This article was downloaded by: [North West University]On: 18 December 2014, At: 14:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cage20

Learning Conservation: the role ofconservation covenants in landscaperedesign at Project Hindmarsh, VictoriaChris Harrington a b c , Ruth Lane a b c & David Mercer a b ca Charles Sturt University , Australiab RMIT University , Australiac RMIT University , AustraliaPublished online: 23 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Chris Harrington , Ruth Lane & David Mercer (2006) Learning Conservation: therole of conservation covenants in landscape redesign at Project Hindmarsh, Victoria, AustralianGeographer, 37:2, 187-209, DOI: 10.1080/00049180600672342

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049180600672342

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Learning Conservation: the role ofconservation covenants in landscape redesignat Project Hindmarsh, Victoria

CHRIS HARRINGTON, RUTH LANE & DAVID MERCER, CharlesSturt University, Australia; RMIT University, Australia; RMIT University,Australia

ABSTRACT Biodiversity decline continues apace across the Australian landscape with a

pressing need to redesign land use to address this situation. The significance of private land

increasingly is recognised for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity as landholders

inevitably make decisions that affect environmental quality. Biodiversity conservation is as

much a social process as a physical one. Conservation covenants are perpetual agreements

under which landholders choose to conserve land voluntarily, primarily for conservation

purposes. The role covenants might play in landscape-scale conservation was investigated

in north-western Victoria. In-depth interviews with a range of participants were

undertaken, with an emphasis on the role covenantors might play as social learning and

cultural change agents. Analysis of these interviews offers useful perspectives for under-

standing socio-cultural dimensions of landscape change and exploring the differing values

of production farmers and nature conservation landholders. Consideration is then given to

approaches to engaging local production farmers in nature covenants and promoting

communication between this group and the largely non-production conservationists who

currently form the mainstay of conservation covenants.

KEY WORDS Biodiversity; Conservation covenants; learning communities; post-

production landscapes; Wimmera-Mallee; Australia.

Introduction

Increasingly, around the world, there is growing recognition of the need to address

ecological planning problems at the landscape scale (Hamilton & Selman, 2005;

Bennett 1999). In the rural areas of Australia, landscape and natural resources

issues such as salinity, vegetation loss, biodiversity decline, erosion and the

proliferation of exotic species pose well-documented threats to ecological and

agricultural sustainability (Morgan 2001; Saunders & Briggs 2002; Department of

Environment Sport and Territories Biodiversity Unit 1993; Norton 1999). A key

message of the Blueprint for a Living Continent report (Wentworth Group 2002) is

the need to protect and restore Australia’s degraded landscapes to address such

ISSN 0004-9182 print/ISSN 1465-3311 online/06/020187-23 # 2006 Geographical Society of New South Wales Inc.

DOI: 10.1080/00049180600672342

Australian Geographer, Vol. 37, No. 2,

pp. 187�/209, July 2006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

pressing issues. The importance of the private land estate increasingly is recognised

for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity (Kirkpatrick 1999; Crosthwaite

et al . 2003; Victorian Catchment Management Council/Department of Sustain-

ability and Environment 2003). However, the question of who bears the costs for

biodiversity preservation on private lands is highly contentious and the subject of

wide debate (Department of Treasury and Finance, 2005). Appropriate mechan-

isms and programmes such as conservation covenants have a significant role to play

in ensuring long-term protection of conservation values with the direct involvement

of landholders (O’May 1999).

From 1997 to 2001, a $A3 billion investment was made by the Common-

wealth government in the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) (Crowley, 2001).

Although programmes such as Landcare have achieved some success in

promoting a land stewardship ethic, positive land-use change and biodiversity

conservation have not been notable outcomes (Bennett 2002; Curtis 2003; Gill

2004; Wilson 2004). Conservation covenants could be seen to complement the

aims of the National Heritage Trust Act 1997 (Cwth) in maintaining, conserving,

preserving and protecting remnant native vegetation, biodiversity, natural

resources and environmental infrastructure. While Williams (2004) considers

conservation covenants to be an important means for securing the long-term

future of NHT outcomes, thus far they have not been widely adopted in rural

agricultural areas in Australia. This is in contrast to the situation in the United

States, where the 50-year-old Nature Conservancy estate now exceeds 6 million

ha (ABC 2004). However, the value of providing learning and experiential

opportunities in biodiversity conservation through community involvement and

landholder networks has been widely recognised in Australia (Stephens 2002a,

2002b). Such involvement can be a challenge in rural areas where population

decline and ageing, decreasing farm numbers and services, and economic

problems are all clearly evident (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002; Alexandra

& Riddington in press).

In Australia, conservation covenants are a relatively new mechanism for the

protection of natural and cultural values, and have not yet been used extensively

(Department of Environment and Heritage 2004). In the State of Victoria, Trust

for Nature (TfN), is an independent not-for-profit organisation established under

the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 (Vic; Government of Victoria 1972). The

TfN makes use of conservation covenants and direct purchase to achieve its goals

and has been used as a model in other States (Trust for Nature 2004).

Conservation covenants represent an expansion of the Trust’s role in land

stewardship, with the first covenant being registered in 1987 (Jones 1989; Williams

2004). High priority is accorded to obtaining landholder support for the protection

of significant vegetation remnants on private land. Covenants may be applied to all

or part of an area of freehold land for the purpose of permanently protecting the

natural, cultural and/or scientific values. The covenant is registered on the

Certificate of Title and, in theory, binds future owners to the terms and conditions

specified. In an ideal world, all future owners would respect the legal obligations

attached to the title, but this is by no means guaranteed.

Situated firmly in the theoretical tradition surrounding ‘networking’ in rural

areas (Lee et al . 2005), this paper explores the potential of conservation covenants

to act as socio-cultural change agents in areas currently dominated by production

agriculture. It demonstrates the significance of the community networks that

188 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

surround both nature covenant landholders and production landholders in shaping

values, aspirations and on-the-ground actions. The main aims are to identify the

principal participants, to reveal their attitudes, motivations, values, and issues, and

to explore the groups, networks and social settings in which they participate.

Particular consideration is given to the concept of ‘learning communities’ (Falk &

Kilpatrick 2000) for promoting biodiversity conservation on private land. Sugges-

tions are made as to how the structure and implementation of funding programmes

might be adapted to foster appropriate networking and social learning opportu-

nities that could promote meaningful engagement and knowledge-sharing between

covenantors, production farmers and the broader networks and institutions of

which they are a part.

Biodiversity conservation on private land

The magnitude of biodiversity loss in Australia is well-documented and most

recently has been highlighted in the National Land and Water Resources Audit

(2002). This identified some 1600 flora and fauna species facing extinction and a

total of 2891 threatened ecosystems and ecological communities. To halt and

reverse this trend, we need to protect and rebuild our landscapes within the

constraints of Australia’s environmental conditions, effectively redesigning land use

(Main 2005). The National Reserve System comprises just over 5 per cent of

Australia and is regarded as insufficient to provide an adequate representation of

the country’s biodiversity (Worboys et al . 2005). Private land ownership represents

two-thirds of the Australian landmass and is now recognised as an essential element

for the conservation and protection of Australia’s biodiversity (Commonwealth of

Australia 1996; Department of Natural Resources and Environment 1997;

Fitzsimons & Wescott 2001; Productivity Commission 2001; Figgis 2004). For

example, in Victoria, over 66 per cent of land is held in private freehold ownership,

with 95 per cent of that already cleared for agriculture and urban development

(Department of Primary Industries 2004; Trust for Nature 2004).

