What is the overall economic cost/benefit of NRM activities by coold

VIEWS: 14 PAGES: 18

									 Monitoring and Evaluation of Investment in NRM
                                                 Living Laboratories

              “Living Laboratories” Research Open Day on Monitoring & Evaluation
                                       Thursday May 31st 2007 , 9.15 – 4.30pm
                                   Enterprise House, 136 Greenhill Road, Unley


                                              NOTES FROM THE WORKSHOP
  Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 1
  Living Laboratories ...................................................................................................................... 1
  Background ................................................................................................................................. 2
  Agenda ........................................................................................................................................ 2
  Summary of Outcomes................................................................................................................ 3
  Next Steps................................................................................................................................... 5
  Documentation of Outputs from Small Workshop Groups .......................................................... 7
  Attendees .................................................................................................................................. 17



Purpose
   o Explore real NRM monitoring and evaluation problems and challenges, identified by the
      people who have the imperative to solve them
   o Discuss these challenges and problems with a diverse range of researchers with relevant
      research interests and expertise
   o Apply research expertise in novel ways, outside traditional areas of application
   o Identify research required to fill the knowledge gaps and scope funding opportunities to
      pursue them
   o make contacts and network with new people


Living Laboratories
The philosophy behind “Living Laboratories” is that the current investment in landscape change
through Natural Resource Management Programs offers the research community a “laboratory”
within which hypotheses can be tested and measurements can be taken at full landscape scale.
Living Laboratories is supported by ICE WaRM and DWLBC.
The purpose of the “Living Laboratory” Open Day on Monitoring and Evaluation is to bring NRM
project managers and researchers together from relevant scientific and social science disciplines
to discuss opportunities for research that would provide the tools and data to evaluate the
success of investment in natural resource management. This particular Living Laboratories event
was initiated by the Monitoring and Evaluation Network of SA and supported by Flinders
BioKnowledge, CNRM and DWLBC.
To access more information from this workshop, such as Powerpoint presentations and images
from the speed dating, visit the Living Laboratories website: www.icewarm.com.au and click on
the link to Living Laboratories.
Background
DWLBC and regional NRM Boards have broad responsibilities to demonstrate the outcomes that
result from South Australia’s NRM legislation and national NRM funding programs, such as the
National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT):
        How do we know if our actions are making a difference?
        How effective are the policies and plans that have been developed?
        Has the condition of land, water and biodiversity improved as a consequence of our
        interventions?
NRM monitoring and evaluation presents many challenges, not least the knowledge and
resources required to detect change in a wide spectrum of natural resource issues and convince
the myriad of audiences, from landholders to Australian Government.



Agenda

9:20     Opening Introductions                                               Andrew Johnson

9:30     Opening Presentation                                                Patrick O’Connor
           A devils advocate look at resource/biophysical monitoring: can
           it work and why would you bother?

10:00    An example of the use of modelling for NRM assessment               Neville Crossman
           Lower Murray Landscapes Futures Project

10:30    Morning Tea

10:45    Drivers for NRM monitoring & evaluation in South Australia          Tony Meisner

11:00    Funding new projects                                                Paul Dalby & Chris
                                                                             Maher
         Research drivers

11:30    Speed Dating                                                        All

12:00    LUNCH
         Small Working Groups answering questions posed by regional
         NRM officers
Summary of Outcomes

Every working group identified the need for foundational science to underpin good Monitoring and
Evaluation. Of particular concern was a lack of understanding of causality between actions and
investments in NRM and improvements in resource condition. This is especially concerning given
that all Boards are about to adopt a Program Logic approach to setting Resource Condition
targets, which will require as a fundamental basis an understanding of such causal links.

Some of the information gaps which could be met through research include:

Regional Scale Integrated Modelling
• Basic ecosystem processes, “natural variation” and change in resource condition, threshold
   limits, development tolerance (yield) and cumulative effects (eg. Estuarine development
   cumulative impacts).
• Landscape scale changes in systems – most studies are site scale. Need more development
   of Driver-Pressure-State-Impact Response conceptual models and then empirical models
   (Authors note: there will be a Living Laboratories Workshop on Integrated Landscape
   Management on July 18th).
• Development of process models that can be used to run scenarios of the response of
   resources to management actions and external pressures
• Document ecological assets, including spatial distribution and condition
• Can surrogates for processes be relied on? Tend to assume a change in a surrogate (such
   as species richness) reflects a direct change (eg. improvement) in processes or condition.
   Similarly, does managing for threatened species mean that all other species will also be
   protected?
• Poor inventory of the extent of salinity in SA (eg as compared to WA)
• Poor understanding of the consequences of drought on salinity, eg. groundwater flows
• Revegetation may not be beneficial (too much catchment area required to get a positive
   result); inappropriate planting regimes may create new problems
• Climate change - clearly an issue; current models do not provide strong guidance at species
   level or smaller scales
• Regional economic studies of achieving NRM Investment Strategies and Plans. What is the
   net economic outcome that takes into account the costs of implementation, changes in
   agricultural output and value, development of new industries and flow on economic benefits,
   environmental services delivered?
             o Two specific case studies were suggested: economic value of estuaries and the
                services they provide compared with other uses (development); economic value
                and cost of better management of dairy effluent.
             o The relative public and private value of various management changes compared
                and tested with the perceptions of the community about their perception of the
                relative economic value of actions to them and the broader community. This
                information could be used to inform the design of incentive programs.
Monitoring Design and Implementation at a Community Scale
• Monitoring design, cost of different designs and decision support for choosing designs.
• Monitoring processes not just assets – eg pollination, dispersion
• How to bring social components into risk analysis (eg. Equity, fairness)
• What are the roles of program design and participant motivation in a community monitoring
   program and how do they interact?
• What does community monitoring producing reliable results look like, particularly for
   monitoring a resource producing mostly public goods?
• How do you link into the motivations of NRM networks to do monitoring for you at the quality
   you need?
• What are the changes in attitudes and behaviours as they have been affected by the River
   Murray Act, as opposed to everything else going on? Can you even evaluate how legislation
   affects the resource?

River Murray Act Review
•   While the purpose of the River Murray Act is to change behaviour and the flow-on effect
    would be an improvement in the resource (the River Murray), there would need to be a
    balance in the evaluation of the Act between social and environmental research. What is the
    relationship between the two? How would they link together to give an answer to the policy
    research question; did the River Murray Act work?
• Is legislation effective in the overall goals of social construction? In this case, the review of
    the River Murray Act would be a good case study.
Next Steps

The Living Laboratories Team would be willing to bring interested parties together to develop
research project applications around the following themes:

Research Theme                                                          Proposed Next Steps
Development of information gathering, analysis, modelling and           A follow-on workshop is
                                                                                               th
scenario testing infrastructure to enable NRM Boards to be able to      being planned for 18
better understand the causality between actions/investment and          July to develop ideas for
resource condition change, and the broader economic implications of     Integrated Landscape
their investments. The infrastructure would be based upon existing      Science. Many of the
datasets and models but would quickly develop as gaps in                individuals leading the
understanding and knowledge sets became apparent.                       projects described above
                                                                        will be attending. It will
Existing projects are demonstrating how to do this at sub-catchment     be a good opportunity to
and catchment scales:                                                   think about how to
• Coorong Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Project (Consortium of           extend research activity
    providers funded through CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country)         in this area.
• Lower Murray Landscape Futures (Consortium of providers
    funded by NAP)
• Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management
    Program (Lead by DWLBC but with input from a consortium of
    research providers developing a Resource Optimisation
    Framework)
• Australian Ecosystem Observation Network (bid for funds from a
    South Australian Consortium to the National Collaborative
    Infrastructure Research Strategy)
Regional Economic Studies                                               This was an area of
While this is an area of research that can be included in the           interest also identified by
integrated modeling described above, it is also an area that could be   the “Invisible Hands”
developed discretely. The purpose of the research would be to           Workshop. A smaller
develop methodologies and tools to calculate the net economic           team will be brought
outcome of NRM investment that takes into account the costs of          together to develop this
implementation, changes in agricultural output and value,               particular idea from the
development of new industries and flow on economic benefits,            participants of the
environmental services delivered. This can lead to an holistic          Invisible Hands
assessment of the relative public and private value of various          Workshop
management changes which can then be compared and tested with
the perceptions of the community about their perception of the
relative economic value of actions to them and the broader
community. This information could be used to inform the design of
incentive programs

