The Committee considers that the ESD concept provides a logically consistent platform with wide appeal and relevance to the utilisation of native flora and fauna. While it establishes an ideal, it can nonetheless be applied to any particular form of utilisation.
The National ESD Strategy's approach is, however, complex and some form of framework is needed.22 A simple, but consistent, framework was developed by the Committee to assist in the consideration of utilisation of native flora and fauna. It acknowledges that any form of utilisation is a progressive activity, rather than a static one. The framework was described in the Committee's Discussion Paper,23 and its development is outlined in Appendix VII. The recommended `ESD Framework' is a direct interpretation of the ideas behind ESD.
Most forms of utilisation will reflect, to a greater or lesser extent, the concept. The key and challenge to implementing the ESD concept is to actively respond to its core objectives - to seek ways of continually improving well-being, increasing equity and better maintaining biodiversity.
Some forms of utilisation activity may fail to meet ESD requirements - if it, for example, leads to a diminishing of well-being and equity and fails to maintain biodiversity. The Committee believes that such utilisation activity should be rejected. However, the Committee believes that mostly the application of ESD approaches to the development and consideration of a utilisation activity will not necessarily lead to the passing or failing of proposals, rather it will be used as a powerful tool to help improve the nature of proposals and thus the delivery of benefits to the proponent as well as the community.
The Committee considers that its recommended ESD Framework, as described below, when developed and operational will provide a means to ensure that decisions on the utilisation of Victorian native flora and fauna move towards the realisation of ESD.
The Committee's recommended ESD Framework has three parts:
p) a set of objectives;
q) a question set; and
r) a management system.
The framework also includes a number of feedback loops. In particular, a review of the utilisation objectives and/or the implementation programs is needed when outcomes vary from the initial objectives.
Section A - Objectives
The Committee has concluded that the ESD concept encompasses three core objectives:
s) improving individual and community welfare and well-being;
t) increasing inter- and intra-generational equity; and
u) maintaining biodiversity and ecological processes.
The driver for the Committee's recommended ESD Framework is the three core objectives of the National ESD Strategy, allied to the notion that none of these objectives has precedence over the others.
A commitment to the core ESD objectives is considered a vital and necessary precursor to the commencement of any management process professing to deal with any form of utilisation.
A practical interpretation of these core objectives from the context of the particular aspiration or needs of the user is required. People have their own reasons for doing things and it is likely that each stakeholder group will have different reasons and expectations for their particular form of utilisation activity. Moreover these reasons and expectations may change over time. Consequently, an interpretation of the core ESD objectives will be required.
The Discussion Paper noted a number of reasons for the use of native flora and fauna that may be desired by the community as a whole.24 These are:
v) to provide an incentive to preserve a species and indirectly its habitat (by the deliberate placement of a financial value on a species);
w) to offer opportunities to broaden the income base of struggling rural businesses;
x) to explore the potential for utilisation as part of conservation programs of population control;
y) to build on existing Victorian industry sectors; and
z) to take advantage of the adaptation of endemic species to Australia's landscape (instead of, or in combination with, introduced species).
These five `reasons' offer examples of the more specific interpretation of the ESD utilisation objectives by a stakeholder group. For other stakeholders the reasons for utilisation may be more simple - such as to obtain a livelihood or create a return to shareholders. Such `reasons' provide the context in which the ESD objectives need to be interpreted.
Improving Individual and Community Welfare and Well-being
In effect this core ESD objective is about the generation of economic wealth and benefit. However, the objective goes beyond a narrow financial view of wealth - the `benefit' of a pristine waterway or access to a wild population of animals can, for instance, also contribute to the well-being of individuals. Community benefits could include clean air and good water quality.
Increasing Inter and Intra-generational Equity
Equity implies a sense of fairness. In an economic sense it could relate to the equitable sharing of economic benefit to the various sectors of society. Equity principles also extend across generations. A decision on utilisation of a plant or animal that enables inter-generational equity will ensure that future generations can enjoy the use of that plant or animal to the same extent as the current generation that is seeking utilisation now.
Maintaining Biodiversity and Ecological Processes
Biodiversity means "the natural diversity of all life: the sum of all our native species of flora and fauna, the genetic variation within them, their habitats, and the ecosystems of which they are an integral part".25 Biodiversity thus operates at genetic, species and ecosystem levels.26 An `ecosystem' is a unit of plants and animals, together with their environment (that is the atmosphere, soil and water) which form an interacting system of activities and functions.27 Ecological processes are those that affect the matter and energy flow between organisms and from and between the physical surrounds of the organisms.
Maintaining biodiversity is consequently far more complex than merely ensuring that no species is driven to total extinction.