Implementation approaches to biodiversity conservation on private land gen-

erally are classified as regulatory, market-based incentives and voluntarist

approaches, or persuasion. ‘Best practice’ invariably involves a selection, or mix

of these (Karp & Gaulding 1995; Pierce 1996). While regulation has achieved

limited success on its own, persuasive approaches that emphasise motivation,

education, participation and social learning may offer further potential.

However, Cary et al . (2002: ix) argue that pro-environmental and stewardship

values have a relatively minor influence on behaviour change towards sustainable

practices among production farmers, claiming that ‘the impacts of recent

and likely future structural and social changes in agriculture will have a significant

effect on the capacity of landholders to improve the sustainability of land use’.

There is strong potential for covenants to be more widely used in the context of

structural and social changes in agriculture. Covenants attach binding rights to

property titles while at the same time prescribing ‘best practice’ land management

for future property owners. They may also provide financial incentives (Pierce

1996; Young et al . 1996; Curtis et al . 2002).

Viewing biodiversity conservation as both a social and a physical process is

essential. There are, of course, multiple ways of ‘knowing’ nature (Hull 2000).

Meanings, perceptions and values are not homogenous, and are often contested

Learning Conservation 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

and grounded in complex, socio-cultural interactions (Lockwood 2005). For

instance, farmers and conservationists often have quite different perceptions of

ecological concepts and priorities for landscape conservation. Commonly, the

former are largely concerned with instrumental values associated with running a

viable business, and the latter with intrinsic natural values and post-productivist

landscapes (Argent, 2002).1 Critics of the recent policy emphasis on regional

communities in natural resource management highlight that communities are not

necessarily inclusive or characterised by consensus (Agrawal & Gibson 1999;

Liepins 2000; Lane & McDonald 2005). Community divisions, structures and

hierarchies can be significant in shaping responses to issues ‘on the ground’ (Lane

& McDonald 2005). While much of the current policy emphasis is on communities

of place , communities of interest may be equally important.

The role of local knowledge, values and participation is widely acknowledged as

improving understanding of biodiversity conservation at the on-farm, landscape

and protected area scales (Agrawal & Gibson 1999; Pretty & Ward 2001; Lane &

McDonald 2005). When people are well connected in groups and networks, and

their knowledge is sought and incorporated, they are more likely to sustain

stewardship and protection in the long-term (Berkes 2004; Pretty & Smith 2004).

Some writers have emphasised the important role that social learning can play in

facilitating the spread of new ideas (Kilpatrick & Falk 2003; Kilpatrick & Vanclay

2005). Landholders and groups involved in conservation may exert significant

influence for attitudinal change, act as surrogate extension officers, send significant

signals to others and act as models for better conservation practices (Lambert,

quoted in Figgis 2004: 22; Kahn et al . 2005).

Project Hindmarsh

Situated in the Wimmera-Mallee region of north-western Victoria, Project

Hindmarsh (PH) was initiated by the Hindmarsh Landcare Network in 1997

and covers all of the Hindmarsh Shire (an area of approximately 7,422 square

kilometres) and part of the West Wimmera Shire (Figure 1). This part of

Victoria is notable for being the first area in the State (in December, 2005) to

see a successful native title claim. Over 80 per cent of the Wimmera has been

cleared for agriculture, leading to wind erosion, greatly reduced biodiversity and

dryland salinity. With only an estimated 3 per cent of the Shire’s original

vegetation intact, private land contains pockets of significant habitat (Hindmarsh

Shire 2000). The main aims of PH have been to extend revegetation works,

protect fragile cropping soils and enhance agricultural production, create

vegetation corridors between isolated remnants, and provide habitat for

endangered species on both public and private land (Dodds 1999). Remnant

vegetation supports a diverse range of flora and fauna, and a large number of

threatened species. It is believed that retention of at least 30�/35 per cent of

native vegetation in rural landscapes is required to maintain diversity (Radford et

al . 2004; Olsen et al . 2005). Of Victoria’s 75 rare and endangered species, 31

occur in the region and 21 are endemic (Natural Heritage Trust 2004). Priority

and incentives such as rate rebates and access to on-ground works are currently

provided to private landholders who permanently protect remnants though

covenants, enhance existing remnants or establish large Ecological Vegetation

190 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Class (EVC) restoration sites (Watt 2005). There are currently eight covenants

in the Hindmarsh Shire, totalling 2210 ha.

Data collection

In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews were undertaken with eight land-

holders/committee of management members (comprising five non-production and

three production ‘farmers’) and five staff from organisations/agencies in the project

area (Dunn 2000). A mix of non-random purposeful sampling techniques was

adopted, with criterion sampling used for participant selection. Participants were

selected on the basis of their involvement with conservation covenants and/or

involvement in Project Hindmarsh. Snowball sampling was used to identify

additional participants. Landholder or institutional information and identities are

protected by using pseudonyms and masking for participant anonymity. Critical

reflexivity was adopted to provide an appropriate strategy to deal with issues of

subjectivity and intersubjectivity (Dowling 2000).

Interviews*/ranging from 45 minutes to 3 hours in duration*/were conducted

in the period November 2004 to February 2005, both in the Wimmera-Mallee

region and in Melbourne. Questions covered themes such as background and

involvement; reasons for participation; current and future issues and groups,

networks and social settings in which covenants might be discussed. Partial

transcripts were created from each interview to provide a summary of key issues

and information provided. These were cross-checked against notes taken and an

index of responses was generated (Baker 1999).

FIGURE 1. Project Hindmarsh and Conservation Covenant Distribution. The updatedcovenant distribution was unavailable at the time of publication. At least one covenanted

property is not shown on this map.

Learning Conservation 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Results

Participant descriptions in Table 1 show a strong interest in conservation and diverse

representation of covenant property types, ranging from remnants to partially cleared

farms. Two, privately owned, covenanted properties have owners residing in

Melbourne, one in the Wimmera-Mallee, one in Local Government ownership

(Wimmera) and two TfN-owned properties. It is noteworthy that 10 participants are

geographically located in the Wimmera-Mallee area, but none of the project area’s

production farms have covenants currently attached. At present, there are no

permanent residents on covenanted properties, indicating that nature conservation is

the primary land use on these properties. The mix of participants represented and the

skills and expertise they bring to the project suggest a capacity for substantial on-

ground outcomes at the local scale. The TfN is the only institutional participant

dedicated to conservation covenants and relies on other institutions and landholders

to provide resources, information and promote covenants.

Three key themes emerged from participant responses on the role and benefits of

conservation covenants and participation in PH. These related to: (1) values and

motivations of participants; (2) groups and networks; and (3) benefits of experience

and learning.

Values and motivations

Overall, those who were already actively involved in TfN placed a strong emphasis

on preservation and protection of existing habitat and remnants. Terry, a retired

farmer who chairs the Mt Elgin Swamp Committee, believed that ‘You can’t regrow

habitat like that . . . we have seen swamps cleared*/you can never restore it, it takes

years’. Greg, who was instrumental in establishing the Nhill Sun-Moth Reserve,

explained that ‘preserving the original ecosystem is always the best option to take;

sometimes we adopt a negligent approach because we think we can put it back’.

Tim, a retired local school teacher, involved with a number of TfN-owned

properties, stated that:

I came to the realisation that if you are going to conserve species you need

to conserve the habitat. If you save the habitat, you not only save the target

species but [also save] all the other things that live in that habitat.

Further, from a protection perspective, Greg thought that:

Remnant sites represent complexities that cannot be replicated and can

provide future resources for biodiversity. Preserving flagship species is

important and covenants buy time for species.