Calculate the economic value of estuaries and the services they         Paul Dalby will work with
provide compared with other uses (development)                          Patricia von Baumgarten
                                                                        (DEH) to develop a
                                                                        project scope. Others
                                                                        are invited to participate
                                                                        in this process
Research Theme                                                          Proposed Next Steps
Assessment of the economic value and cost of better management of       Paul Dalby will work with
dairy effluent                                                          Simon Goodhand to
                                                                        develop a project scope.
                                                                        Others are invited to
                                                                        participate in this
                                                                        process
Research into the merits and best practice design of monitoring at a    Barry Lincoln from SAAL
community scale. Undertake a literature and case study review of a      NRM Board has
range of community engagement models that are being used for            suggested a follow on
environmental monitoring, relating these to expectations of outcomes    Living Laboratories
and outputs by the range of stakeholders, with the aim of providing a   Workshop to expand on
set of design rules for community engagement to assist NRM              this area of interest
managers to select “what works when”.

What are the changes in attitudes and behaviours as they have been      Paul Dalby will work with
affected by the River Murray Act, as opposed to everything else going   DWLBC through Andrea
on? Can you even evaluate how legislation affects the resource?         Cast to develop a project
                                                                        scope. Others are invited
                                                                        to participate in this
                                                                        process
Documentation of Outputs from Small Workshop Groups

Monitoring tools for active adaptive management (SAMDB)
• Linking project/on-ground actions to resource condition change
• Methods of assessing resource condition change and attributing causation
• Use of risk assessment to formulate priorities, particularly looking at specific locations
• Scenario analysis of the likely future conditions of the NRM region

Issues
• Recognized disconnect between science and practice.
• Poor understanding/measure of the current condition and fluctuation of most natural
    resources
• Lacking models of causality for different NRM actions and desired outcomes in complex
    world of public, private investment in land use and management.
• Lack of and lack of agreement on appropriate designs and methods for NR monitoring
• The outcomes expected from working with the community to monitor are many: education,
    engagement, fulfilling departmental directives, saving public money/ improving productivity
    and data coverage by using volunteer labour. Different models of engagement and
    community involvement work better according to the different problems/applications/
    outcomes required.

Missing knowledge
•  Undertaking a literature and case study review of a range of community engagement models
   that are being used for environmental monitoring, relating these to expectations of outcomes
   and outputs by the range of stakeholders (ranging from rigorous data collection for basic
   scientific purposes to semi-entertainment/awareness raising purposes), with the aim of
   providing a set of design rules for community engagement to assist NRM managers to select
   “what works when” - ie context specific approaches to implementing ecosystem monitoring
   with communities - perhaps accompanied by a suite of tools.
• Need research on how to bring social components into risk analysis (eg. Equity, fairness)
• Wwhat are the roles of program design and participant motivation in a community monitoring
   program and how do they interact”?
• Lack of research on monitoring design, cost of different designs and decision support for
   choosing designs.
• Oon basic ecosystem processes, natural variation and change, threshold limits, development
   tolerance (yield) and cumulative effects (eg. Estuarine development cumulative impacts).
• On landscape scale changes in systems – most studies are site scale. Need more
   development of Driver-Pressure-State-Impact Response conceptual models and then
   empirical models.
• Need research for monitoring processes not just assets – eg pollination, dispersion
Evaluating water resource improvement
• Understanding the links between water management, ecosystem management and
   biodiversity: threatened and iconic species
• 'Net' water quality - what does it mean, what assets should it include, parameters it might
   include, is it possible to measure realistically? Do we need an aggregation model or
   integrated indicators - what could they be?
• State wide wetland condition indicators developed through a State system of wetland
   conceptual models.

Knowledge required to link water management, ecosystem management and biodiversity
   - Hydrology – where does the water go?
   - Document ecological assets
           o Vegetation coverage and quality
           o Wetlands
           o Distribution of threatened species
           o Soils
           o Weed distribution
   - Requirements and response of organisms
   - Spatially describe distribution of assets and responses
   - Decide on what response you are willing to accept for water asset (this is a research
       area)
   - Run scenarios and present them visually

Process models or icon species?
   - What does “net” water quality mean?
          o Simplification
          o How do you summarise the information?
   - Needs to be based on responses to pre-determined outcomes
          o Eg. ANZUS guidelines
   - Must be in the context of outcomes required
Discovering and utilizing community knowledge and monitoring systems
• What is the role and how can we best utilise community monitoring to support monitoring at
    various scales
• Community Monitoring - How to overcome QA issues, what is its value, what are realistic
   expectations, how to achieve long-term commitment?


