Species Purple copper butterfly, Paralucia spinifera. (Other common names include Bathurst copper, purple copperwing, Bathurst copperwing, Bathurst-Lithgow copper and Yetholme copper.)

Status Endangered - Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; vulnerable - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth).

Distribution Known from approximately 35 sites on the central tablelands of NSW, in the area bounded by Oberon, Hartley and Bathurst.

Threats to the species include:

weed invasion of habitat
clearing and overgrazing
inappropriate fire management
activities resulting in the loss of symbiotic species, Bursaria spinosa subsp. Lasiophylla (native blackthorn bush) and Anonychomyra itinerans (ant species)
isolation and fragmentation of habitat
illegal collection.

Actions in recovery plan

Actions in the recovery plan that were implemented through the project included:

informing affected landholders and the broader community of, and involving them in, issues associated with the conservation of the purple copper butterfly
involving amateur entomologists in recovery actions.

These actions were largely implemented through information provision, signage, involvement of community groups, liaison with landholders to improve management of sites, and increased media output.

Other recovery actions that were implemented through the project included habitat identification and surveying, site management and protection, and monitoring and research.

Location of community involvement

Community activity is centred around Lithgow on the western slopes of the Blue Mountains.

Project partners

The project was initiated and supported by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (now part of the DEC), with the assistance of Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funds.

Other project partners and the target audience included:

local business
educational institutions
conservation-oriented community groups
other community groups
state and local government agencies
landholders.

Objectives of recovery activity

The objective of the project was to engage the Lithgow community in recovery actions that would continue beyond the three-year life of the project.

Main activities of project

The three main elements of this project included:

understanding the community and identifying opportunities
creating awareness
involving the community in recovery actions.

Engagement began with leaflets, newspaper and website articles, radio and television segments and the distribution of resources to primary and secondary schools, TAFE colleges and community organisations. With an increasing show of support from the community, this grew to numerous community engagement activities.

The community adopted the butterfly as a local icon, naming a local newspaper the Copperwing Country Independent and painting a bus shelter butterfly mural. Butterfly postcards were developed to raise money for the community nursery habitat propagation program, and a local cafe based its activities on a butterfly theme, selling butterfly cakes and donating the takings to the recovery effort. Schools began planting butterfly habitat gardens and primary school children worked with people at the community nursery to plant host plants on private land.

Weeding and habitat improvement programs were coordinated by DEC and largely implemented by the community. In 2002, 38 people helped to monitor butterfly populations and 190 people removed weeds in key habitats. The community awareness campaign also improved knowledge and maintenance of habitat elsewhere on private land. For example, a 7-year-old girl inspected her family's property and found a population that more than doubled the known range of the species.

In addition to engaging the Blue Mountains community, the DEC project officer made a presentation to the Society for Insect Studies based in Sydney. As a result, approximately 30 members subsequently spent a weekend surveying habitat and found a significant new site on land acquired by DEC for a new nature reserve at Marrangaroo.

Community engagement methodology

Full disclosure Initially there were concerns about publicising butterfly sites due to the threat of illegal collection. However, with increased identification of butterfly habitat on private land, it was decided that the risk of inappropriate management was greater than collection concerns, and that open consultation was the best approach.

Face-to-face approach Although it was resource intensive, face-to-face contact was chosen as the best method for approaching the community. Key contacts from major groups were approached, their knowledge of the butterfly identified, and information sought on how messages would best be delivered to the community. From those initial contacts, individuals were identified who could effectively represent several interest groups.

Public media The media was used to broadly disseminate information to a wide audience, particularly in the early stages of the project before other community-based mechanisms were available.

Community leadership The project needed to have a life beyond the three years of available funding, so it was recognised that the community would need to take on ownership of the butterfly and its management. That required not just community engagement but a community-driven and directed program, which would cater more to the needs of the community than the priorities laid down by DEC. The program needed to obtain community contributions to on-ground works and required a change in community understanding and attitudes.

Awareness raising activities were restricted to information about biology and ecology, threats and the recovery actions necessary to protect the species. Little to no mention was made of an upcoming program of community activities to avoid creating false expectations or dictating a future course of action. Community interest in the butterfly grew and was passed by word of mouth. Before DEC was prepared to approach the community with a program of activities, community members were planning opportunities amongst themselves and approaching DEC with suggestions on how the public might support the recovery effort.

Project success

The integration of the purple copper butterfly into the identity of the people of Lithgow and its surroundings significantly increased the butterfly's chance of long-term survival. Increased awareness of the species and input from private landholders also considerably increased understanding of the species and the amount of active threat abatement and habitat management under way.

By allowing the community to direct its involvement and interest in the recovery effort, local commitment to carry on recovery for the species has been very strong and has allowed DEC to play a supporting role rather than act as the key project facilitator.

Strengths

Engaging existing capacity Early investigations into community interest and capacity revealed a range of existing environmentally-based programs into which butterfly recovery actions could be well integrated, with a number of special interest groups having an interest in the butterfly's habitat. Utilising these pre-existing programs and groups and making connections between their current interests and the butterfly provided an immediate base of committed and enthusiastic people.

The choice to personally contact groups at the project outset allowed for a better understanding of relationships between groups and key players in the community. This information was key to the project's success.

Barriers

Species name To ensure that the broader community could 'own' the species and to avoid the perception of a distribution restricted to only one local government area, the common name purple copper butterfly, rather than 'Bathurst' or 'Lithgow' copper butterfly was adopted throughout the project. This avoided any parochial perceptions and issues and allowed for greater acceptance of the species across a geographic range.

Lessons

Directing the community After the community expressed strong interest in supporting the recovery effort, the first volunteer day was organised and promoted by government agencies. Advertisements were run through local papers and radio, on websites and through a letterbox drop to adjoining landholders, but no-one attended because:

the activity was not a community initiative
the community did not identify with the site
there were no community benefits from the activity.

From that point on, activities were either integrated into existing interests and activities run by the community or were developed by the group carrying out the activity. Opportunities arose for community-driven partnerships to adopt mutual interests. This strengthened the long-term future of recovery activities and allowed public awareness to reach further into the community.

Project coordinator contact details

Biodiversity Conservation Section, Metropolitan Branch, Department of Environment and Conservation, (02) 9585 6952.

Case study 2: Grassy box woodland - supporting the landholders

At a glance

The Grassy Box Woodland Conservation Management Network (GBW CMN) was first established in 1999, and later combined with a project named 'Taking Action Now!'. The network was originally made up of land managers with quality remnant grassy box woodland under their management. The current network recognises the value of all sites that make up this ecological community. The network advises on remnant management and information on the species found on-site, facilitates communication across the network and between members, and runs field days and workshops to meet members' needs. It also assists landholders to identify and implement improved protection measures and helps to source funding to carry out on-ground works.

Previously the network was supported by a project officer and three rural liaison officers. Under current funding, the network exists in a much reduced form with only one project officer, forming part of a project entitled 'Biodiversity Conservation on the Sheep Wheat Belt of NSW' and supported by National Heritage Trust funds until 2007.

Species/ecological community Grassy white box woodland; yellow box, white box, Blakley's red gum woodland; numerous flora and fauna species dependent on these woodland communities.

Status Endangered - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth).

Distribution Found in small, scattered patches along the lower western slopes of the Great Dividing Range, from southern to northern NSW, and in a small number of locations in north-eastern Victoria and southern Queensland.

Threats to this ecological community include:

clearing and fragmentation
dieback and ageing
weed invasion
overgrazing and lack of regeneration
inappropriate fire regimes
changes in soil quality
salinity
site disturbance
invasive pests.

Actions in the recovery plan

At the time this project was conceived, a recovery plan did not exist for grassy white box woodland. Under the draft 2004 plan, the following actions have been included:

continuing the operation of the CMN in NSW, and extending the network into Victoria (via bioregional networks), Queensland and South Australia
employing government and non-government extension officers to coordinate management networks to facilitate the implementation of recovery plan actions
identifying key sites for conservation protection, with the medium-term goal of capturing sites representing the entire geographic and ecological extent of the community - CMN would perform this action
negotiating protection of identified sites through adopting a range of binding, long-term and revocable management agreements and protective covenants - CMN would perform this action
preparing management plans for high-priority sites with the assistance of CMN extension officers
promotion by CMN of existing management kits and development of further guidelines to address management issues including control of specific weeds and pests, grazing and fire regimes, and landscape issues
coordination and development by CMN of communication and education strategies (eg field days, newsletters, school curriculum, websites) aimed at a range of target groups (eg landholders, schools)
promotion by CMN of a recovery plan to all sectors of the community via the internet and other media
encouragement by CMN of GBW conservation by non-government organisations, eg Friends of Grasslands (FOG), naturalist clubs, Landcare, Bushcare, by providing practical management information and support.

Location of community involvement

The CMN operates across the NSW sheep/wheat belt, especially in the Wagga Wagga, Bathurst/Orange/Cowra and Tamworth regions.

Project partners

The CMN is run by DEC, but was initiated by a consultancy called Ecological Interactions and then coordinated by another consultancy, Community Solutions.

Other project partners include:

NSW Farmers' Association
Charles Sturt University
WWF Australia
rural lands protection boards
local government
landholders from the NSW wheat/sheep belt.