Lindsay, a member of the Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) who

became a committee member on Project Hindmarsh, argued that not only did

habitat and species need protection, but so too did the whole landscape:

The area is not an iconic landscape but a subtle one. You almost need to

be educated to the subtleties, the keys to the landscape signature such as

landforms, flora, rivers, etc. These features need protection.

Interestingly, the need to protect new works was not seen as a major motivating

factor for individual landholders, with more emphasis being placed on this aspect

192 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

TABLE 1. Participants’ background and involvement

Representing Background and involvement Ownership and location

Landholder(s)�/ Conservation Ted and Marg purchased 621 ha of farmland in 2003 and placed a covenant on 100%of the property. They hope to live on the property eventually when they retire fromworking in Melbourne in 2005.

PrivateMelbourne

Sandy’s 1000 ha remnant covenanted property adjoins the Little Desert National Park(NP) and was purchased in the early 1970s by her late husband and a friend who werekeen naturalists. Living in the Project area on a small non-production farmletadjoining a Flora & Fauna Reserve, and retired from the health industry, she doesnot visit the property often.

PrivateWimmera-Mallee

Landholder(s)�/Co-operative Frank is a founding member of the Co-op based in Melbourne, which ownsapproximately 1000 ha of remnant covenanted land adjacent to the Little Desert NP,with two adjoining covenanted blocks of 600 ha each in private ownership. Approx100 members purchased the land in 1973 to protect intact conservation values duringthe environmental battle over the proposed subdivision of the Little Desert (Robin 1998).

PrivateMelbourne

Landholder(s)�/ Production Russell and Wendy are broadacre farmers who have lived and worked in the area alltheir lives. They are involved with Landcare and are currently considering placing acovenant on a 125 ha remnant bush block on their farm abutting Wyperfeld NP.

Private (Considering1covenant)WimmeraMallee

Phil has returned to manage the family farm after working in Melbourne for severalyears. As a new-generation farmer, he has recently taken the role of LandcarePresident, made inquiries about placing a covenant on a small grazed remnant on hisland and assists other landholders interested in conservation.

Private (Consideringcovenant)Mallee

TfN-Committee Greg was instrumental in the establishment of the 4.5 ha Nhill Sun-Moth Reserve.The entire property is covenanted and owned by the Hindmarsh Shire, with aCommittee responsible for long-term habitat management.

Local GovernmentWimmera

Tim is a retired local school teacher. He is a Committee Member of TfN-ownedproperties at Snape Reserve, Mt Elgin Swamp and Sun-Moth Reserve and has beeninvolved with Project Hindmarsh since its inception.

InstitutionMelbourne

Terry chairs the Mt Elgin Swamp Committee. He has lived in the area all his life, as afarmer for 50 years. Now retired, he describes himself as ‘a hobby farmer who gotinterested in the environment as I got older’

InstitutionMelbourne

Lea

rnin

gC

onserv

ation

193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Representing Background and involvement Ownership and location

NGO-VNPA Lindsay has a longstanding interest/involvement emanating from teaching in the areain the 1960s and later as a Committee Member on Project Hindmarsh. ‘The VNPAleaped at the opportunity to get some hands-on activities for its members and bringthe city and country together’.

InstitutionMelbourne

NGO�/Greening Australia (GA) As the Project Manager and on-ground service provider, GA has been involved inProject Hindmarsh from the beginning. As a former farmer in the area, RegionalManager, Fred, brings a range of skills, knowledge and capacity to the project.

InstitutionWimmera

Government�/CatchmentManagement Authority(CMA)

The CMA provides significant funds for biodiversity projects, including project workfor covenanting properties and management assistance.

InstitutionWimmera

NGO�/ TfN Ned is the TfN Regional Manager and assists landholders to place covenants on theirproperties. He is involved with various Committees, helps with flora and faunasurveys, and provides advice on property management and potential funding sources.He feels that ‘although only one additional covenant has been signed since PH began,existing properties have been assisted considerably for plant-outs and on-groundworks’.

InstitutionWimmera

Government�/LocalGovernment

David is Mayor of the Shire and a local farmer ‘. . . the mixture and interactionbetween the farming community and city people has been great’, as is ‘. . . thebuilding of exemplary partnerships’.

Local GovernmentWimmera

194

C.

Harrin

gtonet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

by institutional participants. Ned, the TfN Regional Manager, explained that ‘there

is some concern over wasted effort when planting on properties . . . covenants can

offer protection’.

Several interviewees described the personal rewards gained through their

participation in the project. Ted and Marg purchased 621 ha of farmland in

2003 and placed a covenant on the entire property. Ted explained their motivations

in terms of the personal rewards associated with progressing strongly felt values in

biodiversity:

If you talk the talk, it’s about time you did some of it*/to drive in the front

gate the mindset changes, to see the seasonal changes, seeding times, the

interaction of the natural habitat*/the rewards are tremendous.

According to Lindsay, all those involved in Project Hindmarsh gained a similar

feeling of personal rewards from their labours:

Our members get a tremendous sense that they are doing good by

improving the natural environment.

Increasing amenity, image and interest in the area are goals which reflect

participants’ perceptions of place. Wendy highlighted that a major reason for

participation in Project Hindmarsh was to enhance the area visually: ‘those bare

areas look hot, dry and dusty and we would like to make it look more appealing’.

This point was reinforced by Fred, who said that:

Rather than driving out of town and seeing power poles and bare fields,

trees in the landscape make a big difference to the way people think about

the area. We need to have something that gets people to stop and look,

rather than driving through . . ..

Conservation covenants may well have a role to play in this process:

Whole farm covenants are so, so important because they protect amenity

as well as remnants and assist a landholder to protect an entire landscape

that will be there for the kids and grandchildren. (Ned, TfN)

Both institutions and private landholders emphasised the importance of landscape-

scale conservation. From an institutional point of view, the role of covenants and

PH has been:

. . . strategically targeting areas where linkages exist and reconnecting them

has been a real benefit of the Biolink [PH]. We attempt to incorporate

connectivity to all covenanted properties by offering incentives to

adjoining landholders. (Ned, TfN)

For example, Ted’s property is strategically positioned in the landscape in close

proximity to the Big Desert, an adjoining bushland reserve, an uncleared block on

one side and a roadside reserve. He aims to ‘bring a chunk of land back to life, with

habitat and connectivity in a broadacre farming environment’. Lindsay would like

to see covenants in areas that:

enhance corridors and reinstate quality natural areas. It would be great to

see them as buffers to parks and reserves and restore splendid features

such as wetlands.

Learning Conservation 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Landholders considered that planning for the future was particularly important,

and both landholders and institutions mentioned the potential for an emerging

market in nature conservation. Frank, a founding member of a landholder

cooperative, noted that, ‘there is an increasing environmental awareness and

interest from the general population in doing things’, adding that, to his knowledge,

‘covenanted properties have never sold for less than purchase price’. David, who

juggles the roles of Mayor and local farmer, believed that Project Hindmarsh had

made local people see that ‘conservation can be a good thing and beneficial for

farming’. However Ned, the TfN regional manager, emphasised how important it is

to ‘ensure that the intention of the covenant is maintained by future owners’.

Table 2 provides an indication of issues and challenges that face landowners of

covenanted properties and are ranked and grouped by individual participant

interview responses. These responses reflect themes of (1) values and motivation;

(2) importance of groups and networks; and (3) benefits of experience and learning.

Remnant protection, establishing the value and benefit of covenanted properties,

management and stewardship responsibilities and adjoining property impacts are

very important for landholders/committees and, to a lesser degree, for institutions.