The implementation of the Committee's ESD framework thus requires a commitment to the broad objectives and an interpretation of these objectives in the context of a particular sector or activity. In summary:
Part 1 Commitment |
Commitment to achieve the ideas embodied in the three core objectives of the National ESD Strategy: (1) Improving individual and community welfare and well-being; (2) Increasing inter- and intra-generational equity; and (3) Maintaining biodiversity and ecological processes; plus the notion that all three objectives need to be met. |
Part 2 Interpretation |
Clarification of the practical meaning and application of these core objectives - in the context of desired utilisation objectives. Such clarification to be subject to an iterative process of review. |
Section B - The Question Set
The Question Set is a technique to generate information on the existing and potential forms of utilisation and may be helpful for the initial and review stages of the suggested management process (see next section). The questions are set from an ESD perspective.
The questions have been arranged in five groups. The first group is designed to define the nature of the utilisation of flora and fauna. The next three relate to the three core ESD objectives. The last question attempts to encourage a synthesis and comparison of alternatives to assist in achieving the best ESD outcome.
The Question Set is:
Questions related to the nature of flora and fauna utilisation
1. How are the flora/fauna and ecosystems utilised?
2. What is the history of utilisation and the current status of the flora/fauna and the ecosystems involved?
Questions relating to the welfare and well-being of the individual and community
3. What benefits does this utilisation contribute to the individuals involved?
4. What benefits does this utilisation contribute to the community?
5. Will these benefits be available to the individuals and to the community in the longer term?
6. What flexibility is there to change the nature of utilisation to improve its benefits?
7. What alternatives would create the equivalent benefits for welfare and well-being?
Questions relating to equity
8. How are the benefits from this utilisation of flora and fauna distributed between individual people, and between individual people and communities over time?
9. What flexibility is there to change who receives value (and what values they receive) from this utilisation in 5, 10 and 50 years time?
10. How do the benefits from this utilisation match the benefits needed by communities?
11. What factors could alter the fairness of this utilisation?
12. What alternatives exist that would create equivalent or improved equity?
Questions relating to biodiversity and ecological processes
13. How does the utilisation benefit the maintenance of the ecological processes involved?
14. How does the utilisation benefit the protection of biodiversity?
15. What flexibility is there to alter this utilisation to improve the maintenance of ecological processes and protection of biodiversity?
16. What research and scientific knowledge is being published about this utilisation that is aimed at improving the maintenance of ecological processes and the protection of biodiversity?
17. What alternatives exist that would create equivalent or improved maintenance of biodiversity and ecological processes?
Question relating to the integration of welfare, equity and biodiversity maintenance
18. Of the potential alternatives, which offers the greatest opportunity in terms of their capacity to maintain or improve welfare and well-being, equity, and biodiversity and ecological processes?
One of the advantages of the Question Set is its capacity to stimulate lateral thinking; to help people seek at least equivalent, if not better, ways of doing things. The inclusion of questions asking about `alternatives' enhances this capability.
These questions have to be open ended to encourage disclosure, analysis and lateral thinking, especially in terms of alternatives. Nonetheless, a minimum response may need to be defined for the question to be useful. For example, the answer to question eight would need to indicate, at worst, no disadvantage for the utilisation to proceed.
The use of the Question Set was suggested, in the Discussion Paper, for those making submissions to the Inquiry.28 The Committee has also made use of it when considering the evidence presented to it and as it made its recommendations. As is outlined in Chapter 11, the Question Set is suggested as a mechanism that individuals and industries, and their regulators, can use to review and improve the benefits flowing from the particular utilisation activity.
A theoretical example of the use of the Question Set has been worked up using the wild harvest of kelp. This has been included at the end of this chapter.
Section C - The Management System
While the Question Set provides a tool to assess proposed or existing forms of utilisation, it is essentially a one-dimensional tool. To provide those involved with utilisation activity, whether as a regulator or as a business operator, with an ongoing process for enhancing ESD outcomes, the Committee has developed a Management System.
The Management System uses a `Total Quality Management' approach. This involves a five-part process to implement the ESD objectives. The five steps are:
aa) assessing;
bb) planning;
cc) implementing;
dd) reviewing; and
ee) improving.
