Mr Bob Debus
Chair
National Wildlife Corridors Plan Advisory Group
20 February 2012
Dear Mr Debus
As a retired forester who worked in farm forestry, revegetation and Landcare
for over thirty years, and a campaigner for major revegetation throughout
that time, I am very excited about the prospects for a national corridors –
biolinks – system financed through carbon taxes and trading. Here are my
views, even though your advisory group, which has been operating
somewhat unpublicised for nine months, may well have advanced far
beyond my position. Indeed, I hope it has!
Note that I use the term ‘biolink’, coined to the best of my knowledge in the
Victorian Wimmera early in the 2000s within Project Hindmarsh – but I
could be wrong. I also employ the word ‘biosink’ – an obvious combination
of biolink and carbon sink, which you are welcome to use without
qualification. I even talk about ‘bonkolinks’ – corridors of vegetation to
facilitate sex between native animals and plants! Again, use the term
anywhere you wish.
I presume your group is overseeing the planning phase. I feel that, in this
case, planning must recognise and relate to what has already happened on
the ground in every state and territory, which is substantial. Rather than
another ministerially endorsed glossy volume, this is a time for planning as
you go, for understanding that the most important element in the scheme’s
success will be people, especially in local and regional communities, and
practices. Of course there are many other elements, but as I shall put
forward, building on what’s been done, we should get under way right now.
I don't believe planning should concentrate on the traditional ecologists’ and
academics’ reports. Instead I suggest that much of the $10 million
apparently allocated for planning be divided between the several existing
projects in Western Australia, South Australia and eastern Australia, and in
the Top End of the Northern Territory.
The projects would then press on and get works completed over the next
year or so, at the same time being subject to efficiency studies by
appropriate management consultants, starting with what’s worked so far.
Planning in other words should be directed at finding the best degree of
devolution, organisational structures, financial procedures, legal aspects,
technical support frameworks, community education and PR, verification
and monitoring systems and the use of credits and offsets for local and
regional community enterprises. Ecological planning can proceed in tandem.
Remember also that regional and local entities are the only efficient way to
organise seed collection and seedling production.
You yourself in 2007 contributed to a lengthy New South Wales paper
detailing how an Alps to Cape York biolink would work. What has that
program achieved? What could it have done better? Western Australia’s
Gondwana Link has been very successful – it merely needs, I presume, more
resources to increase the scale of its operations. What has made it so
effective? On the other hand, Habitat 141 in south-east Australia seemed to
founder for a while. Why? These are the areas to look at during the planning
phase, not how many species will be saved or which national parks will be
keystones. People, process and performance must be the program’s
priorities, with ecosystem integrity part of the process, not dominating!
I make these other points.
Ms Carina Wyborn of ANU is completing a PhD on major biolink programs,
which has taken her to the United States and all over Australia. I heard her
speak recently; her material should be published as a book to help launch
and guide the program. Given my long experience in community
environmental projects, I was not surprised that her observations and ideas
aligned with my own, but they crystallised the situation superbly.
Converting her research to a book would not take very long, or be very
expensive, and as I said, would greatly stimulate the program.
Incidentally, Carina points out that the last few years have clarified that
national-scale wildlife corridors need not be solid strips of indigenous
vegetation several kilometres wide, blocking out farming and other rural
enterprises. One looks at a much broader but less dense belt, making use of
remnant vegetation, agroforests, wetlands, stretches of native pasture, stock
routes, main roads and railways, shelterbelts, revegetation and communitymanaged fuelwood forests, linked with supplementary planting and seeding
to minimise or eliminate gaps. Indeed, properties whose owners practise
conservation agriculture may well also form useful components of future
broad-scale biolinks. Again this highlights the need to devolve planning.
Creating a national network of corridors boils down to decision-making,
planning, action and maintenance at local and regional levels, freely and
generously supported by regional, state and national bodies ranging from
municipalities and catchment management authorities to Canberra
departments. It will be a democratic community enterprise – with Landcare
an obvious foundation in many areas – and strong Indigenous participation.
Carina Wyborn describes the organisation chart as needing to be an upsidedown pyramid, with local communities focused at the point, rather than
some centralised distant authority, as is traditional. I felt the same way in my
Landcare days, or I used the analogy of a table: all parties around the table
were equal when working together on a project, although the make-up would
most likely differ when the next project commenced. The legs of the table
were the various tiers of government and major national supporters such as
Landcare Australia Limited and Greening Australia Limited. They rarely
led, but always supported.
You can thus imagine my sorrow to see that the first phase of your grant
distribution, launched late last year, is centralised in Canberra, especially
when there are both state-run apparatuses such as CMAs and many highly
ethical and experienced Landcare networks that could just as well or better
disburse this money. I trust future funding rounds will be decided regionally,
perhaps by joint working groups from the networks and NRM bodies.
Landcare Australia Ltd has operated for twenty-one years, raising millions
of dollars from business and philanthropists for community environmental
projects. With its experience in PR, it should be part of the program.
Moreover, in Victoria two trusts have emerged, Dahl and the reconstructed
NRCL, which aim to finance revegetation. A major credit union, mecu, has
also invested in a biolinks program – Habitat 141.
I suggest provision for specialised habitat creation and management, for
example in northern Victoria, nesting havens for bush stone-curlew – with
technical supervision, of course. Moreover, re-habilitating or re-establishing
native grassland and wetlands must be part of the program where appropriate
– this is not just about trees!
Needless to say the various state Trusts for Nature should also be involved,
with their experience in covenanting and their knowledgeable staffs.
Moreover, in Victoria, a new sort of regional Landcare entity has emerged:
conservation management groups, dedicated to habitat management and
restoration, of which there are several. They form a useful adjunct to
mainstream Landcare.
