Time to manage all of our heritage – proactively

This issue provides us with a timely reminder that we are all are responsible for our interactions with the environment, our use of it, our impacts on it and our responsibility towards it. Aldo Leopold once said ‘Harmony with land is like harmony with a friend; you cannot cherish his right hand and chop off his left’ (1993, p. 145). Thus, an ethical perspective of interacting with our environment is paramount.

Australia and New Zealand protect Indigenous biodiversity and heritage through a combination of Commonwealth and state legislation, agreements and policies. Both countries have been active in conservation – over 13 per cent of public land and 30 per cent of the economic exclusion zone in Australia are conserved in protected areas, while over 30 per cent of New Zealand terrestrial lands are preserved (Jacobson et al. 2014). Community groups and individuals are active in both countries, through private covenants, individual actions and engagement in collaborative endeavours on public and private lands (Curtis et al. 2014). They are supported by strong international agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and Program of Work for Protected Areas. However, in spite of considerable action over the years, biodiversity remains in decline (Butchard et al. 2010).

Heritage is a broader concept than biodiversity, and includes natural features, sites and places; built features, including monuments, buildings and structures; and cultural items and expressions that reflect the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation. These include customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values, both tangible and intangible. Yet, natural and cultural heritage are not separate concepts, but are inter-related, interdependent and closely linked. The values and significance of cultural heritage can rarely be understood and appreciated without understanding its environmental context, and natural heritage inevitably exists within a cultural landscape. Thus, the notion of heritage and its conservation seek to broaden the Leopoldian idea of responsibility for the environment. Moreover, links to culture mean that heritage areas have been and still are sometimes are hotly contested sites of human interaction around the world, such as First Nation clashes over pipelines and mining in North America and Australia, offshore oil and gas development in New Zealand, and the conflict over the protected temple Prasat Preah Vihear on the Cambodia–Thailand border. The mobilisation of heritage as a community-based concept has grown since the introduction of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere program, which aims to ‘ …  improve human livelihoods and the equitable sharing of benefits … thus promoting innovative approaches to economic development that are socially and culturally appropriate, and environmentally sustainable’ (UNESCO 2017). While we may despair at the poor record on biodiversity conservation, heritage conservation has fared even worse. International support for heritage conservation has been on the decline, subject to political stances, exemplified by USA removal of 22 per cent of UNESCO funding in 2011 (Sherwood 2011), followed soon after by Israel freezing its contribution (Ravid 2011).

At a national level closer to home, Heritage New Zealand and the Māori Heritage Council, and approaches in Australia emphasise tangible heritage (primarily sites, places and objects), but the emphasis tends to exclude the environmental and social landscapes from which the heritage gains meaning and indeed significance. What is often lost is the potential for heritage to reinforce or build identity, thereby mobilising public and community concern for heritage protection in the broadest sense, as has been evidenced particularly in Indigenous contexts (see Coombe & Baird 2016). Perhaps it is time to consider whether we can apply what we have learned from nature conservation approaches on private land, where relevant, to advancing a holistic approach to heritage conservation.

Notwithstanding critiques of devolution of state responsibilities to community (Curtis et al. 2014), community groups are engaged in a range of ways in conservation on private lands (Curtis et al. 2014; Jacobson et al. 2014):

• protected areas on privately own lands, sometimes with government support, albeit often at significantly lower levels than equivalent public areas (e.g. Indigenous protected areas);

• covenants on private land areas, included in the land title (e.g. QEII National Trust open space covenants in New Zealand, and, usually permanent, Land for Wildlife covenants or agreements in Queensland, and new limited term agreements in New Zealand);

• conservation type activities on private lands, supported by grants such as those provided to Landcare and through Regional Management Groups and Regional Councils.

While heritage identification and management remains under-funded at both national and international scales, it seems remiss that a broader consideration of protection, governance and management arrangements goes unexamined. That is, mechanisms used in community-based natural resource management for the natural component of heritage might also be applicable to built and cultural heritage, so that the significance of heritage is more broadly recognised and capacity for effective heritage management is endorsed.

Perhaps one of the more significant challenges remains around ‘whose heritage?’ (i.e. how could mechanisms acknowledge and support rightful voices to identify and actively manage the heritage). A second challenge is to manage in a way that is culturally acceptable, and respectful of Traditional Owners’ and local peoples’ desires in regards to public availability of information on explicit artefacts, sites, or their significance, noting significant gains have been made in this regard (Landcare Research’s Visualising Māori land tool). A third challenge lies in ensuring equity between the social and financial capacity for Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups to care for their heritage. In the Great Sandy Biosphere Reserve, Queensland, Traditional Owner groups are working with Burnett Mary Regional Group to deliver cultural awareness training to local councils and community groups across the region, Landcare and schools, and develop protocols around heritage identification and management (BMRG 2017). This is one of many examples in Australasia where efforts are being made to re-balance the agenda.

Thus, with significant cumulative experience behind us, and great potential for achieving multiple environmental and social objectives in the future, it is timely to recognise the range of potential contributors to heritage conservation, and remind governments of a suite of roles they ought to play (e.g. statutory, regulatory, resourcing and capacity development) to ensure we meet our obligations, as trustees of heritage, to ethically and responsibly manage our biodiversity and heritage assets for those who will inherit them.

Articles in this issue

In this issue, we feature weeds, wildlife gardening, landscape art as a guide to conservation, cost-effectiveness issues in waste management and conservation of species, and respectful research practice with Indigenous peoples.