As at June 2006, project partners include the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Central Western, Border Rivers-Gwydir and Namoi catchment management authorities (CMAs).

Objectives of recovery activity

The key objective of this project was to establish an integrated information, management and support structure for public and private landholders of GBW sites. The project was designed to build on previous research, work with landholders and public land managers to identify remnant patches and assess their environmental value and, through the provision of financial incentives, assist in managing land for conservation. Actions continue to work towards these objectives.

Main activities of project

Previously, the GBW CMN employed three rural liaison officers (RLOs) in different regions of the NSW western slopes. These officers worked with network members to provide advice on remnant management, information on the species found on- site, and identification and implementation of improved protection measures. Assistance was also given to landholders to source funding for on-ground works, and RLOs organised regional workshops and field days for member landholders. The broader CMN administration facilitated communication across the network and between members, including production of a regular newsletter with input from each region.

As at June 2006, one project officer achieves all the above with the support of regional CMA staff. The current three-year project focuses on different parts of the sheep wheat belt each year while continuing to maintain the network in the other areas. The focus in 2005 was the south-west slopes, in 2006 is the north-west and in 2007 will be the central west. In addition to running the network and supporting communications and community events, the project officer is responsible for building links with other landscape planning decision makers and stakeholders to further the objectives of woodland conservation.

Community engagement methodology

Potential CMN members are approached by either the project officer or the CMA community support officers.

Often, the contact is face-to-face as the project officer spends a lot of time attending landholder functions or organising them in partnership with staff across the sheep/wheat belt.

Ongoing communication within the network is provided through a twice-yearly newsletter, an email discussion group and a website www.gbwcmn.net.au

Project success

The GBW CMN is now host to 677 members, including 477 managers of grassy box woodland.

Strengths

Efficacy of CMN approach CMNs can be extremely effective for a number of reasons:

each network usually focuses on one or a set of related ecological communities, allowing effective delivery of conservation objectives and actions
a CMN can flexibly encourage formal protection of sites by offering a range of protection measures
CMNs encourage and support adaptive management of sites through effective communication of efforts elsewhere in the network and new information and research on management techniques
CMNs allow for peer learning as landholders can share their experiences, and opportunities exist to see the efforts of others for conservation through field days and workshops.

Lessons

Partnerships and flexible project design The GBW CMN is currently running in partnership with CMAs, and community support officers play the role previously carried out by RLOs. This arrangement works best when the CMA is committed to supporting the network, and therefore network activities vary between CMAs in keeping with their differing needs and priorities.

Funding and planning considerations Continuity of funding and other resourcing is a key factor when planning a program of this nature. Efforts should be made either to plan for the continuation of the program by its current administrator or to develop partnerships with other appropriate groups such as CMAs.

Project coordinator contact details

Grassy Box Woodland CMN Coordinator, Department of Environment and Conservation, (02) 6298 9709, toni.mcleish@environment.nsw.gov.au

Case study 3: Adopting caterpillars - the Richmond birdwing butterfly

At a glance

In 1999, as a part of the Richmond Birdwing Butterfly Conservation Program, the adopt-a-caterpillar scheme for south-east Queensland began. Before 1999 many schools had already been engaged in awareness-raising efforts for the butterfly, and had been encouraged to plant the butterfly's food plant, Pararistolochia praevenosa.

This project allowed school students to participate in the Richmond birdwing butterfly recovery effort by growing and studying the food plant, recording the development of immature stages of the butterfly and becoming involved in recovery activities such as the release of their own captive-reared butterflies.

This project ran in parallel with a project funded by a Threatened Species Network (TSN) community grant to establish the Environmental Caretaker Network of community groups and individuals carrying out conservation work to protect and restore butterfly habitats, monitor populations and raise community awareness.

Species Richmond birdwing butterfly, Ornithoptera richmondia

Status Vulnerable - Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland).

Distribution Historically the species' distribution extended from Grafton in NSW to Maryborough in southern Queensland. The current confirmed northern limit is a coastal site near Kin Kin in Queensland and the southern limit is the Blackwall Range near Wardell, NSW. In NSW the north-west limit is near Woodenbong (near the Queensland border) and the south-west limit is near Mallanganee, NSW.

Threats to the species include:

habitat clearance
fragmentation of habitat leading to inbreeding and local extinctions
inappropriate fire regimes
weed invasion (particularly Dutchman's pipe)
drought affecting food plant quality.

Actions in recovery plan

There is no current recovery plan for this species, although a plan was in place from 1996 to 2001. The species is currently listed as vulnerable under Queensland legislation, but de-listing is recommended under the national Action Plan for Butterflies following successful recovery efforts.

Location of community involvement

The adopt-a-caterpillar program was located in south-eastern Queensland and northern NSW schools.

A coordinated network was established with participating community members, schools, state agencies, municipal councils and wildlife conservation groups from northern NSW to the Sunshine Coast.

Project partners

Project partners are:

Bayer Australia
CSIRO
CSIRO Double Helix Science Club
south-eastern Queensland and northern NSW schools
the TSN.

Objectives of recovery activity

The objectives of this project were to:

increase community participation in conservation and knowledge of the Richmond birdwing butterfly
increase the abundance of the butterfly through manipulating and increasing the food plants
educate people not to grow Dutchman's pipe
enhance students' cultivation and distribution of larval food plants to fulfil the breeding requirements of colonising birdwing butterflies in schools
support a feasibility study of the captive rearing of the butterfly.

Main activities of project

The main activities of this project included:

establishing a community network to recover the butterfly
developing a booklet explaining why the butterfly was in trouble
creating and implementing a school awareness program
a general community drive through plant nurseries and newspapers, and information days on the Dutchman's pipe weed
regular newsletters to participants in the project
a media campaign
development of ID posters of the butterfly and associated vegetation
school visits talking about the birdwing vine and planting of vines on the grounds (vines provided, sites selected and maintenance advice provided)
developing an instruction book for schools on rearing the butterflies from caterpillar to butterfly stages
providing schools with caterpillars
establishing linkages with plant nurseries to grow the food plant vines.

Students included the caterpillar work in other curriculum areas, and developed methods to increase local community awareness of the butterfly. Student activities included dances, artworks, seminars, vine drives, letter writing to local nurseries requesting that they remove Dutchman's pipe from sale, and planting birdwing vines in school grounds and home gardens.

Acclaimed artist Don Waters supported the project by painting a mural at the Brisbane Botanic Gardens, the image of which was later used for a species information poster.

Community engagement methodology

Schools were encouraged to participate in the project through public media stories and announcements. Participating classes were provided with monitoring forms to report on the growth of their vines or larvae. Reports on vine development and assessment of suitability of habitat were used to select schools that would obtain larvae to raise.

A project officer was employed specifically to coordinate public involvement in the recovery effort and help raise awareness at schools.

Participating schools were invited to take part in events such as talks and displays, field days, art competitions, picnics and activity days, particularly in support of National Threatened Species Day. Family information days were also held.

A series of seminars and workshops was also given to regional community groups and other land management agencies.

Project success

Over 280 schools took part in the butterfly recovery effort. Schools were successful in studying the biology of the butterfly, rearing larvae and releasing them in school grounds and other areas replanted with birdwing vine. It is thought that Richmond birdwing butterflies are now on the path to recovery, with butterflies returning to areas of previous distribution.

One of the project partners, Bayer, was recognised for its environmental program support through the 2000 Australian Financial Review National Sponsorship Award in the category of science, environment, health and education.

Strengths

Targeted to audience The project focused on simple activities easily achieved by school children when provided with adequate guidance and support. Activities were new and exciting to students and allowed for hands-on participation, as well as cross-curriculum projects.

Increased media attention The involvement of school children significantly increased media interest in the project, as did photo opportunities such as those created by artworks, dress-ups and drama pieces carried out by students at public events.

Barriers

Labour and skills required The project was labour intensive and required staff knowledgeable not only in captive breeding of butterflies but also in communication and public relation skills and project management. Because of this and the high resource cost, the project required appropriate planning and funding to allow for continuity over the long term and for the seasonal needs of the project.

Legislation In Queensland all butterfly-rearing activities required a special permit from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to handle the stages of a protected species. Obtaining the permit needed by individuals or schools to enable them to participate was a complex process resulting in restrictions on who could be involved and in lost time when managing permit requirements.

Lessons

Adequate planning and resources Unfortunately, lack of adequate resourcing, conflicts and loss of staff led to significant delays between establishing the awareness raising and planting project and providing schools with caterpillars. This resulted in some loss of support and disappointment from schools, staff and children. This was remedied with subsequent funding support by Bayer, but better initial planning may have avoided this pitfall.

It became obvious after commencement that external funding for periods of up to a year was not adequate to maintain a project with ongoing community support. While such funding sources are useful to help establish projects, consideration must be given before and during the project to longer-term funding sources and how the project might be designed to develop self-reliance and sustainability.

Project coordinator contact details

Dr Don Sands, (07) 3214 2803 or 0403 517 224, dsands@bigpond.net.au

Case study 4: Regent honeyeaters - a flagship species

At a glance

Regent honeyeaters have a broad distribution and much of the remaining habitat of this threatened bird is on private land. The regent honeyeater is also an excellent 'flagship' species for other threatened woodland birds suffering from similar pressures.