As a landowner with 220 hectares of covenanted woodland around St
Arnaud, Victoria, I belong to Kara Kara Conservation Management
Network, formed one year ago to work hand-in-hand with the regional
Landcare network and CMA, and incidentally Bush Heritage Australia, to
manage and extend wildlife habitat.
As your program will be a large one, why not establish a university chair at a
regional college, combining Landcare and biolink studies? Somewhat
related, why not have artists-in-residence, including Indigenous ones – not
unlike during Roosevelt’s New Deal – to chronicle and depict the
community at work, and compile a lasting cultural record of this great
endeavour.
A perhaps unforeseen benefit of these national-scale biolinks will be the
creation of many opportunities for recreational tracks for walking, cycling
and riding. Again, these thoroughfares can only be negotiated, constructed
and maintained through collaboration at local and regional levels. Trust and
generosity are paramount – legislation won’t help much.
Carina found that the US projects she visited weren’t exactly streets ahead of
us. This clearly is an opportunity to show the world that Australia can and is
starting to repair the environmental damage suffered over the last 200 years.
I suggest that your program should look at reinforcing Landcare Australia,
Greening Australia and Conservation Volunteers Australia. These
organisations have proved their capacity to raise project funds, provide
technical support to revegetation, and manage community volunteers.
Support for Bush Heritage Australia should also be considered, and the
evolution of commercial bushland broker-contractors such as Greenhouse
Balanced encouraged.
Finally, I raise the matter of verification and monitoring. Landcare networks,
with training, and supported by a national specialist travelling team
combining assessment skills with the ability to give sound management
advice, could do this work to a high degree of satisfaction.
I trust that you will have time to consider these points.
Yours sincerely
Rob Youl OAM
APPENDIX I
I would like to quote some of my colleagues.
Matt Reddy, CEO, International River Foundation, Brisbane:
 Biodiversity enhancements would be maximised by using our rivers
as corridors, thus supporting aquatic ecosystems more directly – rather
than concentrating on the mountain chains where the parks mostly are
 Riparian revegetation is well understood by private landholders;
funding always seems to be the issue
 Rivers are also the target for CMA funding and often have many of
the jigsaw pieces in place
 Hills to Ocean, Ridge to Reef, Basalt to Bay, Craters to Coast, Desert
to Dune – these existing projects capture a wide range of bioregions. I
think this is the key – including as many ecosystems as possible and
having a name that captures the imagination
 I believe it’s a mistake to focus, as has been often the case, on one
vegetation community, for example, grasslands, red gum forests,
coastal heaths; instead look to having as many as possible vegetation
communities in a single project
Ray Thomas, Manager, Regent Honeyeater Project, Benalla:
Planting totals for 2011 – restoring the Lurg Hills landscape

 1120 school students participated in over 31 community days, planting a
total of 12 537 seedlings
 447 volunteers attended our community events, with 16 168 seedlings
planted all up
 the total for the year was 32 500 seedlings
 we restored some 70 hectares of habitat on 25 sites
 we constructed 14 kilometres of fencing
Below is the project map, which shows how we are connecting remnants
within the district and also linking to major vegetation features beyond our
district.
Positive results show up in our regular monitoring of grey-crowned babblers
squirrel gliders, and two regent honeyeaters have returned at last.
Overall achievements – Regent Honeyeater Project
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
number of
23
sites fenced
24
39
22
23
16
17
20
30
16
17
23
15
16
20
346
kilometres
of fencing
13
21
13
12
13
67
12
20
9
17
16
14
9
14
267
hectares of
habitat
93.5
protected
93
108
80
70
68.2
56.1
72.1
95.0
34.7
56.13
103
106.9
110.5
70.6
1344
number of
13
sites planted
46
21
33
39
24
35
40
45
23
28
29
21
24
25
463
seedlings
planted
17
22 000 28 000 19 000 28 000 35 000 26 775 31 575 33 520 45 400 28 230 38 019 34 585 35 621 35 700 32 500 488 925
seedlings
21 000 21 000 24 000 20 000 25 000 31 550 28 350 40 000 45 000 47 300 45 000 39760 45 020 45 000
propagated
number of
direct
seeding sites
nestboxes
placed
1
2
10
0
2
1
2
0
0
9
9
10
450 680
4
50
17
21
31
69
19
11
23
0
21
0
26
178
33
0
landholders
26
involved
30
27
22
23
11
32
26
33
18
21
24
28
20
24
141
schools
involved
11
12
17
16
16
18
22
23
23
25
20
23
20
19
38
students
involved
1885
2000
1350
2058
2100
15 658
community
volunteers
440
460
550
674
560
7084
2325
2460
1900
2732
2660
22 742
total
number of
people
10
750
700
750
750
900
1590
1256
1630
1930
411
Christopher King, landowner, Avoca River catchment
In relation to DSE’s Bushbroker scheme, the rules specify fencing sites to
stockproof standards. Where adjacent properties have lain fallow for twenty
years or more and boundary fences have collapsed, it would make more
sense to remove the fences and join properties into a larger habitat zone, if
neighbours are like-minded. The arrangement would have to be legal and
binding. I have communicated my views on this to DSE through the
Bushbroker reporting tool.
In my situation near Avoca, three of the four adjoining properties are
remnant or regrowth, and two have absentee owners who haven’t been near
their places for decades. The fences have collapsed. Native animals move
freely across this contiguous area of 80 hectares to the nearby Pyrenees State
Forest. The map below shows this readily.
An agreement among landowners and some support from DSE could see this
area fenced externally, if indeed deemed necessary, and the interior fences
removed. The land between this habitat cluster and the state forest consists
of many smaller allotments that may have originally been mining claims.