When evaluating the accuracy of a community monitoring program, you need to look at what
motivates participants. In this session, we realized that community monitoring can be broken into
two rough categories determined through the motivation of the participants. Landholders and
community members are motivated by love and money. The two rough categories of motivation
actually form a scale. While the same people might be involved in activities at both ends of the
scale, they also behave differently depending on their motivations.




              {mostly public benefit,                      {high chance of private         $
              i.e. Watercare.}                             benefit, i.e. new crops}

For example, a farm family involved in Watercare and a new crop trial will produce different
qualities of monitoring information. This could be because public benefit monitoring has been
designed as an educative process rather than a serious data gathering exercise. Many
community monitoring programs were actually designed as awareness-raising programs. Is it
possible to raise awareness and to source good monitoring data from one program? One is a
learning exercise, which requires flexibility, and the other is a data capturing exercising, often
requiring a rigid and consistent process.

The decisive difference in data quality could also be because love is not a good enough
motivation to produce rigorous and consistent data. Or it could be something we haven’t thought
of yet.

The first research area we have arrived at centers on this question; what are the roles of program
design and participant motivation in a community monitoring program and how do they interact?

If this is a design issue, when does community monitoring produce reliable results? What does
community monitoring then look like? What do you achieve? This is a second potential reseach
area. Any project would need to account for the following:
      • SA legislation gives NRM boards regulatory powers and can be a platform for public
           science advocacy. How would this look?
      • Community monitoring is more reliable if you can truth-test if with remote sensing. How
           do you design this into a community monitoring program?
      • How do you evaluate a community monitoring program for its scientific rigour as opposed
           to its data output?

If this is a motivation issue, we cannot expect all things that need monitoring to produce private
goods in the existing institutional infrastructure. The question then becomes; how do you link into
the motivations of NRM networks to do monitoring for you at the quality you need? This is a third
research area in need of investigation.

We did not come to a consensus about ‘next steps’ and were not able to progress beyond
developing these three potential research areas:

    1. What are the roles of program design and participant motivation in a community
       monitoring program and how do they interact?
2. What does community monitoring producing reliable results look like, particularly for
   monitoring a resource producing mostly public goods?
3. How do you link into the motivations of NRM networks to do monitoring for you at the
   quality you need?
Measuring the impacts of large scale environmental pressures on biodiversity
• Biology, tolerance and adaptation of native species to extreme temperature, trends in
   temperature changes and salinity of water/soil
• Tackling salinity as a biodiversity issue
• Basic ecological processes in terrestrial ecosystems to refine our conceptual models of how
   terrestrial ecosystems function and respond to pressure
• Threatened species and communities monitoring across the state - how do we combine
   these datasets?
• Determining biodiversity benefits of a coordinated fox baiting program


Determining the benefits of a coordinated fox baiting program
Two key issues (research questions/problems) were identified - The threshold at which foxes
have significant impacts on primary production and conservation values; modelling the response
of foxes to control actions

   •   Might vary from place to place (geographic differences)
   •   Integrated programs should include good performance indicators (or targets) for pests,
       primary production and biodiversity

Threatened species and communities monitoring across the state-how do we combine
these datasets?

   •   Questions were raised about data reliability, accessibility, comprehensiveness
   •   Are recovery plans a valuable tool for NRM board planning?
   •   Can threatened species make good surrogates for other species and/or
       assemblages/communities?
   •   Managing for threatened species may not guarantee conservation of other values
       (biodiversity)
   •   A lack of knowledge about species and environments/habitats
   •   Monitoring needs to be optimised (time & $$) - target species or level of organisation
       becomes important
   •   An asset approach may be relevant (can't manage everything), e.g.. biodiversity hotspots

Basic ecological processes in terrestrial ecosystems to refine conceptual models of how
terrestrial ecosystems function and respond to pressure

   •   We need more research on ecosystem services, ecosystem function
   •   We don't know how things are responding to pressure
   •   Can surrogates for processes be relied on? Tend to assume a change in a surrogate
       (such as species richness) reflects a direct change (eg. improvement) in processes or
       condition
   •   Surrogates could be used to trigger further investigation of an ecosystem
   •   It can be difficult to separate management effects from natural (background) variation
       (eg. in the arid zone where sporadic rainfall is important)
   •   The capacity to be able to monitor (research) into the importance of unpredicted events
       (eg. drought) is not often built into M&E programs
   •   Policy and economics play an important role in research and monitoring
Tackling salinity as a biodiversity issue