The perception that covenants are restrictive was most important for institutions

TABLE 2. Indicative issues and challenges for covenanted properties (landholders/manage-ment committees and institutions)

Issues and challenges Landholders ormanagementcommittees

Institutions Total Themesreflected

Importance of remnant protectionover restoration

7 2 9 i, iii

Management and dischargingstewardship

7 2 9 iii

Adjoining property impacts 7 2 9 IiiPerception covenants are restrictive in

production4 5 9 iii

Establishing value and benefit: i, iii�/ Ecological 6 2 8�/ Educational 6 2 8�/ Economic 2 2 4�/ Public Good 1 3 4

Importance of local knowledge 6 2 8 ii, iiiUnderstanding management plans 6 1 7 iiiDemonstrating covenant Importance 6 1 7 ii, iiiAccess to assistance, information,

advice, expertise and support5 1 6 ii

Importance of landscape amenity andenvironmental appreciation

3 3 6 i. iii

Planning for the future, generationaltransfer, on-selling property andmaintaining spirit of covenant

4 2 6 i, ii

Networks, participation & linkingcovenantors

5 0 5 ii

Growing interest and emerging market 3 2 5 iii

Source : interviews.

196 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

but also recognised by landholders/committees. Landholders’ desire for greater

assistance, networking opportunities, information and access to expertise is notable

but not reflected in institutional responses. These outcomes show that landholders

and institutions have unique and varying roles, priorities, issues and challenges.

Further targeted research could help to elucidate the underlying reasons for the

different priorities assigned by landholders and institutions.

Groups and networks

The group/network cited by each participant, direct participation in the group/

network and potential outcomes of participation were discussed with interviewees

(Table 3).

Opportunities for information and knowledge exchange, landholder support,

covenant promotion, education and learning within individual and group contexts

were felt to be potential benefits of participation. Such outcomes were often not

maximised, with six of the 13 interviewees citing covenanted property networks as

important but only two participating to a limited degree. Two landholders voiced

disappointment at the failure to connect like-minded people on covenanted

properties and were unsure why this commonsense approach was not adopted.

Networking opportunities were seen as being inadequate, with several landholders

stating they have strong personal networks on which to draw and would experience

serious management and information difficulties without these groups. No current

covenantors were members of the local Landcare group, and several interviewees

explained that this group has aims which are not always appropriate or sympathetic

towards preferred conservation practices adopted by covenantors.

Benefits of experience and learning

Information exchange, education and action learning are potential outcomes when

covenant landholders have access to support and participation in groups and

TABLE 3. Web of interaction in groups and networks

Group/network Cited by participant Direct participationin group/network

Project Hindmarsh 13 9Landcare Groups 7 2Property owners’ network 6 2Boards and Committees (VNPA,

Reserves, GA and TfN)7 7

Friends & Environmental Groups 5 4Adjoining property owners 4 5TfN�/ Bush October 4 4Field Naturalists 3 3Landcare Australia 3 2Bird Observers and Birds Australia 3 2Indigenous community 3 1Other Landscape Scale Projects 2 2Land Co-operatives 2 2

Source : interviews.

Learning Conservation 197

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

networks. Action learning is an opportunity to gain new skills and knowledge in

group and individual situations by both landholders and institutions. Several

interviewees felt that by setting an example, acquiring and passing on knowledge

to other landholders, influence and cultural change may be possible at the property

and landscape scales. The following examples and comments exemplify the power of

such practice. Ned, for example, stressed that landholders need access to information

about their land to establish value, while Tim noted the importance of education:

If they don’t know what they have got, they don’t know it’s worth

protecting*/that’s the first step. We find that once they know they have

something special on the property, they take a sense of pride, and it makes

them have a rethink about the way they look after the land (Ned TfN).

Once they see a rare thing, the whole attitude to the land changes and they

begin to understand the complexities and manage for the ecosystem.

Education is the key, rather than confrontation (Tim, TfN Committee).

The following examples arose during the interview process and have been selected

as key instances where knowledge exchange and action learning may occur.

Example 1: The quarry (Ned, TfN). A landholder with some previous involvement in

covenants contacted Ned after applying for a permit to clear foliage from part of

their property. He was advised that some foliage removal would be permitted if the

landholder placed a covenant on this area of bushland to ensure it was not ‘chopped

out but protected’. The landholder replied, ‘I don’t want a damn covenant on this

area. I couldn’t stand it. That would be terrible’. The property contained a quarry

with patches of bushland around it. On inspection, Ned explained that a covenant

would not impact on quarry production but that all the bush areas needed fencing,

which would be provided free of charge when a covenant was finalised:

We took the landholder out and showed him the plants, a whole lot of

really interesting native orchids in his bushland area. The next thing I hear

he has taken his mum out and shown her the orchids. She was thrilled and

within 12 months has invited all her friends out for a look. The owner now

wants to turn the quarry into a wetland and place a covenant on all

bushland areas. We have been able to provide assistance with fencing,

vermin control and weeds*/it’s quite staggering and the experience has

been wonderful for the landowner (Ned, TfN)

Example 2: Influencing the right people (Fred, GA; Sandy, Landholder). Fred thinks

influence can be important and that more consideration should be given to the

people who make decisions that determine what happens on the farm.

It’s a hobby horse of mine to think about influencing those people who

make decisions about the choices that farmers might make*/the farm

consultants, agronomists, bankers and real estate agents. They are the

people that are on farms every day and often don’t have the inclination or

time to think about the benefits of bushland.

Sandy considered that local people, especially long-term and respected community

members involved in production agriculture, may have a capacity to influence other

local landholders in establishing nature covenants on their land:

198 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

I am sure they will have quite an influence because they are ‘old

community’ people. If home-grown locals are doing it, others might

take more notice. It has happened with others who have saved remnants

and tackled farming problems through sustainable agriculture and Land-

care.

Example 3: The debate over Rabbits (Ted, Landholder and Others). A potentially

damaging vermin control measure was referred to by many of the interviewees. The

traditional methods for rabbit control in the area have been using 1080 poison in baits

or ripping warrens. These non-selective methods have the capacity to kill native

species through residual effects in the food chain or by damaging habitat. Many

production farmers lack the time or ecological knowledge needed to try new control

methods. However, several covenanted properties now use a manual technique for

burrow fumigation which allows careful species’ targeting and monitoring.

Ted and Marg have made a stand and are fighting a ‘bit of a battle’ with the local

Landcare group over this method:

We invited the group to the property for a ‘show and tell’, to demonstrate

that we wanted to do the right thing and be part of the rabbit busters’

program, but we don’t want to do it your way. I have made a bit of a stand

on the 1080. I have the time and motivation to do it [fumigation] and

recognise that many production landholders may not. To a degree, you are

pioneering this stuff; we have our opinions, and are happy to have them

scrutinised and tested. We get a great sense of satisfaction from

discharging our stewardship obligation and engaging others.

Example 4: Country meets the city, or vice versa? (David, Local Govt.). David

expressed the view that the area is not currently popular with those seeking lifestyle

properties but saw considerable potential for this to develop and bring benefits to

the region:

There is a great opportunity to have city folk spend money on properties

in the area and do damned good things for the environment at the same

time. They can buy up properties and put covenants on the land to

manage for conservation in perpetuity. There is room for that, and as

others sit and watch it happen, it gets them thinking about the marginal

land they have been trying to crop for 50 years. Maybe they will think

about turning those areas back to bushland.