Dave Kendal, Libby Robin, Anna Wilson, Cameron Muir, Lilian Pearce, Sharon Willoughby and Ian Lunt argue that while there is much national rhetoric about weeds in Australia, including escaped garden plants, they are a locally specific phenomenon. While the ‘national’ scale is important for politics and policy-making, it is not informative on the detailed people–environment interactions involved in plant invasions in very different biomes. Their analysis of the ‘culture of weeds’ from different disciplinary perspectives suggests that while gardens may contain plants designated as environmental weeds, they may not be responsible for their spread into nearby bushland. Thinking of weeds as having ‘jumped the garden fence’ fails to capture the complex processes involved in the spread of weeds, including agriculture. We need a more sophisticated historical and present understanding of movement of plants between gardens and bush, and of how weeding helps shape the bush we prefer. ‘Demonising’ weeds may help to motivate their removal, but the management should be motivated by an ecological and historical understanding.

Continuing the theme of gardens, Laura Mumaw and Sarah Bekessy study the contribution residents can make to biodiversity in cities, through ‘wildlife gardening’. This includes removing environmental weeds, cultivating indigenous flora and improving habitat in their gardens. They address the shortage of guidance on how to encourage this practice, and to align it with public land management, in a study of the Knox City Council’s Garden’s for Wildlife Program in the state of Victoria. The study shows that such programs can attract residents without prior interest in or knowledge of wildlife gardening and engage them to conserve indigenous biota, in a way that aligns with the efforts of their local government. It offers an opportunity to increase community support for conservation and to improve the habitat quality of residential land in cities. Successful features of the Knox program include on-site garden assessment, an indigenous plant nursery hub, visible involvement of council and community, and a framework that encourages learning by doing and recognises each garden’s contribution to conservation.

In a different type of contribution to conservation in cities, Hugh Lavery makes a convincing case for the use of landscape art, where available, as guidance for long-term conservation of natural and cultural heritage, and environmental management more generally. He studied 151 historical paintings of Berry’s Bay in Sydney, dating from the earliest period of settlement. The body of art creates a ‘narrative’ for preservation of the character of an area, and understanding of a sense of place. These artworks show that the Berry’s Bay area is – contrary to public perception – a cultural rather than a natural landscape. Lavery argues that management should be restorative rather than preservative. In a point that connects well with our editorial theme, he argues that the enduring interest in the cultural landscape may help to build support for heritage conservation measures.

Scott Salzman, Helen Scarborough and Graeme Allinson assess the economic viability of using constructed wetlands to manage wastewater in the dairy industry. In many industries, managing wastewaters imposes costs on both firm and society. Taking a single case, they estimate the cost of constructing horizontal subsurface flow wetlands to treat a dairy factory’s process wastewaters. They calculate that such projects become viable after 11 years, a time frame that is inconsistent with the company’s four-year return on investment rule. Sale of biofuel could change the analysis, but there is no market for biofuel in that region. Thus, decisions made on financial grounds alone present a barrier to such environmental investments. The authors suggest that this justifies a role for government, in subsidisation or regulation, provided there are sufficient positive benefits for the public. The analysis highlights the dilemma of sharing the burden of improving environmental outcomes between the private and public sectors – recognising that failure to provide effective treatment imposes a continuing liability on environment and therefore the public.

Sophia Su, Amy Tung and Kevin Baird examine the influence of environmental commitment on the adoption of environmental management initiatives such as Environmental Management Systems and Environmental Activity Management. Their survey of financial controllers in Australian manufacturing organisations found that general commitment towards environmental issues had little influence with these employees, but concerns about the costs and benefits associated with environmental issues were a significant factor. The findings should help in the promotion of environmental management initiatives in industry. They also suggest scope for organisations to build their employees’ environmental commitment in order to promote the take-up of environmental management initiatives.

Clem Tisdell, Harriet Preece, Sabah Abdullah and Hawthorne Beyer examine policies and their cost-effectiveness in the conservation of koalas in rural and urban contexts in Queensland, and highlight some that are likely to be ineffective, yet continue in use. They identify relatively cost-effective rural conservation opportunities. They recommend a holistic approach to the management of koalas. Better knowledge is needed of the minimum viable population size of koalas, and the regional variation in habitat area needed to support them. Strategies need to manage a range of threats, including habitat loss and degradation, predation, vehicle collisions and disease, so as to reverse regional population declines and enable maintenance of minimum viable populations. The authors discuss policy options involving prescriptive and incentive-based programs on urban and rural lands. They identify a number of areas for further research: the comparative opportunity cost of programs at different geographical scales and regions; the effects of climate change on habitats and populations; as well as social, economic and political factors influencing the demand for koala conservation. They query the extent to which governments should cater for animal welfare concerns if the practices are relatively ineffective, and the desirability of parochialism in conserving koalas. They argue that cost-effectiveness should be an important part of these decisions.

In the final article, our Associate Editor Jasmyn Lynch adds to the body of work on respectful research practices with Indigenous people, their land and culture, from a biophysical perspective. She points out that biophysical research is seldom subject to human ethics review, and hence biophysical researchers may lack awareness of the impacts of their styles of engagement in working with Indigenous communities or on their land. She makes the case that respectful, reflective and empowering practice is important for scientific, ethical and conservation reasons, given coincidence of areas of high biodiversity with high cultural diversity, and that in Australia and neighbouring countries many Indigenous people own or manage biologically significant areas. She outlines many features of positive practice. She recommends a more equitable, respectful approach to co-production of knowledge and sharing of research outcomes with Indigenous people, as enriching the depth and veracity of research findings, and helping to build a constructive inter-cultural learning environment leading to new integrative knowledge.

New impact factor

We are pleased to announce that AJEM has reached a milestone, an impact factor of 1. We consider this an important achievement, in just six years of participation in the prestigious Thomson Reuters international metrics system.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Australian Research Council [grant number LP120200473].