and collaborative effort, but it should be an effort
whereas all players that need to be meaningfully involved are taken into account at all stages
2
of design, implementation and management. Moreover real capacity for “effective
participation” needs to be understood and bolstered where needed.
In the sentence: “Individuals, state and territory governments, industry, community groups
(insert: including traditional owners) and non- government organisations ...”
On Section 1.8: Foundation stones
The foundation stones for the national network of wildlife corridors are national parks,
reserves and Indigenous Protected Areas, wetlands and riparian zones, and high-quality habitat
on private [insert: and communal land] [This is to account for indigenous community owned
land].
On Section: Existing major corridor initiatives
“Collaboration and community engagement are features of such initiatives, with action driven
through a variety of incentive and support mechanisms. Some corridor initiatives have been
led by non-government organisations, [insert: community groups and indigenous
organizations] while others have been initiated by state government agencies and regional
natural resource management organisations. (p 23). [What about ideas for corridor initiatives
initiated by umbrella indigenous organizations in collaboration with NGOs like the
Kimberley to Cape York? What about the strong role of community groups, like land care,
in other initiatives like Habitat 141, Central Victorian Biolinks, etc..] It is useful to
specifically mention community groups and indigenous organizations and not just NGOs.
On Section 2.1: The five point plan of action to implement corridors in
Australia
Point 4 Working with key stakeholders and supporting NRM regional
planning (p 28)
This is a very weak section that refers primarily to stakeholders involved in NRM planning
through NRM organisations preparation of regional plans. What about empowering and
supporting other stakeholders to initiate such corridors through processes that are
independent from the NRM planning per se? There should be reference to the latter as many
such wildlife corridors ideas and plans have already, and will continue in the future, to be
developed through other mechanisms not necessarily tied to NRM planning. They could also
be at a bigger scale than a regional NRM plan involving other processes and a combination of
such regional plans. Whilst it is important to support these NRM planning processes, no
doubt, it is most important to support the integration of planning processes that bare
relevance to a particular corridor initiative to achieve a broader-scale planning.
3
Section 2.2: A Collaborative Governance Framework p. 29
“Partnerships can involve state, territory and local governments, conservation groups, nongovernment organisations, private landholders, industry and businesses and Indigenous and
community [insert: organizations and] groups”.
Note that a number of the principles for collaborative governance mentioned in a generic sense
(p. 30) have already been used in the context of promoting and facilitating dialogue amongst
stakeholders for the development and agreement of governance arrangements in Australia like
for instance for Habitat 141 (see Scherl 2010 attached). This could be specifically mentioned
in the plan. Note in this attached document that there are other broad principles for
collaborative governance such as: Participation, coordination, capacity, etc..that could be also
mentioned and defined here. Moreover, it is not just “principles” that needs to be mentioned
but also the “process” which should strive to be equitable in terms of participation. In
addition, there are a number of factors that influence the development of such governance
arrangements that can be also mentioned. Much guidance can also be obtained from recent
literature and analysis on collaborative governance (see for instance a recent book review at
the Australasian Journal of Environmental Management (May, 2012) related to this topic).
Table 1 Collaborative governance and management framework p 31 presents a very linear
model for understanding collaborations and functions that could potentially be developed and
undertaken by a range of stakeholders. Guidance for potential collaboration and partnerships
for wildlife corridor design, implementation and management in this plan should be seen more
as an evolving organic system whereas depending on a particular context different stakeholders
at different levels may play a range of roles and take on different responsibilities.
Understanding such roles, responsibilities and rights of a range of stakeholders at different
levels is part of the discussion and negotiation of a collaborative governance arrangement at
any given context. Guidance for collaborative governance approaches in this national wildlife
plan should bare this in mind and portray more flexibility than what is conveyed through this
table. For instance, clearly in some of the existing corridor initiatives to date it has been NGOs
partnering with community groups that have led major corridor initiatives (but this is not
recognized in this table). In the future there could be indigenous organization partnering with
NGOs that will lead corridor initiatives - where is the scope for this to be represented in this
tabular format with the present content of functions across the different levels? What is the role
of the private sector and industry, if any, in the future? Where can they be positioned in such
partnership? What is the role of NGOs, indigenous organization operating at all levels for
instance, to establish a nation-wide vision and to influence the development of policy for
connectivity conservation in Australia – surely this is not something to be monopolized by
institutions operating at the national level only? There should be an encouragement and
recognition that vision and leadership can come from all levels and from all sectors.
4
Appendix B Prospective corridor initiatives
Another initiative should be considered - a northern Australian corridor from Kimberley to
Cape York that brings natural, cultural and institutional elements together not just wildlife or
natural.
There is in the northern region: an opportunity to build from existing efforts that is already
addressing a number of environmental issues and building social and institutional capital; the
need to respond to existing and emerging threats; and an opportunity to develop a world class
corridor that goes well beyond just environmental issue.
5