Example 5: Women have a big role to play (Ned, TfN and Others). Farmers can

sometimes be difficult to persuade to adopt new practices. But Ned observes that

new ideas often do filter through within broader social networks:

I find the housewives are really fantastic, because they are generally not

the ones doing the ploughing and tractor-driving, but they can have a

strong influence on their husbands. If they want an area of bush protected

they usually achieve that. They seem to be able to see the big picture a lot

better than their husbands who are focused on bringing in the next dollar

and making sure the crop succeeds.

Learning Conservation 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

The following example was cited in various ways by several of the interviewees,

including David:

Val has had a big influence on David. He had never been in the scrub until

he was in his 40’s. Now he is out preserving it, partly because of his wife

[Val] being involved in environmental issues in the area. She has

converted him to become an environmentalist (Frank, Co-op).

Over 50 per cent of the interviewees identified direct partner influence or

involvement in environmental/conservation works and groups as having a sig-

nificant effect on them. These ‘other’ voices are not always well represented, highly

valued or integrated in conservation approaches, and could offer additional avenues

for cultural translation and influence.

These examples highlight the value of a community that is well informed,

connected and resourced, and demonstrate the importance of broad-based

community networks for social learning around environmental issues. Many

additional benefits can be provided through such networks, including assistance

with management and stewardship responsibilities, information exchange, social

contact, understanding difference, education and a greater appreciation of the

natural environment.

Discussion

Bridging divides

Those involved with covenants feel that native vegetation remnants are highly

significant in biodiversity and landscape conservation and that the preservation of

these areas is a more cost-effective approach than the restoration of degraded sites

which may require intensive management over long time-frames to produce

biodiversity benefits. This points to differing priorities among covenant landholders

and production farmers. The views of covenant holders were articulated in

statements made by Greg, such as ‘complex ecological relationships and processes

cannot be replicated in restoration and re-vegetation projects’. Ned reinforced this

when he stated that:

A big challenge I think is to get government to realize that permanent

protection of remnant bushland should be the number one priority. A big

focus of the NHT and other government funding is on replanting and re-

vegetation, when we are not setting aside the areas we already have. It’s

cheaper to protect what we already have, rather than allowing it to

degrade.

Some covenant holders expressed concern over a potential for wasted effort in

landscape restoration through NHT programmes such as Landcare. Groups and

individuals associated with covenants felt more comfortable undertaking works on

covenanted properties because of their perpetual protection. As Lindsay commen-

ted, ‘we make it clear our involvement will only occur where there is a guarantee

that planting on private land is for long-term nature restoration purposes’.

A better understanding of the concerns, aspirations and networks of production

landholders could help to increase covenant acceptance. Specific issues were raised

in relation to the need for a clear and simple process, realistic time-frames and

200 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

appropriate provision of information, issues strongly reflected in a national survey

of covenantors (Stephens et al . 2002c). In particular, several interviewees felt that

covenants held limited appeal to production landholders because they were too

restrictive. This suggests that some landholders may not be aware of the intent and

flexibility of covenants which were described by Ned as, ‘a change of land

management regime, rather than locking land up’. Covenants are voluntary

agreements which are negotiated with individual landholders at a local level.

The project area presents an array of pressures and challenges such as a small and

ageing population, long-term landholders leaving farms and a trend towards share

and lease farming. These pressures work against the likelihood of farm succession

within families (Voyce 1999) and could result in increased natural resource

degradation in the absence of long-term land managers. While much policy

emphasis is placed on the farming community to undertake biodiversity conserva-

tion on private land (Curtis & Robertson 2003), this proves difficult when

economic viability is a major factor influencing their capacity to act. The findings

here confirm those of Cary et al . (2002) that production farmers are unlikely to

change to land-use practices favouring biodiversity while they perceive these to be

associated with financial risk.

Several interviewees also stressed the importance of using incentives while

establishing a range of values and benefits. Current incentive programmes such as

the BushTender and Ecosystems Service programmes could be utilized to reward

production landholders for the provision of public good ecological services

(Victorian Catchment Management Council/Department of Sustainability and

Environment 2003). These management agreements offer short-term financial

benefits to landholders but do not provide for long-term protection. Future owners,

for example, are under no obligation to take up such agreements or maintain any

property improvements. The provision of ongoing and progressive incentives could

move landholders incrementally toward covenant protection by offering a practical

demonstration of their operation and benefit in landscape productivity.

Many existing remnants were felt to be on marginal farming land, and

interestingly, several interviewees felt that because these blocks had not been

cleared in the past, landholders would protect them into the future. However there

are no guarantees here, especially with an ineffective statutory planning system

(Budge 2003; Buxton 2003) and increasing socio-economic pressures. Clearly,

offering these parcels of land to an emerging market of non-farmers interested in

nature conservation and rural lifestyles could provide many benefits. For instance,

non-farmers may bring new ideas, skills and financial resources that contribute to

the renewal of local communities and may be more likely to respond to appeals for

biodiversity conservation (Curtis & Byron 2002).

Furthermore, biodiversity conservation could be seen as a potential diversifica-

tion opportunity and a valid land use and survival strategy where farm viability is

becoming marginal, and covenants could play a role in this process (Meert et al .

2005). However, biodiversity is not always a concept that is well understood by

production farmers. Current covenantors have a non-production focus and do not

derive a major source of income from their properties. Lockwood (2005) highlights

both the significance and the difficulties of value integration in relation to

natural areas and identifies a range of approaches that are appropriate for different

types of participants. In relation to remnant native vegetation on private property,

he stresses the importance of cost�/benefit analysis for production farmers who,

Learning Conservation 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

he claims, primarily operate within a framework of instrumental rationality

(Lockwood & Walpole 2000; Lockwood 2005).

Values and networks of covenantors and production farmers

A strong influence and motivating element in covenantor participation in PH is the

mix of people who share common goals and understandings of nature conservation.

In particular, covenantors accord high value to pre-European natural environments

and uphold the intrinsic value of natural vegetation with high biodiversity. This

appreciation of nature was described by Ted as ‘a spiritual experience’ and by

Lindsay as ‘understanding landscape subtleties’, while Sandy stressed, ‘we were

brought up to value the bush’, and Greg emphasised that ‘nature’s interrelation-

ships cannot be replicated’.

One covenantor currently lives in the region, but most are non-production-

orientated and do not reside permanently on the rural properties (Table 1). As a

consequence, opportunities for interactions and engagement with the residential

community, including production farmers, are limited. Local community percep-

tions and attitudes towards these ‘outsiders’ are typified by statements such as those

made to Ted when he invited the neighbours over: ‘are you greenies who swing

through the trees?’ and ‘do you have problems killing soft and furry animals

[rabbits]?’. An article in a local newspaper featured Ted’s property under the

banner ‘City greenies buy into bush life’. A potential cultural clash exists between

long-term farming residents and new ‘lifestyle’ or ‘hobby farmers’. This suggests

that the culture of nature conservation may be marginalised in rural areas where

such measures and practices may be counter to traditional land-use practices.

Several covenantors used the term ‘pioneering’, demonstrating a feeling of doing

something new, ground-breaking, or counter to local norms. Providing opportu-

nities for the exchange of ideas and concerns might engage conservation-oriented

production landholders and help strengthen covenant appeal through ‘champions

and cultural translators’ (Elix & Lambert 2000).

Many covenantors and PH participants have a strong connection with environ-

mental campaigns. In particular, an association with the landmark Little Desert

environmental controversy was raised by all landholders as playing a seminal role in

their interest and connection to the area (Robin, 1998). However involvement of

the local community has so far been limited. This indicates an alignment of nature

covenant social networks around a different worldview and value-set to that of

production landholders and their social networks. In general, production land-

holders are influenced by traditional European land-use traditions, different

perceptions of conservation and the ongoing need to remain economically and

socially viable. The division between the two groups echoes the well-established

dichotomy between the cultures of production and nature conservation (Cameron

2003a, 2003b).

