Back to Membership Database

Up to Table of Contents

Landscape Reconstruction: An Australian Symposium

As political and social recognition of the ecological impacts of habitat loss and degradation has risen, many countries hope to rectify some of the damage through restoration. In late 2000, a symposium in Melbourne, Australia examined how the expertise of ecologists may help guide landscape-scale ecological reconstruction. Some of the proceedings will be published in Environmental Management and Restoration in 2001 and a more complete summary of this outline will be published early in 2001.

The symposium focused on restoration of landscape elements such as patch geometries, configurations, and linkages rather than restoring habitat at the local scale. In the opening remarks, Sam Lake noted that objectives are most likely to be 'idealized states' because initial 'pristine states' are rarely known. Numerous speakers stressed the importance of monitoring. Geoff Barrett commented upon the unsustainable agricultural approaches practiced in much of Australia. He also cited examples from the 'Birds on Farms' project that showed that relatively simple small-scale actions by farmers could substantially improve local bird diversity. Andrew Bennett contended that while the effects and processes involved with restoration at the patch scale are reasonably well understood, conceptual progress at larger scales has been slow.

Robert Lambeck provided a general overview of the importance of giving stakeholder groups concrete options in developing plans for landscape reconstruction based on his 'focal-species' approach. Sue Briggs discussed how her group has used this approach for 'designing' landscapes in central New South Wales, while Kim Lowe highlighted how the focal-species approach, when coupled with information on current and past vegetation distributions and estimates of habitat requirements, could be used to provide alternative landscape-scale planning schemes. His approach capitalizes upon existing detailed biotic data and, more importantly, upon the current configuration and availability of habitat types that have been largely lost. Catherine Hulm challenged the audience by suggesting that inclusion of as many land-holders as possible was more important in the long-term than more academically-oriented tests of ideas like the focal-species approach. She also mentioned that many farmers are eager to revegetate, but are impeded by current agricultural economic conditions.

Symposium convenor Ralph Mac Nally stated that because the number of 'on the ground' trials is likely to remain small, tests of rival plans will be underpowered and delayed. He suggested that realistic modeling of organisms and landscape characteristics would assist the process, making good natural history a critically important contribution of ecologists. Julian Reid concluded the symposium, arguing that in practice ecologists are peripheral to the actual socio-economic processes by which landscapes will be reconstructed.

To my convenor's ear, many ecologists are expressing muted opinions as to what needs to be done to reconstruct massively degraded landscapes. This seems to have arisen because (1) ecologists, when drawn into collaborative ventures with stake-holders, do begin to 'adjust' to social, economic and political 'realities' and, perhaps, 'to pull in their horns'; and (2) at least some ecologists do not believe that ecological outcomes will be major drivers in reconstruction. In this view, any large-scale revegetation likely will be for market-driven (salinity, agroforestry) rather than for biodiversity reasons. In either case, the importance of ecological input is lessened. The clear message from the symposium was that these ecologists viewed their potential contributions to be value-adding, i.e., tinkering with landscape design and elements, but actually adding relatively few hectares to landscapes.

Are ecologists thinking too small? No one specifically raised the idea that ecologists should continue to highlight the causes of landscape degradation rather than patch up the symptoms. It is difficult to envision how large-scale ecological processes and function can be restored unless the causes are addressed. It is equally difficult to picture the logistics of landscape reconstruction, even if the causes were eliminated; restoring thousands of ha has proved tremendously costly, but many of the landscapes needing reconstruction are millions of ha in area.

Ralph Mac Nally, Ralph.MacNally@sci.monash.edu.au

Back to Membership Database

Up to Table of Contents