   •   Poor inventory of the extent of salinity in SA (eg as compared to WA)
   •   Monitoring of changes in groundwater and salinity over time is limited. Tends to rely on
       point source information
   •   Management solutions don't always work or consequences of actions poorly understand
       (unpredictable). eg. Upper SE drainage (an engineering solution) - positive benefits may
       be quite localised, impacts on systems like the Corong not well known
   •   Poor understanding of the consequences of drought on salinity, eg. groundwater flows
   •   Revegetation may not be beneficial (too much catchment area required to get a positive
       result); inappropriate planting regimes may create new problems

Biology, tolerance and adaptation of native species to extreme temperature, trends in
temperature changes and salinity of water/soil

   •   Climate change - clearly an issue; current models do not provide strong guidance at
       species level or smaller scales
   •   Changed landuse (linked to climate change) will have consequences for biodiversity (and
       how we manage it)
Placing an economic value on natural resource changes
• Using and linking NRM resource monitoring results to economic information: being smarter
    with and getting the most out of NRM monitoring and evaluation data
• Monitoring data is ultimately information that needs communicating to various audiences –
    economic data will have more resonance with some audiences, as many landuses are
    associated with production.
• Can we put the $ value on resource change and thus more easily demonstrate the economic
    consequences of improvement, no change or decline in ecosystem services?

A. What is the overall economic cost/benefit of NRM activities?
    - cost to implement
    - ecosystem services
    - loss of/increase in production
    - tradeable rights
    - flow on benefits
How do you measure
    - Ecosystem services
    - Market value
    - Lost production or production gain?

Regional economic studies of achieving NRM Investment Strategies and Plans


Case Study 1. The economic value of estuaries

Barker Inlet (multiple use) vs Kangaroo Island (pristine)
   - At Barker Inlet, pressure for development
   - What is the value of ecosystem services provided by Barker Inlet?
             o Demographic modeling
             o Hydraulic modeling (Gary Tong)
             o Ecosystem/hydrodynamic model
             o Food chain analysis
             o Economist
             o Spatial modeler
   - Current values
             o Bait
             o Fishing
             o Recreational fishing
             o Dolphin watching
             o Education
             o Recreation
             o Shoreline stabilization
             o Pollution mitigation
             o Water purification
             o Amenity
   - Stakeholders/interested parties
             o CSIRO Healthy Oceans
             o Port Adelaide/Enfield Council
             o State government/NRM/CNRM
             o ARC
             o LWA
   - (Patricia)

Case Study 2. What is the economic value of best practice effluent management on dairies
compared with regulatory standards?
   - Nutrients back on farm
    -   Off-site impacts (eg. Discharge to estuary)
    -   Research required
            o Water quality modelers
            o Soil scientist
            o Agronomist and plant physiologist
            o Economist
            o Extension
            o Health/contaminants
    -   (Simon Goodhand)


•   The public v private benefits of On-Ground-Works

Reviewing public/private split in NRM investment

    -   Social survey to ask people whether they think the split reflects the split in value
    -   Start by undertaking a literature review on what has been done
            o BRS/NY – key drivers for business decisions?
            o Neil Barr – cost effectiveness of education vs incentives
    -   How do you influence new landholders?
Evaluating the River Murray Act
PROBLEM: The River Murray Act has been put in place to protect, enhance and restore the River
Murray in South Australia - but how do we know that it is working? Through specific project or
river monitoring we can detect changes in the environment at any given point of time but how do
we know what was responsible for this change? We can predict, hypothesise and assume that
changes resulted because of a particular project or program but how do we know for sure? Could
some or all of the changes that have been seen be attributed to some other parameter such as a
change in land use upstream? How can we make causal links between particular projects or
programs and changes that are seen in the environment?


Below are the four main changes brought into the institutional infrastructure through the River
Murray Act 2004.
    1. Introduction of a referral process for development
    2. Amended legislation to align with the objectives of the Act
    3. Legislation of a general duty of care toward the River, allowing for protection and
       reparation orders
    4. The opportunity to use management agreement.