Interestingly, property rights were not felt to be an issue impeding covenanting.

Several interviewees commented that properties with covenants were now selling at

‘premium prices’ which could appeal to production landholder aspirations.

However, this emerging market has the potential to exclude those lacking the

financial means to acquire and manage such properties and further suggests that

excising land from traditional holdings could be counter to local culture. Further,

statements made by covenantors, such as ‘I detest the concept of landownership’

202 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

and ‘to my thinking you never own the land, you only have use of it for your

lifetime’, suggest potential contestations on land use and ownership held between

long-term residents and the lifestyle group. Clarifying the role that covenants could

play through generational land transfer may be important for connections to be

made with production landholder aspirations. Several covenantors stated that

motivations, such as ‘leaving the land in better condition’ or ‘leaving something for

one’s children’, are goals that are often shared with production landholders (Curtis

& Byron 2002).

Demonstrating a willingness and commitment to address local issues and

perceptions, such as ‘locking-up good farmland for non-productive purposes’, will

take both time and resolve. To achieve this, it is essential that covenantors are well

resourced, informed and supported, to meet their management and social respon-

sibilities. Addressing these community integration issues could be seen as both an

opportunity and challenge for covenantors and their support institutions. It will be

necessary to demonstrate that nature conservation can attract committed land-

holders who value both natural environments and local community participation.

Knowledge, experience and learning

The need for ongoing and appropriate management of covenanted properties to

protect, maintain and enhance their biodiversity values while managing external

impacts is a major stewardship obligation for landholders (Crouch 2005; de Friest

2005). The need for an active management regime with access to funding,

assistance, volunteers, support and information was stressed by many interviewees.

Several covenantors felt they lacked the technical knowledge on the scale required

to manage large properties for their conservation values. Nor did they feel they

possessed the local ecological or social knowledge needed to identify the full range

of property values. Ted felt TfN may need more resources to discharge its

stewardship responsibility to landholders:

They need to sit down with people and go through the management plan

on the land, pointing out what is valuable*/we have not had that

discussion.

Mentoring and development roles were seen as being important for the acquisition of

such skills and knowledge. This contact is critical if landholders are to discharge their

stewardship responsibility effectively, retain their motivation and maintain the

ecological integrity of their properties. Volunteer ‘burnout’ has been common in

Landcare and in local environmental groups where a decreasing number of people are

required to take on increasing responsibility for land management and conservation

projects (Curtis 2000). Covenantors in the area could experience similar difficulties.

PH currently provides resources to undertake some works on covenanted properties,

but if ongoing funding, interest and resources are not forthcoming, landholders will

be faced with increased management and resource issues.

The work presented here highlights the importance of connecting covenantors,

best regarded as a community of interest, with the local, place-based community.

Achieving this goal requires recognition of both groups as important stakeholders

and new forums that promote engagement between the two groups and allow for

concerns to be aired (Park 2003). Without this connection conservation, covenants

will remain the domain of groups of covenantors who are poorly resourced,

Learning Conservation 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

ineffective land managers and unable to meet their stewardship obligations, thus

restricting their influence as cultural change agents. Several covenantors stressed

the importance of setting an example, but explained that they need to ensure

properties are well maintained to fulfil this role. They noted that many covenant

programmes currently lack access to local knowledge, arguing the importance of

extension, a point reaffirmed in Stephens et al . (2002c). Landcare groups are in

decline in areas such as the Wimmera, and covenantors present an opportunity for

increased participation and diversification in such groups. Some criticism has been

levelled at the lack of integrated strategies for landscape or biodiversity rehabilita-

tion within Landcare and of its prevailing orientation towards productivist values

(Briggs 2001; Main 2005). Covenantors could potentially play a role in diversifying

and revitalising existing Landcare initiatives.

Many covenantors exhibited a strong personal connection to environmental

networks and groups with a desire to further develop such friendships and networks.

While these connections provided opportunities for information and knowledge

exchange, connecting to like-minded people was felt to be lacking among

covenantors working in different geographical locations. As Ted commented:

Apart from Bush October I don’t know where they put co-covenantors in

touch*/it seems silly that people are doing the same thing [nature

conservation]. That’s what networks are about*/people who have similar

interests*/you put them in touch with each other, then just sit back and

watch it happen.

Several interviewees felt covenants were a means of attracting others to biodiversity

conservation by providing practical working examples that change the way marginal

farming land is viewed. Established community members might exert influence on

others through communicating the benefits of their own experience. Furthermore,

local perceptions of covenants as restrictive could be corrected. Importantly, as

many current covenantors are aged 55 plus, the issue of attracting a future

generation of covenantors is imperative. This could be addressed through

networking that provides opportunities for embedded learning, generational

knowledge transfer, values’ translation, partnerships and covenant succession

planning. If the intent and purpose of covenants are to be maintained when

properties are transferred to new owners, this partnership and extension process is

critical in terms of advancing innovation in conservation practice (Williams, 2004).

Conclusion

Biodiversity has an uncertain future in Australia’s agricultural lands. Conservation

covenants can be perceived as operating at the interface between production and

post-production landscapes, and provide insights into the social dimensions of

landscape change (Pinn 2003). The five examples presented in the results’ section

strongly support the usefulness and importance of social learning and networks for

motivating and engaging those involved in nature covenants. Covenantors offer

potential as a transformative interface between production and post-production

value systems, through their introduction of new knowledge and values. However,

there is currently insufficient incentive for covenantors and production landholders

to engage with each other and to find avenues for reconciling their different values

and interests in nature conservation. Exchange of information between the place-

204 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

based and interest-based communities could be facilitated through rural field days,

farm visits, Landcare meetings, catchment and conservation groups.

A further avenue for integrating these different values and interests could be to

place covenants at the core of restoration projects. This would serve to protect and

enhance existing areas of high conservation value while minimising threats from

adjoining land. Models from Biosphere Reserves and Conservation Management

Networks, adapted and scaled appropriately, could provide a useful framework for

such works (Fitzsimons & Wescott 2005).

Funding agencies supporting nature covenants and other rural conservation

programmes might also consider introducing new communicative forums to

promote interaction between groups involved in different kinds of conservation

in the same region. Continued research on the spread of knowledge through

experiential learning and landholder networks, along with the function individuals

and/or groups may play as role models for biodiversity conservation practice, will

assist in addressing values integration and generational issues. All groups should be

involved in planning processes addressing mid- to long-term regional futures.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Chris Williams, TfN (Victoria) for his time, ongoing help

and input in the project and James Fitzsimons, DSE/Deakin University for

preparing the covenant distribution map and offering useful perspectives on the

subject matter. In particular, we thank all research project participants who were

more than generous in providing the unique insights for the project. We also thank

Judy Lambert and Sally Stephens for valuable advice on drafts and Chandra

Jayasuriya for cartographic services.

Correspondence : Dave Mercer, School of Global Studies, Social Science and

Planning, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne VIC 3001, Australia.

E-mail: dave.mercer@rmit.edu.au

NOTE

[1] However, there are indications of change. Recently (in November 2005), anEnvironmental Farmers’ Network was formed in Victoria because its foundingmembers felt that the Victorian Farmers’ Federation continually prioritises develop-ment ahead of conservation (see www.environmentalfarmersnetwork.net.au). Whilethis organisation is still at a very early stage, it could well represent an example of a newphase of ‘ecological modernisation’ in the rural setting (see Marsden 2004).

