King Island
Vegetation Management
Strategy

Prepared by Greg Blake

April 2003


Written and Published by:

Reserve Design & Management in consultation with the King Island Natural Resource Management Group

April 2003

Acknowledgements:

Russell Warman from the King Island Natural Resource Management Group, all members of the NRM group and King Island community members who participated in the process of public consultation.

Funded by:

The Federal Government’s Natural Heritage Trust Program and the King Island community.

© King Island Natural Resource Management Group Inc. This work is protected under Australian Copyright law. The contents and format of this report cannot be used by anyone for any purpose without the written permission of King Island Natural Resource Management Group Inc.

Table of contents

Executive summary...... 1

1Background...... 3

1.1Key context issues...... 3

1.2Bio-geographic status

1.3Vegetation community types

1.4Mapping

1.5The nature of this Strategy......

2Strategic goals of the King Island vms...... 10

2.1The role of the NRM group in vegetation management on King Island...... 11

3Recommended actions...... 12

3.1Resolution of legal and administrative obligations...... 12

3.2Education...... 13

3.3Nature conservation status of King Island...... 14

3.4Non forest vegetation...... 14

3.5Contribution to the maintenance of economic viability...... 15

3.6Incentive programs...... 15

3.7State government management responsibilities...... 16

3.8Prioritisation of conservation significance...... 16

3.9Management and monitoring support...... 19

3.10Wallaby numbers...... 20

3.11Coastal access...... 20

3.12Fire management...... 21

3.13Fencing incentive scheme...... 21

3.14Revolving funds...... 21

3.15Pegarah State Forest area management...... 22

4Summary...... 23

References...... 24

Executive summary

King Island’s remoteness from both Tasmania and the Australian mainland is reflected in a unique cultural and biogeographic identity. The economic wellbeing of the King Island community is largely dependent upon agricultural production, and its continuing viability is a source of considerable concern for members of the local community.

There is significant support amongst King Island community members for nature conservation. This support is qualified by broader aspirations for cultural and economic survival, which necessarily informs the development of specific nature conservation goals. These motivations are distinct from those who have an interest in nature conservation on King Island who are not residents. In the development of nature conservation goals for King Island the latter group were largely informed by broader national priorities for nature conservation, and the scientific principles that form the basis for conservation planning at a State and national level. This Strategy is informed by the recognition of the divergence of motivation between these two groups, and the necessity to respect each view.

Nature conservation on King Island occurs within a broad and dynamic political, legislative and administrative framework, with associated responsibilities and uncertainties. It is therefore imperative that a stable, permanent institution with strong local support and participation, and with good relationships with agencies and institutions external to King Island, drive the implementation of this Strategy. To this end it is recommended that the King Island Natural Resource Management Group (KINRM) take primary responsibility for the implementation of this Strategy.

This Strategy is based upon five strategic goals:

  1. maintain the biodiversity, landscape integrity and ecological function of King Island;
  2. integrate nature conservation issues with production values on King Island;
  3. put in place institutional mechanisms that support goals 1 and 2 without compromising the economic viability of individuals or the King Island community;
  4. clarify the legal and administrative obligations of the King Island community in relation to nature conservation on the Island; and
  5. create mechanisms to align nature conservation goals with the economic wellbeing of the Island.

Fifteen key issues, and associated actions, have been identified to achieve the five strategic goals.

  1. The resolution of the legal and administrative obligations King Island community members and organisations have for nature conservation under State and Federal legislation.

Recommendations: To this end KINRMG will:

  • maintain ongoing engagement with relevant institutions, in particular the Forest Practices Board in relation to the application of the Forest Practices Code on King Island;
  • seek funding to refine and update the vegetation mapping of King Island; and
  • facilitate the development of an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation planning overlay for the King Island Council.
  1. Amongst landholders on King Island there is currently a high level of awareness of nature conservation issues.

Recommendation: Continue to extend this knowledge thorough education and extension services and including non-landholders.

  1. The status and classification of King Island’s vegetation communities underpins many of the responsibilities held by the King Island community for nature conservation, and is currently being assessed by the Comprehensive, Adequate, Representative, Scientific Advisory Group (CARSAG).

Recommendation: KINRMG remain informed of the findings of CARSAG, and review its activities and priorities accordingly.

  1. The nature conservation status of non-forest vegetation is currently the subject of assessment by CARSAG, and although there are not currently criteria for the protection of this type of vegetation, it is likely that some form of protection will be implemented in the near future. It is highly likely that this will have implications for vegetation management on King Island.

Recommendation: KINRMG to ensure that it is aware of changes in the status and classification of non-forest vegetation communities and that this is communicated to the King Island community.