The need for strong community engagement was recognised early in the recovery process. Under the regent honeyeater recovery plan, several community volunteer groups were formed on known breeding and winter-feeding sites to carry out recovery activities. These groups, known as 'regional operations groups', are largely made up of birdwatching and Landcare members or groups.

In addition, a national network of volunteers has been established throughout the species' distribution to help with twice-yearly national surveys and regular tree planting.

Species Regent honeyeater, Xanthomyza phrygia

Status Endangered - Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; endangered - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)

Distribution Coastal and western slopes of Victoria, NSW and Southern Queensland; once found in south-east South Australia.

Threats to the species include:

habitat clearance and fragmentation
tree dieback and lack of regeneration
competition from feral honeybees and aggressive bird species.

Actions in recovery plan

Actions specific to the development and support of operations groups included in the 1999-2003 plan were:

to establish expanded operations groups in the vicinity of known regularly used sites to assist with implementation of regional work plans, local monitoring, survey and extension tasks
to prepare regional work plans in the four key regions (Bundarra-Barraba, Capertee Valley, Central Coast and north-eastern Victoria) for implementation by the expanded operations groups
to employ part-time community recovery facilitators to assist the four operations groups in the key regions.

Location of community involvement

Regional operations groups are located (as at June 2006):

in Bundarra-Barraba, NSW
in Capertee Valley, NSW
on the Central Coast, NSW
in Chiltern, Victoria
in Lurg, Victoria

Project partners

DEC is the lead organisation for the development of regional operations groups.

Other support organisations include:

Threatened Species Network
NSW Department of Planning (ex DIPNR)
NSW Department of Natural Resources (ex DIPNR)
Forests NSW
Birds Australia
Birding NSW
Zoological Parks Board of NSW
Threatened Bird Network
Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority
University of New England
Queensland Environmental Protection Agency
La Trobe University
Environment ACT
Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment
Chiltern Operations Group
Capertee Valley Operations Group
Bundarra-Barraba Operations Group
Central Coast Operations Group
Lurg Operations Group.

Objectives of recovery activity

The key objectives of the regional operations groups are:

identification of important habitat sites for the species
protection, enhancement and management of potential or known habitat on private land
improved monitoring of movements of the birds, and breeding success
improved community awareness of regent honeyeaters and their requirements.

Main activities of project

The regional operations groups work in close cooperation with the national regent honeyeater recovery coordinator, who is appointed by DEC, and regularly liaise with the national recovery team. Each operations group:

is formally represented on the recovery team by one of its members
develops workplans outlining activities that the group hopes to carry out in their region over the period of the plan - these activities are carefully selected to suit both the interests and needs of the group and those identified in the recovery plan.

The Capertee Valley Operations Group volunteers are involved in the following activities:

population monitoring
bird banding
assistance with vegetation mapping
extensive revegetation and habitat protection.

The group has also monitored nesting, and DEC activities including the trial release of captive bred birds from Taronga Zoo and a radio-tracking study of wild birds.

The Bundarra-Barraba Operations Group volunteers are involved in the following activities:

population monitoring
monitoring nesting
bird banding
vegetation mapping
input into the regional vegetation and reserves policy
habitat protection and revegetation on a small scale.

The Central Coast Operations Group volunteers are involved in the following activities:

population monitoring
bird banding
vegetation mapping
input into the regional vegetation and reserves policy
habitat protection and revegetation on a small scale.

The Chiltern Operations Group volunteers are involved in the following activities:

population monitoring
monitoring nesting
bird banding.

The Lurg Operations Group volunteers are involved in habitat protection and revegetation on a large scale.

National surveys

In cooperation with the swift parrot recovery team, twice-yearly national surveys are held on the third weekend in May and the first weekend in August. An ever-expanding network of volunteer birdwatchers and nature enthusiasts located across three states are 'employed' to visit potential habitat sites and fill out a regent honeyeater/swift parrot survey sheet.

Both regent honeyeaters and swift parrots disperse widely across eastern Australia during the winter months. These survey results allow the two recovery teams to obtain a snapshot of where regent honeyeaters and swift parrots are at a single point in time. The surveys also help to identify known habitat sites, which is important as these birds are known to have some degree of site fidelity, returning to the same sites when conditions are right.

Community engagement methodology

Regional operations groups and the national volunteer network were established largely through the national regent honeyeater coordinator approaching birding groups and asking for assistance. This was done through talks at group meetings, discussions with 'local champions' or inclusion of information in newsletters. The volunteer network was further strengthened by a series of community workshops held across NSW and Victoria to train and encourage volunteers to support monitoring efforts.

Project success

Successes of the Capertee Valley Operations Group include:

achievement of ongoing, standardised monitoring
opportunistic monitoring and banding activities where possible
over 60,000 habitat trees and shrubs planted
key habitat fenced on several private properties
significantly increased local community support for the conservation effort and direct involvement
regent honeyeaters known to be nesting again after a few very poor years.

Successes of the Bundarra-Barraba Operations Group include:

establishment of ongoing, standardised monitoring
key habitat patches identified
important mugga ironbark remnants on private property fenced and some revegetation carried out
identification of a breeding colony of about 30 regent honeyeaters self-established near Bundarra after a few very poor years.

Successes of the Central Coast Operations Group include:

achievement of ongoing, standardised monitoring
opportunistic monitoring and banding activities where possible
significantly increased local community and council support for the conservation effort and direct involvement.

Successes of the Chiltern Operations Group include:

achievement of ongoing, standardised monitoring
opportunistic monitoring and banding activities
significantly increased local community support for the conservation effort and direct involvement.

Successes of the Lurg Operations Group include:

almost 250,000 habitat trees and shrubs planted
key habitat fenced on several private properties
local community support for the conservation effort and direct involvement.

Successes of the national surveys

The search effort has increased significantly in recent years, both in numbers of volunteers and range of survey effort. Unfortunately, regent honeyeaters continue to be elusive and rarely seen during winter months, suggesting that the search area is not yet far ranging enough within the state or that simply the wrong habitats are being surveyed. On the other hand, an increasing number of swift parrots are being found (from a known population size), reflecting either a greater understanding of appropriate habitat or a greater search effort. Regent honeyeaters are harder to locate than swift parrots, so it could be that in some circumstances they are simply not being seen or heard.

Other project benefits include:

increased community engagement in planning processes at local and national levels
improved species and vegetation data sets to feed into regional and state NRM planning
increased levels of private land conservation
contributions to regional vegetation conservation targets, including some threatened ecological communities
increased community awareness of threatened species issues
benefits to other threatened or declining woodland species, particularly birds.

Strengths

Focused support group Because the groups were created specifically to implement regent honeyeater recovery activities, they are strongly focused on the necessary actions. In cooperation with the national recovery coordinator, they provide a local contact for individuals or organisations interested in working on the issue in their area.

Barriers

Supervision and support Even though regional groups attend regular recovery team meetings and are assisted in understanding the planning processes and science behind regent honeyeater recovery, there is still a need for regular support for the groups as they develop and implement their regional work plans. The regent honeyeater team has been fortunate in having a dedicated recovery coordinator working in such a role for a number of years.

Lessons

Feedback and communication To ensure that each regional operations group feels part of a larger team and to help keep it on track, regular communication between the national recovery coordinator and the group is needed. Similarly, feedback to volunteers within the regional operations groups is also vital.

Project coordinator contact details

David Geering, National Regent Honeyeater Coordinator, (02) 6883 5335, 1800 621 056, David.Geering@environment.nsw.gov.au
NSW and ACT Coordinator, Threatened Species Network, (02) 8202 1222, tsnnsw@wwf.org.au

Case study 5: Cowra woodland birds - survey and habitat protection

At a glance

The Cowra Woodland Birds Program started as a survey project to determine the status of woodland birds in the region, obtain baseline data to compare with future monitoring, and identify key habitat sites on private land. After two years of monitoring, the group applied for funds to carry out habitat protection and rehabilitation on private land included in the surveys. The plan was to work towards a locally managed project that would connect important remnants in the region and increase landholder awareness and commitment to habitat and biodiversity conservation.

Species/ecological community Black-chinned honeyeater (eastern subspecies), Melithreptus gularis gularis; brown treecreeper (eastern subspecies), Climacteris picumnus victoriae; diamond firetail, Stagonopleura guttata; Gilbert's whistler, Pachycephala inornata; grey-crowned babbler (eastern subspecies), Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis; hooded robin (south-eastern form), Melanodryas cucullata cucullata; painted honeyeater, Grantiella picta; speckled warbler, Pyrrholaemus saggitata; superb parrot, Polytelis swainsonii; swift parrot, Lathamus discolor; turquoise parrot, Neophema pulchella; white box, yellow box, Blakely's red gum woodland; grassy white box woodland.

Distribution The project focused on protecting declining woodland birds and ecological communities in the Cowra region, although the distribution of many of these species and communities is significantly greater. They are found in NSW woodlands, generally across the tablelands and on the western slopes.

Threats include:

habitat clearance and fragmentation
tree dieback and lack of regeneration
weed invasion
overgrazing and lack of regeneration
inappropriate fire regimes
changes in soil quality
site disturbance
loss of understorey.

Actions in recovery plan

This project was not developed in response to actions in an existing recovery plan, although a multi-species recovery plan for a number of woodland bird species is being developed and individual plans exist for others. The project supports actions in existing plans.