REFERENCES

ABC (2004) ‘Expanding conservation on private land’, Earthbeat (Radio National), October30.

AGRAWAL, A. & GIBSON, C.C. (1999) ‘Enchantment and disenchantment: the role ofcommunity in natural resource conservation’, World Development 27, pp. 629�/649.

ALEXANDRA, J. & RIDDINGTON, C. (in press) ‘Redreaming the rural landscape’, Futures 38.

Learning Conservation 205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

ARGENT, N. (2002) ‘From pillar to post? In search of the post-productivist countryside inAustralia’, Australian Geographer 33, pp. 97�/114.

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS (2002) Measuring Australia’s progress: Population (CatNo 1370.0) . ABS, Canberra.

BAKER, R. (1999) ‘Land is life: a cultural geography of Australian contact history’, inStratford, E. (ed.) Australian cultural geography, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.25�/47.

BENNETT, A.F. (1999) Linkages in the Landscape: The Role of Corridors and Connectivity inWildlife Conservation , IUCN, Cambridge.

BENNETT, J. (2002) ‘What value the rural environment’, Policy 17, pp. 44�/48.BERKES, F. (2004) ‘Rethinking community-based conservation’, Conservation Biology 18, pp.

621�/630.BRIGGS, S.V. (2001) ‘Linking ecological scales and institutional frameworks for landscape

rehabilitation’, Ecological Management and Restoration 2, pp. 28�/35.BUDGE, T. (2003) ‘Land use change and the planning process in rural and regional Victoria’,

Land use change*/YES!: But will biodiversity be OK? Proceedings of a conference at Attwood,Victoria, August 2002, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne (CD-ROM).

BUXTON, M. (2003) ‘The land use planning system: potential and problems forbiodiversity’, Land use change*/YES!: But will biodiversity be OK? Proceedings of a conferenceat Attwood, Victoria, August 2002, Department of Sustainability and Environment,Melbourne (CD-ROM).

CAMERON, J. (2003a) ‘Dwelling in place, dwelling on earth’, in Cameron, J. (ed.) ChangingPlaces: Re-Imagining Australia , Longueville Books, Double Bay, NSW, pp. 29�/37.

CAMERON, J. (2003b) ‘Introduction: articulating Australian senses of place’, in Cameron, J.(ed.) Changing places; Re-imagining Australia , Longueville Books, Double Bay, NSW, pp.1�/13.

CARY, J., WEBB, T. & BARR, N. (2002) Understanding landholders’ capacity to change tosustainable practices: Insights about practice adoption and social capacity for change , Bureau ofRural Sciences, Canberra.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (1996) National strategy for the conservation of Australia’sbiological diversity, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

CROSTHWAITE, J. (2003) Land use change*/YES!: But will biodiversity be OK? Proceedings of aConference at Attwood, Victoria, August 2002. Department of Sustainability andEnvironment, Melbourne (CD-ROM).

CROUCH, C. (2005) ‘Stewardship: it’s all about good management’, Conservation Bulletin 30,p. 5.

CROWLEY, K. (2001) ‘Effective environmental federalism? Australia’s Natural HeritageTrust’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 3, pp. 255�/272.

CURTIS, A. (2000) ‘Landcare: approaching the limits of voluntary action’, AustralasianJournal of Environmental Management 7, pp. 19�/27.

CURTIS, A. (2003) ‘The Landcare experience’, in Dovers, S. & Wild River, S. (eds)Managing Australia’s environment , Federation Press, Annandale, NSW, pp. 442�/460.

CURTIS, A. & BYRON, I. (2002) Understanding the social drivers of catchment management in theWimmera Region , Report No. 169. Charles Sturt University, Albury.

CURTIS, A., et al . (2002) Providing the knowledge base for landscape change in the OvensCatchment , Report No. 160. Charles Sturt University, Albury.

CURTIS, A. & ROBERTSON, A. (2003) ‘Understanding landholder management of riverfrontages: the Goulburn Broken’, Ecological Management and Restoration 4, pp. 45�/54.

DE FRIEST, E. (2005) ‘After a covenant: the stewardship program’, Conservation Bulletin 30,pp. 1, 4.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE (2004) Covenants for conservation[Online]. Available at http://www.deh.gov.au/land/publications/covenants/index.html(accessed 21 December 2004).

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SPORT AND TERRITORIES BIODIVERSITY UNIT (1993)Biodiversity and its value , Paper No. 1. DEST, Canberra.

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT (1997) Victoria’s biodiversity:Our living wealth , DNRE, Melbourne.

206 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (2004) Victorian land use and land tenure [Online].Available at http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landuse-tenure (accessed16 November 2004).

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND FINANCE (2005) Regulation and regional Victoria:Challenges and opportunities. Victorian Government response to the Victorian Competition andEfficiency Commission’s final report , Melbourne, December.

DODDS, R. (1999) ‘Project Hindmarsh: Changing the Wimmera landscape’, in Directions inrevegetation and regeneration in Victoria: Proceedings . Australian Research Centre for UrbanEcology, Forum held at Greening Australia, 5�/6 May, Heidelberg, Victoria.

DOWLING, R. (2000) ‘Power, subjectivity and ethics in qualitative research’, in Hay, I. (ed.)Qualitative research methods in human geography, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, pp.23�/49.

DUNN, K. (2000) ‘Interviewing’, in Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative research methods in humangeography, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, pp. 50�/82.

ELIX, J. & LAMBERT, J. (2000) Bringing them all: Together: Effective partnerships for naturalresource management . Available at http://www.communitysolutions.com.au/papers (ac-cessed 4 July 2004).

FALK, I. & KILPATRICK, S. (2000) ‘What is social capital? A study of interaction in a ruralcommunity’, Sociologia Ruralis 40, pp. 87�/110.

FIGGIS, P. (2004) Conservation on private lands: The Australian experience , IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

FITZSIMONS, J.A. & WESCOTT, G. (2001) ‘The role and contribution of private land inVictoria to biodiversity conservation and the protected area system’, Australasian Journal ofEnvironmental Management 8, pp. 142�/157.

FITZSIMONS, J.A. & WESCOTT, G. (2005) ‘History and attributes of selected Australianmulti-tenure reserve networks’, Australian Geographer 36, pp. 75�/93.

GILL, N. (2004) ‘Politics within and without: The origins and development of a rangelandslandcare group’, Australian Geographical Studies 42, pp. 135�/151.

GOVERNMENT OF VICTORIA (1972) Victorian Conservation Trust Act No. 8350/1972 ,Government of Victoria, Melbourne.

HAMILTON, K. & SELMAN, P. (2005) ‘The ‘‘landscape scale’’ in planning: recent experienceof bio-geographic planning units in Britain’, Landscape Research 30, pp. 549�/558.

HINDMARSH Shire (2000) Hindmarsh Planning Scheme: 21.01 Municipal Profile . Available athttp://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/hindmarsh/home.html (accessed 3 December2004).

HULL, R.B. (2000) ‘The language of nature matters: we need a more public ecology’, inGobster, P.H. & Hull, R.B. (eds) Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences andhumanities , Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 97�/118.

JONES, D. (1989) ‘The role of the Victorian Conservation Trust and the value of covenants’,Urban Policy and Research 7, pp. 15�/21.

KAHN, L., NICHOLLS, M., EARL, J. & NICHOLLS, K (2005) ‘Successful research with localfarmers to improve native grasslands’, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management12(supplementary issue), pp. 62�/64.