  1. The King Island community has expressed significant concern about the potential effect the restriction of native vegetation clearing may have on the economic viability of the Island. Accreditation and certification of Island produce as ‘clean and green’ through an Environmental Management System (EMS) is seen as one means of offsetting any such negative impacts, and a pilot EMS project is currently being undertaken by KINRM.

Recommendation: Implement nature conservation and this strategy into the EMS pilot project with the pilot project EMS’s.

  1. The retention and ongoing management of native vegetation on private land requires a significant investment of resources. Both the State and Federal Governments run programs that provide support for such activities. In addition there are a number of non-government organisations that are dedicated to the protection of nature conservation values on private land.

Recommendations: To ensure that these organisations are aware of properties that will make a significant contribution to nature conservation on King Island, KINRMG will maintain a database of high conservation properties that are on the market.

  1. There is currently a perception amongst King Islanders that government bodies, particularly those of the State Government, are neglecting their responsibilities to the Island, and that there has been a significant loss of support services.

Recommendations: King Island Natural Resource Management Group work with the King Island Council, to undertake a needs analysis in relation to the provision of services (including those associated with nature conservation) by both State and Federal governments, and develop appropriate targets and priorities. This should be built into formal service / partnership agreements with the appropriate agencies.

  1. Currently priorities for nature conservation effort are largely generated on the basis of the reduction in area of a vegetation community since European colonisation, in combination with a measure of the perceived risk to that community. It does not take account of the resources required to maintain the health or viability of areas of remnant vegetation.

Recommendations: Implement a priority system based on a combination of conservation priority and condition assessment, as detailed in the Strategy, as a mechanism to guide conservation action.

  1. It is recognised that reservation alone will not guarantee long term conservation outcomes in protected areas, but rather that active management will be required to prevent the degradation of conservation values.

Recommendations: KINRMG to seek funding to assist with the development of management activities for areas of native vegetation.

  1. Currently, native wildlife, in particular wallabies, have a significant impact on both nature conservation values and agricultural production.

Recommendations: That the Wallaby Management Strategy, developed by Dr S Mallick, be implemented as part of this Strategy.

  1. An important issue for many members of the King Island community, particularly those who are not landholders, is access to the coast for recreational purposes. Increased interest in nature conservation is seen by many as a direct threat to this access.

Recommendations: Develop a Coastal Access Strategy, which recognises traditional access, while providing for education of community members in relation to their responsibilities.

  1. The importance of fire management on the Island was recognised by all members of the community, and has the potential to significantly affect nature conservation values. Currently however, there is no fire management plan in place.

Recommendations: Develop a plan, which takes into account both the protection of life and property and the maintenance of nature conservation values.

  1. KINRM has been involved in the provision of a highly successful fencing incentive scheme, which has secured significant areas of native vegetation. Although there is scope for the further expansion of this scheme, it is now out of resources.

Recommendations: That KINRMG seek further funding for this program.

  1. There are a number of private landholdings on King Island that have significant conservation values. In other areas the use of revolving funds has proved an efficient and effective means of protecting such areas.

Recommendations: Establish such a fund on King Island.

  1. Improved management of the Pegarah State Forest provides an opportunity to protect significant conservation values, while ensuring the supply of timber products to the local community.

Recommendations: This requires a combination of the improved management of existing plantations, the development of treatment works, and the extension of blue gum forest into poorly maintained plantation areas, which can then be managed as a sustainable harvest operation. Existing areas of high conservation value forest would be maintained as a protected area. The potential for environmental accreditation for such timber should also be investigated.

In summary, this Strategy provides a broad framework for the successful management of nature conservation on King Island, while meeting the social and economic aspirations of the local community.

1

1Background

1

1.1Key context issues

1

King Island is a unique cultural and biogeographic entity. The uniqueness of King Island is obviously based on its status as an island. Although this may seem self-evident, it is important to emphasise the real significance of this isolation as it necessitates the adoption of strategies that recognise the unique framework in which nature conservation management, agricultural production and other cultural activities occur on the island.

A significant finding of the consultation process undertaken as part of the development of this Strategy is that King Islanders apparently see themselves as a tightly knit community. Many perceive themselves as being buffeted by similar economic pressures as well as the vagaries of the weather of Bass Strait. They also feel that they suffer from a lack of recognition about the uniqueness of their situation by larger entities such as the State and Federal governments. The recognition of the reality of this unique status is fundamental to the acceptance and workability of this Strategy.