Location of community involvement

The community activity is on properties surrounding and in Cowra, on the western slopes of central NSW.

Project partners

The project is administered by Birds Australia through the Cowra Woodland Birds Project Committee.

Other project partners include:

the Threatened Species Network
Cowra Council
local landholders.

Objectives of recovery activity

The key objectives of the project are to:

restore woodland bird habitat by fencing remnants, replanting and adding coarse woody debris to habitat
critically measure the effectiveness of the restoration at control sites, before and after the above actions
showcase the results as an education and management tool for other woodland sites in the Cowra region
obtain an ongoing record of woodland bird numbers in the Cowra region.

Main activities of project

The Cowra Woodland Birds Project began as a survey project to gather baseline data on woodland birds in the region. The continuation of these surveys over time will help define a trend in the birds' distribution and abundance.

On-ground works have started to address rehabilitation needs on properties to help increase the amount and quality of woodland bird habitat. Rehabilitation efforts include fencing of remnants, replanting and experimenting with different levels of woody debris and ground cover. Monitoring will continue to assess the long-term outcome of restoration efforts.

The interest and enthusiasm of landholders already involved in the project was employed to foster participation of other landholders in the area and appreciation of the benefits of increasing biodiversity conservation. By involving other landholders, the long-term connectivity of vegetation remnants on private land around Cowra will be improved, and the amount of land managed for conservation on private property will be increased.

Community engagement methodology

This project was initiated through the concerns of a local birdwatcher and landowner. After attending a public seminar on woodland birds, he decided that a project investigating and addressing decline in woodland birds in the Cowra region was needed. He approached Birds Australia and project discussions began.

Once the project concept was formed, other local supporters were introduced in various ways. Landholders were approached directly, the media was used to elicit support from the public, and a public talk was held on woodland birds. Personal recommendations and contact details for local project supporters also helped to attract interested parties. A project committee was formed and Birds Australia has been key to running the committee to date, organising volunteers and survey events, and developing funding submissions for group projects.

Through a collaborative project with the Australian National University, an honours student was engaged to report on remnant woodland sites using bird surveys. The honours student produced a set of management recommendations for conserving bird populations on rural land and presented her findings to the local community in a seminar.

Landholder support was achieved by visiting properties and either speaking to landholders or delivering flyers. Permission was sought to survey the properties and landholders were invited to participate in the project through the surveys and project committee. Landcare and Greening Australia also recommended sites of interest. As the project moved from surveys alone to on-ground works, cooperating landholders were again invited to express interest in upcoming habitat rehabilitation projects. Funding was sought and committee members provided expert advice and help with restoration. The local council was also encouraged to support rehabilitation works on council land in the Cowra township.

The project is still based around a small local support group, plus Birds Australia members from Sydney, Canberra and Wollongong. As more landholders come on board and community interest in the project spreads, it is hoped that local ownership of the project will also grow. Over time the coordination of the committee should be transferred from Birds Australia to local members, allowing Birds Australia to play more of a supporting and advisory role.

Project success

The on-ground component of the project is in its early days, but the future looks promising. Community support for the surveys has been very high, with many landholders willingly offering access to their properties for survey work and expressing an interest in the results. A number of these landholders have indicated that they would like to participate in habitat management works, while others previously not involved in the project have also come forward to offer support.

It is not expected that the number of actively managed sites will soon increase. Nor can the project committee sustain a significant increase in activity (as at June 2006). However, as local awareness, ownership and interest in the project grows, and as the benefits of previous work can be seen by neighbours, it is expected that others will continue to engage in the project.

Strengths

Locally driven The fact that this project was initiated and actively supported by a well-respected Cowra resident who was engaged in a number of local forums has contributed significantly to local acceptance of the project. The project has drawn on the wealth of knowledge and experience held by Birds Australia for establishment and design, but planning is under way to support a gradual transition of responsibility to the local community.

Barriers

Existing understanding and support Due to a small pool of landholders currently interested in on-ground works, properties for the first round of habitat rehabilitation have been selected largely in response to landholder interest rather than prioritised for their conservation value. As landholder interest increases and word of the project spreads, it is expected that the committee will be able to start selecting priority sites for maximum conservation outcomes.

So far, efforts to find landholders prepared to commit to signing formal management agreements have met with limited success. The agreements are simple and afford limited long-term protection on sites but provide a good starting point for engaging landholder commitment to conservation. Time and demonstrable project success should encourage landholders who are involved to upgrade the conservation status of their properties to more binding protection, and other landholders to become involved.

Project coordinator contact details

Birds Australia Southern NSW & ACT, (02) 9436 0388, rosella63@bigpond.com

Case study 6: Robbins Passage Boullanger Bay wetlands - community values mapping

At a glance

This community values mapping project enabled consultation between diverse stakeholder groups. It was used to overlay the natural values of shorebird habitat with cultural, economic and social values and identify opportunities for collaborative management of these important Tasmanian wetlands.

By providing an environment where stakeholders could share their opinions and concerns about the health and management of the wetlands, this project facilitated an appreciation for common values and aspirations among participants. It also fostered trust between stakeholder groups allowing partnerships to develop that will hopefully continue.

The Robbins Passage Wetlands Group have succeeded in:

securing grants to pursue on-ground partnership projects
retaining a strong sense of community ownership of the wetlands.

Species/ecological community Shorebirds, particularly migratory species such as the eastern curlew, ruddy turnstone and curlew sandpiper. Resident species include the sooty and pied oystercatchers and the hooded plover. Some of these birds are listed as threatened under federal and state legislation in Australia, while others are protected under international agreements such as the Japan and Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the China and Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA).

Distribution The shorebird species in the area range greatly in distribution from resident species from Australia to those which migrate each year from places such as China, Russia and Alaska.

Threats to the shorebirds at this site include:

disturbance by humans, pets and four wheel drive vehicles
land use contributing to poor water quality
invasive weeds, specifically rice grass
marine farming/aquaculture.

Actions in recovery plan

This project was initiated not through a recovery plan action but rather through nomination of the wetland as a Ramsar site (a wetland of international significance) and subsequent community unrest. Concerns included a lack of public awareness of the wetland's importance to shorebirds, levels of human disturbance, land use and environmental damage.

Location of community involvement

Robbins Passage/Boullanger Bay wetlands on the far north-west coast of Tasmania adjacent to the town of Smithton.

Project partners

The project was part of a national shorebird conservation project funded by the Natural Heritage Trust and managed by WWF Australia. WWF initiated the project with support from Birds Tasmania and the Robbins Passage Wetlands Group. Community Solutions (independent consultants with expertise in conflict resolution and community consensus building) were engaged to facilitate consultation, focus groups and a workshop.

Up to 18 local stakeholder groups were involved in the final project. Groups had recreational, industry, cultural and conservation interests. Other representatives were from government organisations.

Objectives of the recovery activity

The project was designed to resolve conflict and build consensus within the community on managing the wetlands. It aimed to bring together a diverse range of stakeholder groups to identify and discuss important areas within the wetlands and issues concerning their use, especially in relation to shorebirds.

Main activities of project

Significant community concern was expressed over a Ramsar nomination of the local wetlands, particularly a perceived lack of recognition of the historical, social and recreational values of the area. As a result of this concern, the Robbins Passage Wetlands Coast and Landcare Group (RPWCL Group) was formed to help promote community awareness and ownership of the wetlands.

This project was proposed to address community dissent over management of the site and to direct community partnerships towards better protecting the wetland environment. A broad range of stakeholder groups was invited to participate in the project, representing diverse interests. Stakeholders participated in a phone survey to assess levels of awareness, and identify areas of interest and concern regarding management of the wetlands. Over three days, these groups came together in a program of small group discussions, presentations, a field trip and a workshop.

The values mapping process considered recreational, social, cultural, environmental and economic values held by each group. Areas were identified where conflict was present or likely to occur and efforts were undertaken to help address these differences. In nearly all cases a favourable outcome could be found by modifying the timing and manner of activities or finding alternative sites for activities that impacted on other values of the site.

Community engagement methodology

The RPWCL Group and Birds Tasmania were approached by WWF to participate in the values mapping project. Community Solutions were employed to coordinate the project and a small steering committee was established with representatives from each group to oversee the consultation process.

Eight stakeholder groups were identified and individuals contacted by phone and through letters to participate in the phone survey, focus groups, field trip and workshop. Some of these groups were already involved in the existing conflict over management of the wetland areas while others were new to the discussions.

The RPWCL Group and broader project committee informed the community of their activities and of the environmental importance of the wetlands through the local media.

Project success

The values mapping process helped to generate understanding, trust and goodwill amongst participants and led to partnerships between stakeholders. This has further helped the RPWCL Group to obtain funding for a range of projects. Community ownership of the wetlands has increased, along with appreciation of their environmental significance.

Works resulting from the values mapping effort have included:

interpretive signage at key sites
restriction of inappropriate four wheel drive access
local involvement in a long-term monitoring program
creation of a water quality program
additional support for a rice grass control program in the region.

Participants in the RPWCL Group have improved their network of contacts and access to expertise. They have also improved their skills and knowledge through both the values mapping process and subsequent applications for grant funding. Their local profile and reputation have increased simultaneously.