KARP, D.R. & GAULDING, C.L. (1995) ‘Motivational underpinnings of command-and-control, market based and voluntarist environmental policies’, Human Relations 48, pp.439�/465.

KILPATRICK, S. & FALK, I. (2003) ‘Learning in agriculture: building social capital in islandcommunities’, Local Environment 8, pp. 501�/512.

KILPATRICK, S. & VANCLAY, F. (2005) ‘Communities of practice for building social capital inrural Australia: a case study of ExecutiveLink’, in Dale, A. & Onyx, J. (eds) Social capitaland sustainable community development , UBC Press, Vancouver, pp. 141�/158.

KIRKPATRICK, J.B. (1999) A continent transformed: Human impact on the natural vegetation ofAustralia , Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

LANE, M.B. & MCDONALD, G. (2005) ‘Community-based environmental planning:operational dilemmas, planning principles and possible remedies’, Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management 48, pp. 709�/731.

LEE, J., ARNASON, A., NIGHTINGALE, A. & SHUCKSMITH, M. (2005) ‘Networking: socialcapital and identities in European rural development’, Sociologica Ruralis 45, pp. 269�/283.

Learning Conservation 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

LIEPINS, R. (2000) ‘New energies for an old idea: reworking approaches to ‘‘community’’ incontemporary rural studies’, Journal of Rural Studies 16, pp. 23�/35.

LOCKWOOD, M. (2005) ‘Integration of natural area values: conceptual foundationsand methodological approaches’, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management12(Supplementary Issue), pp. 8�/19.

LOCKWOOD, M. & WALPOLE, S. (2000) ‘Economic assessment of remnant native vegetationconservation’, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 7, pp. 237�/245.

MAIN, G. (2005) Heartland: The regeneration of rural place , University of New South WalesPress, Sydney.

MARSDEN, T. (2004) ‘The quest for ecological modernisation: re-spacing rural developmentand agri-food studies’, Sociologica Ruralis 44, pp. 129�/146.

MEERT, H., VON HUYLENBRIOEK, G, VERNIMMEN, T., BOURGEOIS, M. & VAN HECKE, E.

(2005) ‘Farm household survival strategies and diversification on marginal farms’, Journalof Rural Studies 21, pp. 81�/97.

MORGAN, G. (2001) Landscape health in Australia: A rapid assessment of the relative condition ofAustralia’s bioregions and subregions , Environment Australia and NLWRA, Canberra.

NATIONAL LAND AND WATER RESOURCES AUDIT (2002) Australia’s Terrestrial BiodiversityAssessment 2002 , NLWA, Canberra.

NATURAL HERITAGE TRUST (2004) Victoria: Case study bushcare projects . Available at http://www.nht.gov.au/nht1/programs/bushcare/vicproj2.html (accessed 16 October 2004).

NORTON, T.W. (1999) ‘Sustaining natural resources and biological diversity in terrestrialecosystems of rural Australia’, in Robertson, A. & Watts, R. (eds) Preserving ruralAustralia: Issues and solutions , CSIRO, Melbourne, pp. 51�/59.

OLSEN, P., WESTON, M. TZAROS, C. & SILCOCKS, A. (2005) ‘The state of Australia’s birds2005: woodlands and birds’, Wingspan , 15, Supplement.

O’MAY, J. (1999) Mid-term review of the Natural Heritage Trust: National Reserve SystemProgram , Centre for Environmental Management, University of Ballarat, Ballarat.

PARK, G. (2003) ‘Biodiversity maintenance in agricultural landscapes: a spectrum of viewsand understandings’, Land use change*/YES!: But will biodiversity be OK? Proceedings of aconference at Attwood, Victoria, August 2002, Department of Sustainability and Environ-ment, Melbourne (CD-ROM).

PIERCE, J.T. (1996) ‘The conservation challenge in sustaining rural environments’, Journal ofRural Studies 12, pp. 215�/229.

PINN, J. (2003) ‘Restor(y)ing a sense of place, self and community’, in Cameron, J. (ed.)Changing places: Re-imagining Australia , Longueville Books, Double Bay, NSW, pp. 38�/

47.PRETTY, J. & WARD, H. (2001) ‘Social capital and the environment’, World Development 29,

pp. 209�/227.PRETTY, J. & SMITH, D. (2004) ‘Social capital in biodiversity conservation and manage-

ment’, Conservation Biology 18, pp. 631�/638.PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION (2001) Harnessing private sector conservation of biodiversity:

Commission research paper , Commission Research Papers, Ausinfo, Canberra.RADFORD, J., BENNETT, A. & MAC RAILD, L. (2004) How much habitat is enough?: Planning

for wildlife conservation in rural landscapes , Deakin University, Melbourne.ROBIN, L. (1998) Defending the little desert: The rise of ecological consciousness in Australia ,

Melbourne University Press, Carlton.SAUNDERS, D.A. & BRIGGS, S.V. (2002) ‘Nature grows in straight lines*/or does she?: what

are the consequences of the mismatch between human-imposed linear boundaries andecosystem boundaries? Australia as an example’, Landscape and Urban Planning 61, pp.71�/82.

STEPHENS, S. (2002a) ‘Landholders’ views on conservation covenants’, Australian Landcare ,June, pp. 6�/7.

STEPHENS, S. (2002b) ‘Conservation covenants: a national survey of landholders’ views’,Ecological Management and Restoration 3, pp. 146�/148.

STEPHENS, S., et al. (2002c) National Survey of Landholders’ Views on Conservation Covenants:Report on findings , Bush for Wildlife, Sydney.

TRUST FOR NATURE (2004) Web Site . Available at http://www.tfn.org.au/ (accessed 24 May2004).

208 C. Harrington et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

VICTORIAN CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT COUNCIL/DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND

ENVIRONMENT (DSE) (2003) Ecosystems services through land stewardship practices: Issuesand options , DSE, Melbourne.

VOYCE, M. (1999) ‘How ya gunna keep ’em down on the farm?’, Alternative Law Journal 24,pp. 22�/25, 29.

WATT, J. (2005) Natural Heritage Trust Project final report: Project Hindmarsh . Available athttp://www.greeningaustralia.org/GA/Vic/OngroundAction/Projects/SW/hindmarsh.htm(accessed 30 March 2005).

WENTWORTH GROUP (2002) Blueprint for a living continent: The way forward from theWentworth group of concerned scientists , WWF Australia, Sydney.

WILLIAMS, C. (2004) Old land, new landscapes: A story of farmers, conservation and the landcaremovement , Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.

WILSON, G.A. (2004) ‘The Australian Landcare movement: towards ‘post-productivist’ ruralgovernance?’, Journal of Rural Studies 20, pp. 461�/484.

WORBOYS, G., LOCKWOOD, M. & DE LACEY, T. (2005) Protected area management: Principlesand practice 2nd Edn, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

YOUNG, M.D., GUNNINGHAM, J., ELIX, J., HOWARD, B., GRABOSKY, P. & MCCRONE, E.(1996) Reimbursing the future: An evaluation of motivational, voluntary, price-based, property-right and regulatory incentives for the conservation of biodiversity, Biodiversity Series No. 9,Biodiversity Unit, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra.

Appendix

The following acronyms have been used in this paper:

CMA Catchment Management Authority

Co-op Co-Operative

GA Greening Australia

Govt Government

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NHT National Heritage Trust

NP National Park

P.H. Project Hindmarsh

TfN Trust for Nature

VNPA Victorian National Parks Association

Learning Conservation 209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th W

est U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

41 1

8 D

ecem

ber

2014