It is clear from the public consultation process that it will be difficult to reconcile many of the scale related issues to the satisfaction of all stakeholders when dealing with the proposed outcomes of this Strategy. To clarify this latter statement it is necessary to examine what is meant by “perspective and scale”. The following can be distilled from the consultation process:

  • The KI community exists in a tenuous economic environment and is largely dependent on agricultural production to remain viable.
  • The KI community has responded to this challenge with a high level of integrity and ingenuity resulting in its survival. However, the continued viability of the island as a cultural and economic entity is a significant source of concern for community members.
  • The public consultation component of the development of this Strategy compiled the views of both selected KI community members and also individuals not resident on the Island. This latter group consisted of professionals and others who had an interest in nature conservation on the Island. It was clear from this analysis that divergent views were held by these groups, in relation to nature conservation goals.
  • KI community members who were consulted were generally supportive of the achievement of nature conservation goals. In fact considerable effort had been expended on the island to achieve these ends. The KI Natural Resource Management (NRM) group has been successful in focusing the intentions of the community and has facilitated significant nature conservation outcomes. However, the aforementioned concerns related to the sustainability of economic activity on the Island strongly influence the definition of goals by the local community.
  • Individuals interviewed who were not members of the KI community were generally disengaged from economic considerations. They tended to perceive the issue of nature conservation as the primary focus of their engagement with the community.

This separation in view between KI residents, who must take into account their cultural and economic survival, and those representatives of institutions and agencies responsible for the nature conservation management of the Island is the core issue in creating a vegetation management strategy which is acceptable to the KI community and consequently workable. Prioritisation of effort in relation to nature conservation is based on the determination of conservation significance by scientific principles. To further refine understanding of this underlying structural reality it is important to consider the mechanisms by which nature conservation significance are determined.

Determination of nature conservation significance is based on concepts of Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness. These concepts stem from the underlying principle of surrogacy which is a response to the practical reality that the diversity of life is unknowable. It is unfeasible to name and understand the ecology of every species of organism that exists. Consequently, it is assumed that if representative areas of vegetation or habitat are protected and/or reserved that some degree of security will be achieved in terms of the maintenance of biodiversity. This assumption is based on the concept that the organisms inhabiting the plant community in question will be represented across the range of that community and consequently protecting sub samples of the community will provide security for viable populations of each species. In effect, the vegetation communities are used as surrogates of the biodiversity present in the broader landscape.

Although this premise has significant shortcomings, it is the only available mechanism for achieving nature conservation outcomes in the current political and administrative environment. The difficulty with adopting such a strategy is that it relies heavily on the acceptance of a framework of scale. This framework does not necessarily reflect the scale of the cultural realities over which it is placed.

The clash of the local issue of economic and cultural viability and the national issue of nature conservation planning places KI in a difficult position in relation to the determination of goals. If areas of land become unavailable for agricultural clearance in other places effort can simply be moved elsewhere. Similarly, communities may draw support from other communities in their vicinity to buffer their viability. These options are largely unavailable on KI.

Another important consideration on KI is that any combination of unique biogeographic circumstances with isolation will produce high levels of nature conservation significance if the principles of Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness are adhered to.

These realities mean that the motivations of the KI community and those of the broader national community represented by State and Federal Governments will be, by necessity, in conflict. This is the case in many rural areas of Australia, but is particularly focussed on KI by its isolation, its history of agricultural development, and it’s unique biodiversity values.

It is a primary recommendation of this Strategy that both the KI community and representatives of organisations responsible for achieving nature conservation goals on the Island, recognise the reality of this situation and come to terms with the implications it has for the other party. Acceptance of these different realities and the inherent potential for conflict would greatly reduce animosity between these groups and facilitate a situation where outcomes can more easily be achieved.

Agreement on an appropriate strategy for the management of vegetation on KI depends on the acceptance by all parties of the strongly divergent significance placed on values by the KI community and others interested in the management of natural resources on the Island. This difference will not be resolved by the acceptance of one view over another because the achievement of goals perceived as ideal by the broader community depends on the good will and support of King Islanders. Similarly, the availability of resources to the KI community to achieve its own nature conservation goals depends on the acknowledgement of the framework in which the broader community functions.

As a consequence of these considerations this Strategy recognises both sets of motivations. This has been simplified by the participation of the KI NRM group in the development of the Environmental Management Strategy (EMS) for the Island. The EMS will address issues of certification and accreditation at a much higher resolution then is possible within the framework of this VMS. The economic rewards achieved from projecting King Island as an example of exemplary land management will go some way towards compensating the community for any loss of productivity resulting from the restrictions necessitated by the acceptance of nature conservation goals. The EMS, however, can draw in parts on this Strategy to define goals and standards.

Another important factor underpinning this Strategy is the realisation that individuals and organisations on KI have legal responsibilities in relation to the management of vegetation on the Island. Prior to and during the development of this Strategy the KI community has debated the appropriateness or otherwise of the KI Council creating vegetation clearance controls as part of its planning process. As the development of this Strategy has progressed, it has become evident that the Council cannot act in a vacuum in this regard, and its vegetation management initiatives must be seen in the context of State and Federal legislation and administrative requirements in relation to vegetation clearance.