Strengths

By bringing together all stakeholders to discuss their use of the wetlands and interest in their management, each group could be heard, considered and accepted by others. With good facilitation, such an exercise quickly led participants to see the commonality of their interests, and the sincerity generated led to a willingness to work through conflicts to acceptable outcomes. This process has, in turn, significantly improved relationships across user and interest groups within the community.

Using independent consultants experienced in conflict resolution ensured that the project was conducted as effectively as possible, addressing existing or potential disputes and benefiting the conservation of the wetlands.

Project coordinator contact details

Bianca Priest, National Coordinator, Shorebird Conservation Project WWF Australia, (03) 6225 1394, bpriest@wwf.org.au

Case study 7: Gosford conservation networks and wildlife corridors

At a glance

The Gosford City Council Pilot Corridors Project ran from May 2002 to September 2004. A project officer was employed to visit interested private landholders on their properties, to inform landholders of the species (native and invasive) found on their properties, help assess the condition of the properties, provide management advice and encourage more permanent protection or involvement in a conservation network. Other events included public information days, group site visits and information displays.

Species/ecological community This project was not targeted specifically at threatened species, but project personnel considered a range of threatened species potentially found on-site and provided specific management advice when appropriate.

Threats to habitat and associated species in the region included:

habitat clearance and fragmentation
inappropriate development
feral and domestic animals
weed invasion
site disturbance.

Actions in the recovery plan

This project was not founded on an action in a recovery plan. Rather, it was initiated following a request by the Central Coast Community Environment Network (CCCEN) for assistance with their grant-funded Community Wildlife Corridors Assistance Project. They lacked an extension officer and sought council support. In addition, a gap was identified in the council's fulfilment of its biodiversity conservation objectives. Prior to this project, the council supported two conservation projects focused on purchasing private land of high conservation value and engaging community members to carry out regeneration on council land. This project was seen as necessary to fill the gap in community-based conservation on private land.

Location of community involvement

Gosford local government area, Central Coast NSW

Project partners

The Community Wildlife Corridors project was initiated by CCCEN, with the council project officer being supported by Gosford City and Wyong Shire councils.

Objectives of recovery activity

The project was developed to improve conservation on private land, thus helping the council to meet its biodiversity conservation objectives. The project's objectives were to:

carry out site assessments in consultation with landholders
provide on-ground training and advice for landholders and community groups undertaking habitat protection and restoration works
assist in the development of a network of landholders to facilitate ongoing involvement in and capacity building for wildlife corridor protection and enhancement
encourage permanent protection of natural vegetation on private land through involvement in conservation covenants and other programs
support the work of the Community Wildlife Corridors Assistance Project of CCCEN.

Main activities of project

A corridors project officer was employed by Gosford City Council and housed in the CCCEN office. The key responsibility of that officer was to carry out community extension work encouraging private land conservation.

This was done principally through site visits to provide advice on property management, including plant identification, habitat restoration and weed control. Following a site visit, landholders were presented with a written report outlining the issues discussed.

Other activities carried out by the project officer were community training events and field days, as well as the provision of ongoing support to participating landholders.

Community engagement methodology

The project was initially promoted through letterbox drops in target areas, producing and distributing a brochure on the project and holding a public project launch. Gosford City Council then supported a community wildlife survey, distributing survey forms to 67,500 homes in Gosford. The survey allowed participants to indicate an interest in voluntary conservation opportunities for their property, and in a site visit and assessment. The project officer made presentations at expos, set up displays in public places and organised talks with community groups. Throughout the project, news stories were run in the local media and community newsletters.

Ultimately, word of mouth proved to be the most successful method of promoting the project. This was followed by the project brochure, letterbox drop and newspaper publicity.

Interested landholders were asked to complete an expression of interest form before they were considered for the program. These forms were then assessed by the project officer against criteria such as minimum property size.

Site visits were carried out with landholders and included a casual property examination while educating the landholder on the program and general conservation management. Questions and problems were addressed. Information presented at each visit was carefully delivered to meet the landholder's level of interest, awareness and commitment.

Feedback and reference information was provided to landholders through a post visit report, networking opportunities organised to allow interaction between project participants, and ongoing support provided as required through phone calls, follow-up visits, newsletters and email discussion groups.

Project success

The project was initially funded to run for ten months, but a high level of landholder interest and community support led to several extensions.

Over 130 interested landholders took advantage of the project's services and received advice on the management of their property through a visit from the project officer. Public events were well attended and led to the formation of two community corridor rehabilitation groups.

Few voluntary conservation agreements were secured through the project, but many landholders registered properties in the Land for Wildlife program run by CCCEN and supported by the council.

Strengths

Flexibility and local relevance The effectiveness of this project was in large part a result of its flexibility in creation and implementation. The project was specifically moulded in response to community feedback, interest, demands, values and issues.

Employment efficiencies This project was rolled out in both Gosford City and Wyong Shire areas, and the project officer worked part-time between the two. This joint working relationship provided efficiencies for both councils.

Although the corridors project ultimately wound up, CCCEN continued to manage the Land for Wildlife program. The corridors project officer was also appointed as part-time project coordinator for the CCCEN Land for Wildlife program, thus providing continuity between the two projects. This enabled the project officer to conduct simultaneous site visits for both projects, creating greater efficiencies in the project officer's work program.

Collaborative partnerships and shared opportunities The close relationship between CCCEN and Gosford City Council resulted in a number of other successful partnership projects between other council and CCCEN extension programs. Council partnership projects also provided the corridors project with information and other council resources.

The success of this project was enhanced by the range of other community biodiversity-related projects on the Central Coast, such as the Friends of the Green and Golden Bell Frog, Waterwatch, Rivercare plans, Bushcare and Landcare.

These other projects helped to raise community awareness of biodiversity conservation and sustainable land-use management. They also provided a range of extra events and networking opportunities for landholders, and many opportunities to develop collaborative events and projects.

Personal contact The one-on-one nature of site visits, and the adequate time allocated to each, allowed site visits to be instrumental in establishing a relationship between the project and landholders and were often the catalyst in obtaining landholder commitment to conservation management.

Barriers

Blurred perceptions of ownership A disadvantage of the close relationship between CCCEN and Gosford City Council was the confusion created over responsibility for the project. For the council, this resulted in less public recognition of its efforts. On the positive side, the council could downplay its involvement to engage landholders wary of an involvement with local government.

Access to senior management Due to the project officer being housed in the CCCEN office, the degree of interaction with and direction from supervising council staff was reduced. This meant that the project officer worked more independently than was originally intended and with less council support.

Application process The expression of interest form was required from landholders before they were considered for the program. Many landholders expressed interest in other ways but did not complete the paperwork, and were thus excluded from participating in the program. This resulted in a loss of potentially good project sites and supporting landholders.

Possible reasons for landholders not completing the form included:

landholders perceiving that by filling out a form they were committing themselves to conservation commitments they could not necessarily meet
the form was too complicated or too long
the application procedure was too lengthy and time consuming.

Resource limitations The public response to this project was greater than expected and so resources were not always available to properly respond to all interested parties. As a result, many smaller or suburban landholders completing expressions of interest did not receive assistance, even though some may have owned land with good-quality native vegetation adjacent to reserves or within green corridors or containing threatened species habitat. Additionally, not all sites visited received post visit reports, which were an important feature of the project to provide landholders with feedback and educational resources. The capacity to carry out follow-up visits was also low.

Restricted network development Project participants networked at group events and through email discussions and newsletters. However, the formation of formal, ongoing networks required a greater effort than this project could provide, and was restricted by the limited duration of the project.

Lessons

Promotional methods A range of promotional options were trialled and found to vary in their success. Some recommendations on promotion following the project were:

promotion should include a range of methods, with direct marketing (writing directly to landholders, and letterbox drops particularly when targeting a specific local area) and media promotions (displays, large events and presentations to community groups) being the most successful
promoting the project through word-of-mouth was also very successful - this approach should be supported by providing landholders with promotional materials to distribute and developing a website for easy public access to information.

Group visit recommendations Group site visits were successful, but certain factors were identified which influenced the turnout and outcome of the visits. These included:

the method of promotion - phone contact and promotional letters were preferred and provided more coverage than email contact alone
field events needed to be relevant to landholders and the degree of similarity of concerns between the managers at the host property and the attendees was important
group size - more than 10 or 15 people led to difficulties in maintaining group focus.

Protection of wildlife corridors While landholders were attracted to non-binding programs such as Land for Wildlife, permanent legal protection of sites was not achieved.

Some recommendations to engage community interest include:

promoting future corridors projects in strategic areas of biodiversity significance (eg in threatened species habitat)
promoting a charismatic species as a focus for the project's work
supporting the creation of a community 'corridors group'.

During each visit the project officer discussed the Land for Wildlife program as that was considered the least 'threatening' to landholders. Those who expressed further interest were provided with information on other protection measures and agreements.

Ways of increasing community uptake of binding protection could include:

planning for a long project period to allow for attitudinal change and increase in landholder awareness, and providing effective follow-up support to participating community members
investigating methods of providing a labour assistance incentive to landholders to carry out conservation works on their properties
liaising with the covenanting body and identifying properties that meet eligibility guidelines for the program, and then targeting those landholders and promoting opportunities
ensuring promotion that addresses misguided beliefs regarding loss of privacy rights, increased government powers and other legal concerns
working with the real estate industry to raise awareness and develop a positive market for areas with natural remnants or permanent agreements.