In 2007, the Act will undergo a triennial review. To date, DWLBC has been looking at number
and types of actions but none of that looks at if and how the Act has affected the quality of the
resource. What research would you do to determine whether or not legislation works?

Specifically, how do you measure changes in attitudes and behaviours as they have been
affected by the Act, as opposed to everything else going on? Can you even evaluate how
legislation affects the resource?

We identified two potential populations to study:
   1. Community members: evaluate changes in attitudes towards the River in the MDB
       community and find a way to isolate out what changes have been due to the Act.
       • Interviews
       • Focus groups
       • Mail surveys
       • Key informants

    2. Planning officers: determine what the end point of the Act is and interview those people
       interacting with the Act on behalf of government (in this case planning officers deciding to
       refer development requests to the Act)
       • Ask about their operations before and after the Act

Some things you would look at measuring:
   • Activities; injunctions orders, etc.
   • Resource conditions
   • Community valuation of the Act

What is the most effective way of bringing about behaviour change around water in Australia?
We came up with three basic categories of options to look at:
   1. Legislation
   2. Market
   3. Moral suasion and education

While the purpose of the Act is to change behaviour and the flow-on effect would be an
improvement in the resource (the River Murray), there would need to be a balance in the
evaluation of the Act between social and environmental research. What is the relationship
between the two? How would they link together to give an answer to the policy research
question; did the River Murray Act work?

This leads to a broader research question: is legislation effective in the overall goals of social
construction? In this case, the review of the River Murray Act would be a good case study.
Attendees

Speakers
   • Andrew Johnson – DWLBC
   • Patrick O’Connor – O’Connor NRM
   • Neville Crossman – CSIRO
   • Christine Maher – Flinders University
   • Paul Dalby – ICE WaRM
   • Tony Meisner – DWLBC

Organising Committee
   • Andrea Cast – DWLBC/CSIRO
   • Christine Maher – Flinders University
   • Patrick O’Connor – O’Connor NRM
   • Paul Dalby – ICE WaRM
   • Karen Parry – DWLBC
   • Sophie Hastwell – ICE WaRM
   • Stephanie Williams - CNRM

Participants
        NRM Board Staff
    • Keith Smith – AMLR NRM Board
    • Steven Gatti – AMLR NRM Board
    • Naomi Scholz – EP NRM Board
    • Grant Flanagan – KI NRM Board
    • Sandy Gunter – SAAL NRM Board
    • Barry Lincoln – SAAL NRM Board
    • Lucy Schapel – SAMDB NRM Board
    • Peter Waanders – SAMDB NRM Board
    • Cameron Welsh – SAMDB NRM Board
    • Tracey Steggles – SAMDB NRM Board
    • Callie Nickolai – SAMDB NRM Board
    • Rebecca Turner – SAMDB NRM Board

       Research providers
   •   Neville Crossman – CSIRO
   •   Peter Boxall – CSIRO (visiting from USA)
   •   Agnas Gandgirard – CSIRO (visiting from France)
   •   Christine Maher – Flinders University
   •   Erin Parham – Flinders University
   •   Jonathon Sobels – Flinders University
   •   Duncan Mackay – Flinders University
   •   Dale McNeil - SARDI
   •   Megan Lewis – University of Adelaide
   •   Wayne Meyer – University of Adelaide
   •   Mike Geddes – University of Adelaide
   •   Kala Saravan – University of New England, NSW
   •   Beverley Coombes – UniSA

       State Government Agencies (excluding NRM Boards)
   •   Stephanie Williams – CNRM/DWLBC
   •   Tony Meisner – DWLBC
•   Andrea Cast – DWLBC/CSIRO
•   Anna Dutkiewicz - DWLBC
•   Lissa Fountaine - DWLBC
•   John McConachie – DWLBC
•   Wendy Harris - DWLBC
•   Simon Goodhand - DAFF
•   Phil Pisanu – DEH
•   Doug Fotheringham - DEH
•   Patricia von Baumgarten - DEH
•   Andrew Solomon - EPA
•   Carmel Schmidt - PIRSA


    Other Organisations
•   Jane Corin – Conservation Council of SA
•   Paul Dalby – ICE WaRM
•   Tim Milne – Nature Conservation Society of SA
•   Janet Pedler – Nature Conservation Society of SA
•   Patrick O’Connor – O’Connor NRM

								
To top