More particularly, the Management System is:
Part 1 |
Conduct an initial review of the situation, including estimating the values of utilisation in terms of each core ESD objective. (Such a review would be facilitated by use of the Question Set.) |
Form conclusions and develop policy that address and advance the three core ESD objectives. | |
Part 2 |
Carry out planning, based on the conclusions of the Part 1 assessment, that realises the potential for increasing the value derived from flora and fauna utilisation in the context of the three core objectives. (The use of the Question Set could help measure and compare potential values of alternative approaches.) Plans to be compatible with adopted policy. |
Part 3 |
Undertake programs and activity in accordance with the plans. |
Concurrently collect information on performance internally (within the business) and from external sources. | |
Part 4 |
Review outcomes in terms of the core ESD objectives and devise better policies and plans. (Such a review would be facilitated by use of the Question Set.) |
Part 5 |
If necessary, clarify the original objectives, amend the policies (Part 1), revise plans (Part 2) and upgrade the implementation programs and activity (Part 3). Reiterate the process - to create a continuous improvement process. |
Such a Management System would best be used by the organisations actually using the native flora and fauna. By working through the whole System, managers can progressively capture more of the enduring value of using native flora and fauna. The review, envisaged in Part 4 of the Management System, could, however, be conducted by the regulator, the business directly involved or an agreed external organisation.
The Committee made reference to this five-part Management System as it considered the evidence presented to it and as it made its recommendations.
Ways to encourage the use of the recommended ESD framework by others and the above Management System in particular, are discussed in Chapter 11.
Using the ESD Framework - A Fictional Example
A fictional example of a kelp harvesting and processing business is used to illustrate application of the Question Set and Management System.
Application of the Question Set
Question: |
|
1 How are the flora ecosystems utilised? |
Harvesting of kelp involves dragging the storm-cast kelp from the shore. This is winched on to trucks and then transported to a processing factory. At the factory the kelp is first air-dried then further dried in a wood-fired kiln. Wood for the kiln is provided from an old pine forest. No harvest is permitted across dunes in which wildlife breeds. The ground kelp, which is approximately 80 per cent alginate, is shipped to Scotland for extraction. The extract is worth approximately 1,000 times the value paid for the dried kelp. |
2 What is the history of utilisation and the current status of the flora/fauna and the ecosystems involved? |
A local company with an elected Board of Management owns the factory. Harvesters are members of the local community. Each harvester must have a contract with the Board and contracts are tradeable. The number of contracted operators is fixed and relates to what has been assessed as both a commercially viable yield and a sustainable harvest. The `sustainable yield' does not take into account impacts of harvest on beaches. Company objectives are to a) make a profit; and b) provide local employment. Harvest has continued with slow increase in the amount taken over a period of five years. |
3 What benefits does this utilisation contribute to the individuals involved and to the community? |
Not all contracts are used, as some holders are no longer young and fit enough to take part in the strenuous work of harvesting kelp. For those actively involved, harvesting is both a pleasurable and useful additional form of employment. Others in the community would like to be able to take up the unused contracts but there is no mechanism for requiring that non-users give up their contract. |
4 Will these benefits be available to the individuals and to the community in the longer term? |
No monitoring of the resource is undertaken so the company cannot answer the question with confidence. The wood supply is nearly exhausted and a switch to diesel will be required for the kiln in the near future. This will increase costs and reduce returns. |
5 What flexibility is there to change the nature of utilisation to improve its benefits? |
Change to the contracting system could require that those who are not actively involved in harvesting sell their contracts. New plantations could be established to provide a low-cost and `greenhouse'-friendly fuel in the future. They could also be used to control local soil salinity problems. |
6 What alternatives would create the equivalent benefits for welfare and well-being? |
Harvesting of alternative kelps for other products could be explored. Ecotourism has potential and could expand to include more local people. |
7 How are the benefits from this utilisation of flora and fauna distributed between individual people and communities over time? |
The method of issuing contracts has been based on a `first-come-first-served' approach. This, with the problem of unused contracts, is seen as limiting the distribution of benefits. |
8 What flexibility is there to change who receives value (and what values they receive) from this utilisation in 5, 10 and 50 years time? |
Within two years, those with inactive contracts could be required to put them up for sale. In the longer term, the growing of a fuel plantation could be undertaken by individuals as a means of gaining income. In the long term, the potential to harvest other species and development of an extraction plant could be explored. |
9 How do the benefits from this utilisation match the benefits needed by communities? |
Employment opportunities and diversification are needed. Some of the younger members of the community are gaining employment. The small processing factory and fuel collection also provide employment. There is little potential for growth in employment, however, and the industry offers few openings to those who are not very fit or cannot afford the necessary equipment. |
10 What factors could alter the fairness of this utilisation? |
Releasing unused contracts, a fair system of allocating these contracts and a system for contracting the growing of fuel-wood plantations on private land. |
11 What alternatives exist that would create equivalent or improved equity? |
The greatest need is employment for older and less-fit members of the community. Ecotourism is an option and local arts and crafts sell well. Effort put into coordinating and promoting these could increase the employment opportunities for more people. |