Project title The project title proved to be misleading and led to residents being concerned that their properties would be locked up in a wildlife corridor. Unless the project was redirected to focus specifically on corridors for a particular species or suite of species, the use of the term 'corridors' should have been changed.

Project coordinator contact details

Gosford City Council, Environmental Planning Directorate, (02) 4325 8222, goscity@gosford.nsw.gov.au
Jeff Drudge, Natural Resources Biodiversity Officer, Gosford City Council, (02) 4325 8857, 0419 019 784, jeff.drudge@gosford.nsw.gov.au

Case study 8: Superb parrots and grain spills

At a glance

The annual grain harvest on the south-west slopes of NSW corresponds with the migration of superb parrots into the region from September to February. This migration often leads to an increased threat of roadkill as parrots feed on roadside grain spilt from passing transport vehicles. The project aimed to remove the incidence of grain spill and to also reduce the casualties when grain spill occurred.

Species Superb parrot, Polytellis swainsonii

Status Vulnerable - Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; vulnerable - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)

Distribution The superb parrot is limited to southern NSW (Riverina and central and southern inland slopes) and northern Victoria.

Threats General threats to habitat and associated species in the region included:

habitat clearance and fragmentation
tree dieback and lack of regeneration
overgrazing and lack of regeneration
loss of nest sites and foraging areas
inappropriate fire regimes
dryland salinity
roadkill.

Actions in recovery plan

A recovery plan for the superb parrot is under development.

The impetus for this project arose from recognising the threat of motor vehicles to the parrots, after consistent reports from the public and DEC officers of groups of up to 20 dead birds on roads.

Location of community involvement

South/central-west slopes of NSW in the Boorowa, Harden, Young, Cootamundra and Yass districts.

Project partners

The project leader was the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (now part of DEC). Other partners included GrainCorp and Boorowa, Harden, Young, Cootamundra and Yass shire councils.

Objectives of recovery activity

The objectives of this recovery activity were to:

reduce the amount of grain spilt on roads by grain trucks
encourage people to report grain spills so they could be cleaned up
increase motorists' caution around birds feeding on roadside sites.

Main activities of project

The project ran for three years, starting in 1997, and was coordinated by the Southern Directorate of NPWS. A three-pronged approach was taken to raising community awareness and reducing parrot road fatalities, and was designed to reach three target audiences: local councils, grain handlers and the general public:

local councils were targeted for their capacity to clean up reported grain spills and particularly to address identified 'black spots'
truck drivers were encouraged to cover loads and prevent grain spillage on roads
the general public were encouraged to be careful of birds feeding on roads.

Community engagement methodology

Local councils were approached individually by a project officer to obtain their support for the project, to place signs at identified black-spots and to clean up reported grain spills.

GrainCorp was a cooperative partner in promoting truck driver education at silos and grain depots where drivers often waited to deliver or collect their loads. Brochures and signage were developed and erected at strategic locations.

Community service announcements (CSAs) were developed to encourage motorists to drive carefully and avoid hitting feeding birds. These CSAs were developed for broadcasting on local TV stations, and interviews were given on radio, to local papers and to The Land newspaper.

Project success

In terms of bird casualties or volume of grain spilt on roads, it has been difficult to tell how effective this project has been.

However, anecdotal evidence suggests that there was a substantial increase in community awareness of the plight of the parrots. Good working relationships were developed with the local councils and GrainCorp.

The proposal that local councils clean up reported black-spot grain spill areas was strongly supported in principle by the councils, but they were unable to achieve a high level of commitment to this activity and it was poorly implemented.

Strengths

Clear communications message Project personnel identified the required behavioural change and associated target audiences. They then developed a simple and clear communication message and ascertained efficient methods of delivery.

Partnerships Development of a relationship with GrainCorp allowed for an effective means of communicating with grain handlers and transporters. Equally, involvement with this project helped to develop and support a good relationship between DEC threatened species officers and local councils.

Barriers

Resource availability Councils are responsible for clearing up roadside grain spills when they cause a road-safety issue or have an impact on threatened species. However, all the councils involved felt they could not use their limited resources to clear up the spills and were seeking funds to undertake the clean-up. As project funding from DEC was unavailable to contribute to the clean-up component of the project, this element was not well implemented.

Lessons

Communications method Community service announcements in the local media were very effective in providing a simple message to a diverse group of people in the community.

Local government commitment Local governments are often unaware of their responsibilities for threatened species. In hindsight it would have helped to contribute funds to the council clean-up response and to monitor the impact on council resources. This would have provided information to the recovery planning team for future budgeting requirements.

Monitoring and evaluation Improved monitoring and evaluation during project development would have considerably improved the ability to provide feedback to GrainCorp, councils and the community and thank them for their support. It may also have helped councils to justify their continuing efforts and jusitfy allocating their funds to continue the program.

Project coordinator contact details

Lorraine Oliver, Threatened Species Information Officer, DEC, (02) 6298 9700.

Case study 9: Protecting and enhancing habitat in the Victorian goldfields

At a glance

Through the Goldfields Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), areas for conservation are mapped and prioritised at the landscape and bioregional scales. Through this project, community groups in the Victorian Goldfields Bioregion worked with the North Central Catchment Management Group to implement parts of the BAP. The project aimed to protect and enhance habitat for a range of threatened species, support integrated predator control, control weeds and enhance community participation.

This case study focuses on activities in the Bendigo South area of the catchment. However, similar activities have occurred in other local areas. BAPs are under development across Victoria, so this is not a one-off example. However this bioregion was one of the first to have a BAP and to have a community project in support of its implementation.

Species/ecological community Focal species for this project were:

the brush-tailed phascogale, Phascogale tapoatafa
the temperate woodland bird community including species such as the swift parrot, Lathamus discolor, and grey-crowned babbler, Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis
the Eltham copper butterfly, Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida
clover glycine, Glycine latrobeana
golden cowslips, Diuris behrii
the Fryerstown grevillea, Grevillea obtecta
the goldfields grevillea, Grevillea dryophylla
the creekline grassy woodland (goldfields) community
alluvial terraces herb-rich woodland.

Distribution The focus of the project was to implement actions from the BAP to protect threatened species and ecological communities in the goldfields region, (although the distribution of many of these species and communities is significantly greater).

Threats Threats to habitat and associated species in the region included:

clearing and fragmentation
lack of old trees with hollows
firewood collection
feral animals
weed invasion.

Actions in recovery plan

The project was founded on actions developed under the Goldfields BAP. Information and tools were provided from BAP personnel.

Location of community involvement

This project was focused in and around the towns of Castlemaine and Bendigo.

Project partners

This project was administered by the North Central Catchment Management Authority, in partnership with a number of community groups in the area, including the:

Taradale and District Walking and Landcare Group
Barkers Creek Landcare and Wildlife Group
North Harcourt and Sedgwick Landcare Group
Castlemaine Field Naturalist Group
Friends of Kalimna Park
Friends of Box Ironbark Forest
Castlemaine Golf Club
Tree Project
Upper Spring Creek Landcare Group
Ravenswood Valley Landcare Group
Department of Natural Resources and Environment
Trust for Nature Victoria
Greater Bendigo City Shire Council
Mount Alexander Shire Council.

Objectives of recovery activity

The project's aim was for various stakeholders to protect, manage and restore habitat. It aimed to:

improve community understanding of, and participation in, biodiversity conservation activities
implement an integrated community-based conservation plan that resulted in better conservation outcomes for a suite of threatened species and ecological communities.

Main activities of project

Community engagement in this project was first achieved through Threatened Species Network Community Grant seed funding. Groups and individuals were supported in undertaking works that assisted in long-term habitat protection and restoration for a range of species in the local area.

Under the BAP, detailed mapping had identified the location of key biodiversity assets. Project personnel developed a local area plan and aimed to approach local community groups and landholders to obtain their support for and involvement in management planning, and the implementation of actions to conserve threatened species or communities. Such actions could include:

fencing
seeding or planting
installing nest boxes
weed control
integrated feral control
implementing best practice management such as appropriate grazing regimes
monitoring or securing conservation agreements.

Community engagement methodology

From all areas covered by the Goldfields BAP, the Bendigo South zone was chosen because of the suite of threatened species and ecological communities in the area, the range of activities which would result in effective conservation outcomes and the presence of interested community groups who could be involved.

A biodiversity project officer was engaged to coordinate and implement the project, and to strengthen partnerships between agencies, local organisations and community groups. This officer provided a central contact for all groups and landholders involved in the project.

Assessment was carried out to identify key privately owned properties for protection, enhancement and restoration, and landholders were personally invited to participate in the project through the offer of funds for on-ground works. Landholders were also encouraged to develop management plans for their properties, and ideally adopt management agreements or covenants.

Community groups surveyed and monitored on project sites, collected seeds, propogated plants, installed nest boxes, planted and weeded. They attended information workshops and field days and were involved in planning conservation activities.

Community involvement was encouraged through production of awareness materials (eg threatened flora and fauna brochures) and promotion of habitat requirements. The broader community was made aware of the project and its importance through a range of newspaper articles. Talks were provided to local schools, and students took part in a schools banner competition for national Threatened Species Day.

