Aiming for ‘highest practicable extent’ improvement

Abstract

This issue's interview with Bruce Clarkson, restoration ecologist from University of Waikato, New Zealand, reminds us of the importance of aiming high in ecosystem management, particularly in the face of temptation to prematurely close off options for improved ecological outcomes. A proposal to turn part of one neglected wildland gully in the suburbs (de facto ‘wastelands’ at the time) into an actual landfill site, helped galvanise community interest in removing weeds and replanting native species. Decades later, with the support of a range of partners including Hamilton City, many community groups and the University of Waikato, the planting exercise has evolved into a genuine effort to restore pre-existing indigenous ecosystems. This is not to say that we should overlook the biodiversity value of sites where restoration is not likely and the land has been effectively converted to other uses. One such case is described in this issue's feature article by Gary Luck and colleagues describing the value of almond plantations to supplement food and shelter provided by adjacent remnant vegetation. Luck's paper comments on ways to optimise biodiversity benefits, showing that both restoration of remnant vegetation and improved ecological management of the agricultural zone would each conform to ‘highest practicable extent’ or ‘restorative’ management. No ecologist would suggest, of course, that almond plantations would be a suitable alternative to remnant vegetation, but there is a growing interest worldwide in improving the ways we utilise and manage production landscapes, so that they can contribute to our nations’ formal commitments to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. Notably, Rachel Standish and Kris Hulvey – in their comment piece in this issue – add weight to the notion that Australia should grasp the opportunity to raise the condition of degraded or utilised lands by raising standards for biodiversity co-benefits in carbon plantings. Such plantings draw on a combination of public investment and carbon credits purchased by industry and are predicated on the well-known fact, also referred to by Clarkson in his interview, that public funding is insufficient alone to meet the challenge of conserving biodiversity. Philanthropic sources of funding are being sought in Australasia, as elsewhere, to supplement the public purse in the support of private conservation reserves. This trend is paying off – as illustrated by some of the examples in the Clarkson interview as well as this issue's guest editorial by Jim Radford. Radford's editorial focuses on the contribution of private conservation reserves to biodiversity conservation in Australia, including those owned and managed by not for profits and by Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities in both Australia and New Zealand are also acknowledged in articles in this issue as playing important roles in land management and influencing changes in attitude among more recently arrived populations towards more regionally appropriate land management styles. This is not to suggest that we can do without public funding. Public funding is essential to ensure that the whole of society is involved and that governments are answerable to communities rather than private interests alone. But private contributions have proven invaluable for improving efficiencies and providing competition to keep the public system on its toes. This process is likely to be mutually beneficial as long as the funding is reliably additional rather than being used as an excuse to shrink government conservation budgets – a principle that is being tested currently in some Australian states. Long-term effort is also a need identified by many of the papers in this issue. This is important for addressing management issues, particularly of pest species in both private and public lands (see papers by Whinam and colleagues, and by Robinson and Copson) and in our waterways and oceans (see Coleman and Bunting, and Lugg and Copeland). It is also important, however – as John Woinarski points out in his comment piece – that we are not lulled into a mistaken belief that all is well on the basis of superficial appearances. A landscape may look ‘natural’, but may indeed be more dysfunctional than we imagine. There is no guarantee that improvements to land management – particularly in the semi-natural landscapes utilised for production – can securely reduce degradation to a point that further extinctions are not inevitable. But as Woinarski points out, warning bells should be heeded so that we redouble our efforts, not so that we abandon the cause of biodiversity conservation. We do not know what is possible until we have tried it at cumulatively large spatial scales and over long time frames. There are numerous examples in this issue of projects where consistent effort over time has made a difference. As Clarkson states: ‘..Why would we think that it would not take the same level of resource and time span to restore the system as it took to remove and degrade the system?’