12 How does the utilisation benefit the maintenance of the ecological processes involved? |
There are no evident benefits to the marine community, but also no indications of harm. Using the sun and wood-fuel to dry the kelp removes the dependence on non-renewable fuels. The method of harvest may cause erosion of beaches, but there is no monitoring to check this. |
13 How does the utilisation benefit the protection of biodiversity? |
There are no obvious adverse impacts, but a survey would be required to confirm this. |
14 What flexibility is there to alter this utilisation to improve the maintenance of ecological processes and protection of biodiversity? |
A survey could be undertaken to ensure that there is no beach erosion or disturbance of wildlife. If there is evidence of a problem, further restrictions on where harvest can occur could be implemented. Rehabilitation of the pine plantation after removal of trees could extend the areas of natural habitat. |
15 What research and scientific knowledge is being published about this utilisation that is aimed at improving the maintenance of ecological processes and the protection of biodiversity? |
None at present. |
16 What alternatives exist that would create equivalent or improved maintenance of biodiversity and ecological processes? |
New plantations could be located to control salinity and could use native species. Surveys could be undertaken on a regular basis to identify impacts and indicate any improvement in management needed. |
17 Of the potential alternatives, which offers the greatest opportunity in terms of its capacity to maintain or improve welfare and well-being, equity, and biodiversity and ecological processes? |
Kelp harvesting provides social benefit and appears to be ecologically neutral, but is not as equitable as could be desired. Alternative ecotourism and art / craft industries offer benefits to other people. Rather than being seen as alternatives to the kelp industry they may be complementary. The approach which appears to meet the ESD objectives better than the present industry is to involve a community cooperative in developing a greater range of industries that use the natural features of the island. Monitoring is needed |
Application of the Management System
The Management System incorporates a review system that makes use of the Question Set. The planning part of the Management System could respond to the results of the above `fictional' Question Set response by incorporating into the company's management plan regular survey of the natural resource and involvement of research to monitor environmental impacts. Negotiation of contracts to grow new fuel-wood plantations could also be included in the plan, and the potential for development of alginate extraction within Australia might be explored. As the plan is implemented, results can be used to upgrade environmental management, should it be evident that this is needed.
A change to the contracting process could be used to provide greater equity than was found to currently occur by the responses in the Question Set. A community coordination program could also be established to expand ecotourism and art/craft development.
As part of the Management Plan's review process, the company might revise its utilisation objectives. For example these might be expanded to include:
ff) allocation of harvest contracts by tender; and
gg) regulation and monitoring of the harvest so that the kelp is used sustainably.
1 Council of Australian Governments (1992), The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
6 And it is to be the basis of new Commonwealth environmental legislation; Commonwealth of Australia (1998), Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, Explanatory Memorandum, Canberra.
7 Council of Australian Governments (1992), The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
8 Council of Australian Governments (1992), Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, p. 13.
9 Commonwealth of Australia (1998), Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, Explanatory Memorandum, Canberra.
10 Council of Australian Governments (1992), The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, p. 6.
11 Productivity Commission 1999, Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development by Commonwealth Departments and Agencies, Draft Report, Canberra.
12 The Productivity Commission's final report had been completed at the time of writing (June 1999) but not yet released by the Commonwealth Government.
13 Productivity Commission 1999, Implementation of Ecologically Sustainable Development by Commonwealth Departments and Agencies, Draft Report, Canberra.
17 Council of Australian Governments (1992), The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, p. 14.
19 This does not mean, however, that the use of every individual plant and animal has to demonstrate that it delivers these objectives, but that the utilisation at the 'project', or 'regional', or even the `industry' level can demonstrate that it delivers each of these objectives in the long term.
20 Council of Australian Governments (1992), The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, p. 9.
21 Principle 2 of the Biodiversity Strategy.
22 For example: Rendell McGuckian, (1996), Benchmarking Sustainable Farming Systems, Agricultural and Management Consultants, Bendigo, Agriculture Victoria, Melbourne; and Farmar-Bowers, Q., (1998), Calculating the Direction Towards the Objectives of Ecologically Sustainable Development, Environmental Management Vol 1, Second International Conference on Environmental Management (ICEM2), Australia, 10-13 February 1998, Sivakumar, M., and Chowdhury, R. N., (editors), pp 87-94, Elsevier Science, Oxford.
23 Environment and Natural Resources Committee (1998), Utilisation of Victorian Native Flora and Fauna - Discussion Paper, ENRC, Parliament of Victoria, p. 37.
25 Department of Natural Resources and Environment (1997), Victoria's Biodiversity - Our Living Wealth, a document forming the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Strategy, State of Victoria, p. 2.
26 For example, see Biodiversity Unit (1993), Biodiversity and its Value, Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 1, Biodiversity Unit, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories.
27 Butterworths (1997), Environmental Management and Law Dictionary, p. 66.
28 Environment and Natural Resources Committee (1998), Utilisation of Victorian Native Flora and Fauna - Discussion Paper, ENRC, Parliament of Victoria, pp. 28-29.