Larger on-ground works were coordinated by the catchment management authority (CMA) and the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, while local groups and landholders provided more specific input such as surveying and monitoring on a site.

Project success

Conservation outcomes of this project have been significant because of the range of sites and species being protected, the number of partner groups involved and the associated resources being contributed to the project.

Overall, approximately 170 ha of key habitat were weeded, 100 ha were fenced, 930 ha were surveyed and 50 ha were revegetated. A hundred nest boxes were installed. Nearly 500 volunteers were involved, including local landholders, Landcare members, schoolchildren and the broader community.

Habitat enhancement and restoration has increased the quality and quantity of remnants in the region, and local support for the project will lead to ongoing management of remnants on private land.

Monitoring support from the community will continue, allowing for ongoing adaptive management, and the results will be promoted through local media to the broader community.

Ongoing commitment has been made from partner organisations to provide management advice, technical support and, where possible, resources to the community groups and landholders of the region. The CMA continues to employ the biodiversity project officer to help coordinate on-ground biodiversity conservation work in the catchment.

Strengths

Strong facilitation The employment of a project officer with strong community engagement and facilitation skills was the key to the success of this project. Also of note is the ongoing commitment by the CMA to supporting that facilitation role.

Range of activity The large number of activities available under this project provided a wider opportunity for community involvement and varying interests than a project where activities were very specific and focused.

Partnership development Throughout the project, community leadership and ownership of biodiversity conservation were supported through adequate training or support and providing access to current information. The partnerships developed between community groups, the CMA and government agencies will help the long-term viability of community groups as they establish broader information and support networks.

Barriers

Resource constraints The bioregional approach is intensive in its demands for community involvement and input, and requires careful planning and commitment of funding and support to be successful in the short and particularly long term.

Lost opportunities Local authorities were to review the region's planning scheme and ensure that key sites receive, and will continue to receive, appropriate levels of protection. It would appear that this has not occurred.

Lessons

Community commitment The community are already interested in and enthusiastic about the local environment. However, to make environmental issues a priority for the broader community, education and opportunities for participation are essential.

Multi-species approach The local community responded well to multi-species conservation efforts, and over time began to appreciate the bioregional focus. Visual tools, particularly local maps, were important in demonstrating how and where individual and group efforts fitted within the bioregional landscape.

The use of focal species and their habitat requirements allowed for easy communication of habitat values and the important elements of habitat (eg ground cover, understorey, hollows) to the community.

Project coordinator contact details

Victorian Threatened Species Network Coordinator, (03) 9341 6507, tsnvic@wwf.org.au

Case study 10: Zieria prostrata and Aboriginal engagement

At a glance

This project took advantage of a review of the recovery plan for a threatened plant species to consult with the local Aboriginal community and identify their interest and potential involvement in recovery efforts. The project was largely a consultation exercise to allow for recovery plan assessment and redevelopment, and was not focused on implementation. Consultation was carried out through face-to-face discussions, workshops and field days, and an internal community research project.

Species Zieria prostrata

Status Endangered - Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; endangered - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)

Distribution Occurs on coastal headlands north of Coffs Harbour in north-east NSW.

Threats to the species include:

weed invasion, particularly bitou bush and exotic grasses
habitat degradation
inappropriate disturbance, particularly vehicular and pedestrian damage
increased frequency of fire.

Location of community involvement

Most of the fieldwork for this project has taken place north of Coffs Harbour around the geographical location of the species. However, Aboriginal stakeholders with an interest in this project were identified from outside the region.

Project partners

The project was initiated and supported by the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (now part of DEC), including its Northern Aboriginal Heritage Unit (NAHU) and Northern Directorate Threatened Species Unit (TSU).

Aboriginal groups involved in the project included the Yarrawarra Aboriginal Corporation and Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC). A number of representatives also came from organisations in Nambucca Heads.

Actions in the recovery plan

The 1998-2003 recovery plan for this species did not mention Aboriginal engagement. However, amendments to the legislation in 2002 inserted a legal requirement that Aboriginal interests be considered during the development of threatened species recovery plans.

Actions in the original plan included:

surveying potential Zieria prostrata habitat and identifying threatening processes
notifying all land managers of known Z. prostrata locations
implementing weed control plans and conducting regular monitoring
evaluating historical changes to vegetation communities and summarising information on disturbance regimes that have affected Z. prostrata habitat
updating information being distributed to the public.

Objectives of recovery activity

The objectives of this project were to involve the Aboriginal community in the process of redeveloping the Zieria prostrata recovery plan, and to identify the degree of interest and potential involvement in recovery efforts for this species.

Description/main activities of project

Aboriginal organisations were identified whose area of interest coincided with the distribution of Zieria prostrata. DEC threatened species and Aboriginal heritage staff then attended meetings with these organisations or spoke with individuals to explain the aims of the project and to invite groups to an upcoming field day and workshop on recovery planning.

The field trip was held at one of the locations of the species, with participants attending from Aboriginal groups in Nambucca, Coffs Harbour and Corindi Beach. The species coordinator provided information on the plant, and the history of the recovery plan and how it has been managed to date. This was followed by a site inspection, and discussions about Aboriginal use of the headlands and knowledge of the plants and their locations. Participants then attended a half-day workshop, contributing their knowledge of the species and their views on the importance of the sites where it occurs, threats and how the species and habitat should be managed in the future.

The need for an internal community-based research project was identified and instigated following this community consultation. This involved approaching Aboriginal stakeholders with funds for the groups to undertake their own internal community-based research focused on Zieria prostata and its management. This research focused on past connections to the species, current concerns and future management. A report summarising the outcomes from the consultation was provided to DEC.

Community engagement methodology

Regional and TSU staff held planning meetings to determine the best way of developing a consultation process for this project. A regional cultural heritage officer identified the groups to be contacted, set up the initial consultation processes and introduced TSU staff to Yarrawarra community members. TSU and NAHU staff then attended meetings with the relevant organisations or phoned individuals to initiate contact. The aims of the project were explained and people were invited to attend a field day and workshop on recovery planning which would focus on the plan being prepared for Zieria prostrata.

To engage the community in the internal community-based research component of the project, it was decided to contract out the research to the groups directly as opposed to having it conducted by DEC or an external consultant. The reason for this was to allow the groups to manage their own intellectual property concerns, and decide how much information they wished to provide and in what format.

The Aboriginal stakeholders identified earlier in the project were approached with funds to undertake this research, and a brief was sent providing:

information on the potential scope and nature of community-based research
a list of key issues which could be investigated
funding arrangements and reporting options
information on intellectual property, cultural knowledge management and ongoing involvement.

A quick guide to conducting oral research was provided by DEC. It was designed to assist the community researchers in each group to undertake interviews with elders and other community members during the project. Follow-up phone calls by DEC staff were then made regularly to see if additional support was needed. After the report was provided to DEC, a follow-up phone call was made to each group to discuss how the project went, the views of the Aboriginal communities on the process and how the project would proceed.

Project success

Through the initial consultation and workshops, much discussion was held about the species, the cultural value of the sites and historical use of the area. Participants identified threats and management issues and identified how they wanted to be involved in the ongoing management of the species and implementation of recovery actions.

It was discovered that one of the headlands where Zieria prostrata is located was highly significant to one gender and there were cultural restrictions on access to the site by the other gender. There were also a number of significant archaeological sites in the vicinity of the plants.

Ongoing Aboriginal involvement in any management activities on these sites has now been identified as a key priority. The preferred position of Aboriginal participants was to have people from their communities trained in bush regeneration so they could manage the species on-site in consultation with DEC.

The relationship developed between the Aboriginal groups and DEC through this project has been extremely positive. The volume of work required to enable such a project to take place was lower than expected. The involvement of NAHU and regional NPWS staff in the meetings was crucial in terms of establishing credibility and relationships.

The positive relationship between the Aboriginal land council coordinators, sites officers and NPWS staff involved in the recovery plan will make further contact on this project and others easier and more straightforward in the future. TSU staff will now be able to make direct contact with relevant Aboriginal land council staff.

Strengths

Strong partnerships The involvement of staff from multiple government agencies was critical to the success of the process and helped to develop strong working relationships between Aboriginal organisations and DEC, and within the organisations themselves.

Broader threatened species engagement Aboriginal communities involved in the recovery planning for this species identified other species of concern or interest that they would like to be consulted on.

Barriers

Limited funding Sufficient funds must be allocated to consultation to carry out adequate engagement with any group, put particularly with Aboriginal groups due to complications with intellectual property and cultural considerations.

Lessons

Look beyond the geographical bounds It may be that the connections between a species and Aboriginal groups may be geographically broader than is immediately apparent, and may involve groups from further away than expected. In the case of Zieria prostrata, a strong link was discovered between people in Nambucca Heads (south of Coffs Harbour) and the sites north of Coffs Harbour supporting Zieria prostrata. This connection was not known before the consultation.

Look outside the 'Aboriginal engagement' box A clear message from this project was that Aboriginal people do not want to be confined to a 'cultural box', but rather want to be involved in discussions and decision-making on the entire recovery process.

Engage from step one While people accepted that plans were already drafted for this project (given that it was a review of an existing plan) it was clear that the Aboriginal communities in question wanted to be involved from the beginning, rather than being given a completed draft to comment on.

Communicate broadly Aboriginal people will use these types of consultative opportunities to raise other issues of concern and expect them to be passed onto the appropriate people or organisations. To develop trust and respect, these responsibilities must be taken seriously and supported.

Longevity of contact There is a requirement for ongoing consultation and commitment to include Aboriginal communities in the preparation and implementation of the recovery plan. Consultation and involvement should not be approached through a short-term project focus.

Project coordinator contact details

Biodiversity Conservation Section, North East Branch DEC, (02) 6659 8232.

Case study 11: Quolls in south-east Queensland - group capacity building

At a glance

The Quoll Seekers Network (QSN) is a regional community 'friends' group based in south-east Queensland. Supported by the Threatened Species Network (TSN) and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS), the group conducts activities such as surveys, collation of sightings, community awareness and media work. Volunteer members are helping to map the animal's geographical range and gathering biological data to conserve quolls and their diminishing habitat.

Significant effort has been given to building the capacity of this group to manage itself and develop a core group of skills and committed volunteers. While efforts are ongoing after many years and there have been considerable contributions and time given by the supporting partners, the increasing independence of the QSN shows that the effort and time has been worth it.

Species Spotted-tailed (or tiger) quoll (Dasyurus maculatus maculatus)

Status Vulnerable - Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995; endangered - Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Queensland); Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth).

Distribution The spotted-tailed quoll was once common throughout south-east Australia, including Tasmania. However, since European settlement it has become rare across most of its range.

Threats to the species include:

land clearing and fragmentation
competition from foxes and feral cats
changed fire regimes.

Location of community involvement

The QSN focuses its efforts on quoll conservation and community engagement in south-east Queensland. However, the increasing profile of the network and its website, www.quollseekers.com, has resulted in quoll sightings being recorded from south-east Queensland all the way to Victoria.

Project partners

QSN is an incorporated, not-for-profit volunteer group, supported by the QPWS and the TSN.

Actions in the recovery plan

A recovery plan for the spotted-tailed quoll is in preparation. Actions listed under the Action Plan for Australian Marsupials and Monotremes include:

feral predator control in significant areas
protection of off-park habitat in state forests and on private land
establishment of a regular population monitoring program
community extension work to reduce the incidence of direct kills on farmland.

Objectives of recovery activity

The aims of the QSN are to:

raise community awareness of quolls and their status
inform the community of processes threatening quolls and the potential for community members to contribute practically to conserving quolls
gather information on recent sightings to facilitate better management
provide a central point for collection and collation of information relating to quolls in south-east Queensland, and its distribution to interested parties and the wider community
target relevant groups including rural and semi-rural landholders, relevant state government agencies, local government and community groups.

Main activities of the project

Membership of the QSN includes students, scientists, conservationists, photographers, rangers, and interested members of the general public. Numerous partnerships have been created between the group, organisations and individuals.

Group activities have included:

strategic planning and project prioritisation activities
field surveys at priority locations
community awareness raising activities
production of a newsletter, information brochures, a quoll information kit and a website - http://www.quollseekers.com
collation of community sighting records
distribution of information to the media
development of a volunteer network
development and trialling of a 'quoll-proof' poultry pen for landholders
successful project development and applications for grant funding.

Recent capacity building efforts for the group have aimed to establish a pool of experienced volunteers. Training has been provided on survey techniques to better develop the collective skills of the group.

Community engagement methodology

In response to a need for increased community understanding and support of quoll conservation efforts, an attempt was made in 2001 by the TSN coordinator and QPWS to gauge community interest. Talks were held to raise awareness. Media coverage was sought and obtained through articles in the Courier Mail, the state's major newspaper, smaller local papers and community newsletters.

In response to the apparent interest from community members to support efforts in the region, a project steering committee was established and a communications plan developed.

An information and planning session was organised to present information and facilitate the formation of a community group. TSN and QPWS arranged a group workshop, inaugural field day and the first community survey. On National Threatened Species Day in 2001, the media, including TV stations, were invited to increase the profile of the group.

At the initial group workshop, a volunteer coordinator was recruited and the aims and key roles of the group established. The session was attended by more than 40 people and enough support provided to make the new group a reality. The first official meeting of the group was conducted two months later at which further planning was conducted.

Project success

The QSN was incorporated in 2004 and has an active executive team supported by a steering committee of project partners and industry professionals, as well as a small but supportive volunteer network.

The group is actively engaged in numerous activities to further quoll conservation and enhance group member skills. Further surveys are planned and the group will continue to host quoll discovery days. There are intentions to produce a field-training manual and education kit for volunteers. The group has undertaken a grant project to negotiate the establishment of quoll-proof poultry pens on nine private properties in the New England Tablelands, and has developed guidelines to help other landholders establish pens.

Strengths

Varied membership and partnerships The range of skills provided by group members has greatly benefited the group's activities. These and the partnerships formed by the group have increased its access to appropriate information and support, its profile within the broader community and its recognition in other conservation groups and agencies.

In return, QSN has been able to offer access to recent relevant research and technical advice, and provide survey equipment and volunteer labour.

Barriers

Staff and resource limitations With the ongoing effort to make the group self-sufficient and to achieve conservation outcomes, there was a significant demand for support time from steering committee members.

A reliance on the two supporting agencies and short-term grants, and the lack of a paid coordinator led to obvious limitations. Administration costs have been largely absorbed by steering committee members.

Structural changes in the QPWS led to a decrease in the support that could be provided to QSN and a turnover of key executive members in the network also reduced its effectiveness.

While further support would have been available in the community, there were not the resources and time to find and cultivate it. The coordinator's role was restricted to increasing the group's profile and skill base, providing it with a foundation for future expansion.

Lessons

Resource allocation The allocation of staff time by TSN and the QPWS was instrumental to the operation of the network. As the group developed partnerships and gained skills of its own, the nature of the involvement of these supporting partners changed, and it is expected that their involvement will continue to decrease as the group becomes more self-sufficient. This process of empowerment and skills transfer takes considerable time, and an ongoing commitment of finances and support is needed to ensure that it happens.

Community interest versus conservation priority Before developing a group, it is important to consider how the conservation outcomes will be best achieved, and how well community interests are aligned with your needs. If your priorities do not match community interests, consider whether the development of a group is the best way to achieve your aims, or whether the group can help to achieve other aims of equal importance. Allowing the group to set its own direction is very important in retaining a functional and motivated body of volunteers, but there must be benefits for your own work as well.

In the case of QSN, it proved challenging to retain volunteers and to attract new executive members. With broadening project activities, the focus for group coordination moved away from volunteer management, and ongoing training or field activities were difficult to support. These activities are necessary to retain volunteer interest but are also resource-intensive and are generally not as great a priority for species recovery. Efforts are required to re-align volunteer interest and the priority recovery actions being supported by the group.

Commitment to training By developing a project plan, sourcing funding and implementing the project, group members have learnt practical survey skills as well as skills in organising community events, holding media interviews, and managing projects.

Commitment to the development of an executive team and ongoing support for group development has been time consuming. However, establishing appropriate management skills such as budgeting, volunteer coordination and leadership, has been crucial to the long-term viability and autonomy of the group.

By developing skills within the QSN volunteer base, the group will be able to expand its efforts in future and give the project greater longevity. Such skills development has also added greatly to group morale. Training has improved the coordination of efforts, built structure and leadership within the group and provided increased cohesion. Ongoing training is required to ensure that skills continue to be passed onto new members as old members leave.

Project coordinator contact details

QSN Coordinator, Glenn Costello, quollseekers@quollseekers.com
TSN, Queensland Coordinator, 07 3221 0573, tsnqld@wwf.org.au

Page last updated: 28 February 2011

Nature conservation

Nature conservation

Threatened species

13 Case studies

Case study 1: Purple copper butterfly - a community project

At a glance

Actions in recovery plan

Location of community involvement

Project partners

Objectives of recovery activity

Main activities of project

Community engagement methodology

Project success

Strengths

Barriers

Lessons

Project coordinator contact details

Case study 2: Grassy box woodland - supporting the landholders

At a glance

Actions in the recovery plan

Location of community involvement

Project partners

Objectives of recovery activity

Main activities of project

Community engagement methodology

Project success

Strengths

Lessons

Project coordinator contact details

Case study 3: Adopting caterpillars - the Richmond birdwing butterfly

At a glance

Actions in recovery plan

Location of community involvement

Project partners

Objectives of recovery activity

Main activities of project

Community engagement methodology

Project success

Strengths

Barriers

Lessons

Project coordinator contact details

Case study 4: Regent honeyeaters - a flagship species

At a glance

Actions in recovery plan

Location of community involvement

Project partners

Objectives of recovery activity

Main activities of project

National surveys

Community engagement methodology

Project success

Successes of the national surveys

Strengths

Barriers

Lessons

Project coordinator contact details

Case study 5: Cowra woodland birds - survey and habitat protection

At a glance

Actions in recovery plan

Location of community involvement

Project partners

Objectives of recovery activity

Main activities of project

Community engagement methodology

Project success

Strengths

Barriers

Project coordinator contact details

Case study 6: Robbins Passage Boullanger Bay wetlands - community values mapping

At a glance

Actions in recovery plan

Location of community involvement

Project partners

Objectives of the recovery activity

Main activities of project

Community engagement methodology

Project success

Strengths

Project coordinator contact details